...

Absolutes
Does absolute right and wrong exist? Yes. Does absolute good and bad exist? Yes. Are we morally obliged to do what is absolutely best? Yes.

God is good. The ways of God are right. God is absolute. Therefore, an absolute right and wrong exist. Not everyone accepts this truth, but that is irrelevant; the absolute standard is set whether we choose to adhere to them. One day we’ll be judged according to that standard.

If there is an absolute right and good, then it makes sense that the opposites of these would be absolute bad and wrong. That is to turn from the ways of God and disobey Him. That would be sin, and it is sin that separates us from the absolute good and truth.

As Christians and beings created in the image of God, we are morally obliged to do what is absolutely best. Unfortunately, we fail often. Since we are a fallen race we can’t reach the absolute standard that has been set for us on our own. We have to have an intercessor on our behalf. We can’t be perfect. We can’t achieve the absolute good and right. That’s why we’ve been redeemed by the blood of Christ.

I think our fallen nature can explain the gray areas of life – those times when there doesn’t seem to be a clear right or wrong. I think there is still good and bad – an intended clear right and wrong. Sometimes there may be multiple right answers, and the choice is ours to decide which to take; this situation could result in a gray area. More likely though, I’m going to contend that the gray areas are a result of our justification for our guilt and our own sinfulness.

NASA
How can an organization that put a man on the moon, inspired hundreds of children at space camp, and gave the public Tang have fallen so far in the public’s eye? Has something about NASA changed over the past two decades? I would argue that NASA hasn’t changed at all since its days of glory, but the public and times it serves have changed a lot.

Consider: NASA was founded in 1958 by the National Aeronautics and Space Act signed by President Eisenhower, nine months after the Russians put Sputnik I into space. The American population was terrified of the potential destructive power and advantage Russia now had, and the United States couldn’t be left behind. We were in a race - a race not only for control of space but also for national and personal security. It was the Cold War – full of espionage, subterfuge, and huge technological advances. In a war with few direct physical battles, science and technology offered a way for the brilliant minds to serve their country.

The time was ripe for technological advances because it was so important to the people to win the tech and space wars. We had to stay one step ahead of the Communists as long as there was a perceived threat to our security. As a whole populace, I doubt many had considered space exploration possible to the point it was being discussed. It was an exciting time, and the competitive nature of Americans probably fueled the excitement and respect for NASA and the scientists that worked there.

I have a feeling that the cause for the public’s disdain and mistrust of NASA has more to do with the end of the Cold War than disasters like Challenger and Columbia. There had been disasters before, and, although horrible, the public was able to stomach them and move on (Apollo 1 and 13). That leads me to believe that the drop in interest is due more to the world stage than the program itself.

The space program isn’t exciting anymore for the American population. We’ve been spaced out in many ways. The space program has become mundane; it doesn’t hold the publics attention. Instead of competing with the Soviets, we are partners with the Russians. There isn’t a huge competition, and although the stakes are arguably as high (with China especially) the battle has not been in the headlines. The program has become routine for the people; it’s not as exotic as it once was. Add to that lack of excitement the accidents and failures that have occurred over the past two decades, it is little wonder the public has lowered their view of NASA.

How does can NASA improve their image? That is a tough question to answer because what is best for the nation may not be the most exciting avenue. Missions to Saturn and Pluto don’t have the same effect as landing a man on the moon. Pictures aren’t the same as walking on it. We want tangible proof and evidence; we want the movies. This is the plan I would propose to get people interested in NASA again. Bring back Reagan’s SDI or start working on moon bases. These two things are somewhat exotic and would bring refreshed attention to the programs.

Technology’s Morality
Are technics designed and created for the sole intention of doing something immoral inherently immoral themselves? I’ve wrestled with this question since we first addressed it a couple of weeks ago, and I’ve finally come to a conclusion: In brief, my answer is yes, but a further explanation is needed. I do not think a technic has the self-awareness to make decisions or decide for itself between right and wrong. Obviously, a constructed technic doesn’t have the ability to reason freely. So in that way a technic is not moral or immoral or even amoral – it simply exists. However, I think a technic, any created thing, has the nature of the creator within it – whether that be moral or immoral, right or wrong. Therefore, I accept the idea that a technic created for the sole intention of immoral purposes has an inherent immoral nature.

Biblically, the creation account of Genesis tells us that God created the whole universe. After every day of creation, God acknowledged his work as good. He spoke light into existence, and it was good. A separation between the expanses…good. Plant life…good. Animals…also good. Man was good, and man was created in God’s image. God is good and what He creates is good. Since we are created by God, we are good and have the full potential to be good. That was his original plan. A creator can instill his qualities in his creations. Now, the creation can and may fall away and become imperfect, bad, and immoral, but the potential for good is always there.

If the creator can instill qualities on the created thing, then it makes sense that those qualities can go either way – moral or immoral, right or wrong. Two of the qualities man has from God are creativity and ingenuity. We can create things as well, but we can create good and bad things. Staying in the Bible, the Israelites would create idols from time to time. The point of an idol is to worship the image and not God. That is immoral. I think we would agree idols are immoral. The people were acting in their sinful nature and immorality and they created something with like characteristics. I would say the form is immoral because of the function it serves.

Secularly, I’m thinking about chemical and biological weapons. The technology and science of chemistry may be neutral, but the refinement into weapons seems to be immoral. There is no positive justification for mustard gas in shells to be fired. The same would go with biological agents designed and altered to attack a specific genetic code or to kill a certain type of people. I think those technics are purely evil. They were created with the intent to kill, but more than that, they were created with the intent to kill viciously and widespread. That seems like evil to me.

The Manhattan Project was devised to create an atomic bomb. The United States and allies were afraid the Germans were well on their way to create their own nuclear weapons, which would be detrimental. This bomb wasn’t intended to take down old buildings or create mines or railway tunnels; it was made to kill and destroy. I understand that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki took fewer lives than an invasion would have. I understand that it was the least bad of bad options. But the intent of the bomb was to kill, and killing is immoral. I feel comfortable saying the atomic bomb is bad.

Is killing always immoral? What about self-defense or the military? After all, God only speaks against murder, right? I’ve come to conclude that all killing is wrong – immoral – but God gave us some exceptions because we are flawed. I think God created us perfectly in the beginning; we were good. Then we fell, and killing and hatred and anger entered the picture. Just like I don’t think God wants us to divorce – ever; I think he permits it in some situations. I can’t see God enjoying a being created in his image take the life of another being created in his image. He permits it, but I don’t think he would call it moral.

Redemption. Just as a fallen, evil person can be redeemed, I think inherently immoral technics can be redeemed for positive use. The technology gone into creating nuclear weapons can also be used to make nuclear power. Viruses created to kill can be used to make antidotes. Even the technology behind radar detectors can be used for moral purposes.