Atheism – Science and Philosophy of God’s Nonexistence

Guest Post by Ivan

*The following article has been written by Ivan and strictly reflects his personal opinion. This article should not be interpreted as an attack against any religious organization or individual.

The existence of a God has often been widely debated. As a nonbeliever of any supreme being or creator God, I will attempt to bring the scientific evidence against the possibility of a God or transcendental form of consciousness beyond the limits of neurological processes.

Philosophy

Before I begin discussing about the various evidences for the nonexistence of God, I will first discuss about the fundamental philosophy regarding the debate. First of all, the existence or nonexistence of a God cannot be proven. If a God does not exist, then obviously its nonexistence can never be proven. As an analogy, if I say that there is a Chinese teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Russel's teapot), can anyone disprove me? Of course not. Likewise, no one can prove if it exists. Of course, we know that it does not exist because nothing proves its existence. On the other hand, if a God exists, we can never prove it unless the God decides to show itself to the world. Despite this impossibility of proving or disproving God, it is still possible to provide evidence for and against each side to add to the argument. Like the Chinese teapot analogy, an absence of empirical observation would mean that its nonexistence would be accepted unless proved otherwise.

However, the important thing to note at this juncture is that the debate revolves around evidence that shows how probable or improbable God’s existence is. It is in this post that I will give evidence for the latter in the form of scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Part 1: The Origin of the Universe

One of the most important arguments put up by theists is the concept of the first mover, or primum movens. The idea is based on the axiom of causality which would logically indicate that a set of causes for the universe’s existence would extend to infinity, which is impossible. In order to solve the problem, theists would invoke the idea of a God. This idea is augmented by the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy in a closed system can never be created nor destroyed.


However, an important philosophical argument would render this concept false. Since the laws of physics, as well as the axiom of causality, is created at the time of the big bang, it is perfectly possible for energy to be created out of nothing and spontaneous creation to take place without the need for physical laws to be fulfilled. It is the nonexistence of causality and physical laws before the big bang that permits spontaneous creation to occur. Presently, it is thought that a hyperspace exists to allow such spontaneous creation of an infinite number of galaxies. I will discuss this on more detail later on.

Part 2: The complexity of the Universe

For most people, space is simply the black sky that hovers over their heads every night. In the past century, however, the magnificence of our universe has started to reveal itself to science. To put things into perspective, the observable universe is calculated to be 93 billion light years across (one light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometres), with the Earth being at the centre (since the calculation of the horizon is based on Earth’s perspective). In the observable universe, there are approximately 8 quintillion stars, with the sun being just one of many. I derived this number from the calculation of the number of galaxies observed by the Hubble ultra deep field, multiplying that value to the area of the night sky, and multiplying that number to the number of stars in one galaxy. This is a staggering number indeed, and it shows that Earth, being only a tiny speck of dust in the great cosmic depths, is not as special as it was once thought to be.

The universe has a beautiful set of physical laws in terms of mathematical aesthetics. Equations are always symmetrical in terms of the values on both sides, the golden ratio is found naturally in organic life, and the precise arbitrary constants of the standard model allow the existence of stable matter for life to exist. I have realised that many theists enjoy using the complexity of the universe as evidence for intelligent design. Of course, all becomes clear when the anthropic principle is understood.

First of all, the laws of the universe are undoubtedly perfect for life to form. Should the mass of the proton change by a tiny fraction, stable matter would not exist. The Earth has a perfect atmosphere and temperature for life to evolve, and the laws of physics and chemistry drives evolution in a positive direction. However, this apparent coincidence is actually based on a sort of observation-selection bias. If the conditions of the universe (and Earth) were not perfect, there is absolutely no way that life could exist. If life did not exist, we wouldn’t even be here to ponder about our existence. In today, modern physics has begun to unravel a world that is much stranger than we thought. Most scientists now believe that there is more than just the three dimensions we know today. In total, eleven dimensions are thought to exist, with only the limits of sensory perception limited to the familiar three causing the illusion that higher dimensions do not exist. With this, it is also thought that an infinite number of parallel universes exist alongside ours; each with a different set of physical laws that determine how the universe works. Using the anthropic principle, we would then realise that only habitable universes can contain life. Since life is indeed formed upon rare chance, we would assume most universes to be devoid of life, or even stars. Likewise, it is only through habitable conditions of Earth that life could exist here.

