I seem to read too much mathematical theory and then apply that to life...


Examples: Gödel's first theorem of incompleteness, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. Stew on it and get back to me.

I'd love to hear about an example of, or perhaps the direction to look towards, 'an absolute right or wrong answer to a moral question.'

Furthermore, is the ten commandment example a liar's paradox?

And an aside, if it is not supposed to address every single instance, should not the same attitude be applied to the other commandments? I interpret that this sense of relativity or subjectivity is one of the cornerstones of Hitchen's issues with religiously founded morality, especially when there are zealots who do take them absolutely.

>> ^SDGundamX:
It sounds like Hitchens and Sam Harris disagree about morality. Hitchens seems to be suggesting that morality is relative, whereas Harris seems to think that morality is absolute--that, in his words, "there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind." I would be interested in seeing them debate the issue.
My own idea is that it probably falls in the middle somewhere... that there are certain general moral principles or guidelines that are absolutes but that these principles manifest themselves quite differently in different cultures. I think as a species we are approaching agreement on these general principles (in the form of codifying human rights). I don't know if science can help us find these (Harris' talks are always vague on the details), but I agree with Hitchens that they should come from rational thought.
However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say (though fundamentalists often interpret the Bible that way). Usually when there is a law--any law, religious or secular--it exists for a reason. And I think it is pretty easy to understand the reasons why a society would have laws (or commandments in this case) forbidding people from murdering each other. He's right, it doesn't deal with the particular cases. But as a general moral rule it's not supposed to address every single instance.
If I understand his argument correctly, he's offended that a deity is telling him what to do because he assumes that deity is not respecting his right to think for himself. A different perspective would be that said deity (or human author as the case may be) was providing a hint at how to live a happier and more peaceful life. Killing people, sleeping with their wives, etc. is not usually the way to achieve that. The thought-crime stuff that Hitchens talks about is only one interpretation (primarily Catholic) of the commandments, but there others as well--for example,that the act of "coveting" means actively planning to take what someone else has (wife, goods, or otherwise). In that interpretation being envious isn't a sin, but plotting how to trick someone out of their property (scamming them) would be.