Another argument related to the anthropic principle on a planetary scale is the low probability of abiogenesis. According to creationist statistics, the probability of a protein molecule forming by itself is less than that of a hurricane sweeping through a metal scrap yard and assembling a working Boeing 747 (Hoyle’s fallacy). However, when we look at the staggering number of stars in the universe, it is obvious that this probability is overcome easily. Furthermore, the 15 billion-year old universe would have provided sufficient time for this to occur. Most importantly, however, the autosynthesis of liposomes and microspheres (membrane-bound RNA, believed to the earliest form of life on Earth) has been performed in the laboratory. This shows that the probability calculated by the creationists is not accurate in the first place.

Another argument that is often put up by theists is the apparent beauty of nature. To them, the grandeur of the sunset and breathtaking views of Earth from atop a mountain is due to the work of intelligent design. However, what they fail to take into account is the fact that our brains are adapted to the Earth and universe that we inhabit after four billion years of constant evolution. As an analogy, us humans would often feel repulsed at the sight of a female cockroach. To a male cockroach, however, the structure of a female cockroach is perfectly and beautifully designed. This was a requirement for reproduction and their survival as a species. The most important thing about this analogy, however, is that it shows how beauty is only the result of adapted psychology. This means that the mathematical and aesthetic beauty of the universe is the byproduct of evolution and not a creator. This brings me to my next point on evolution.

Part 3: Evolution

The theory of evolution is often one of the most widely-debated topics as it directly challenges the claims made by the Christian genesis. Although evolution is described as a ‘theory’, it has as much doubt in biology as quantum physics had in physics. This is important to note as many creationists argue that evolution is ‘only a theory’. By their definition, atomic theory and the theory of relativity would be only theories. As an analogy of scientific theories and facts, the constant rising of the sun in the East everyday is now established as a fact since all observational evidence proves it. If, however, the sun rises in the West one day, the theory would be proved wrong. The same goes for evolution: to date, all scientific data supports it. However, it is very susceptible to being disproven because a single evidence against it would render it untrue. In fact, the theory is supported by a massive amount of evidence which I will now put forward. At the same time, I will also clarify some of the misconceptions about evolution based on the people who argue against it.

First of all, what exactly is evolution? Evolution is actually the process whereby small changes in the form of genetic mutation occur along every generation that produces a substantial shift in genetic composition of an organism from its distant ancestors and is naturally selected due to its chances of survival. Evolution is a gradual process that occurs in every generation. While the genetic composition of the offspring is almost genetically identical to that of the parents, small changes in genes over hundreds or thousands of generations would eventually cause a significant change in the observed characteristics that differentiate the descendent species from the ancestral species. Traits that are beneficial for an organism’s survival is selected preferentially due to the fact that organisms with beneficial traits would survive better and hence be able to reproduce. Over time, constant sexual reproduction would cause beneficial genes to be spread across the entire population of a species, causing a shift in the genetic composition.

It is important to note that all organisms are transitional species between two others. Due to the fact that evolution is a gradual process, transitional fossils exist to show the smooth transition of one species to the next. In the case of humans, the chimpanzee-like australopithecines evolved to species with the genus homo, such as Homo erectus and homo habilis right up to homo sapiens as shown by fossil evidence. Although many creationists maintain that evolution is false because humans evolved from monkeys, it is important to note that modern species do not evolve from modern species. Rather, humans and monkeys share a common ape-like ancestor. In fact, all organisms share a common ancestor with one another. The only difference is, the greater the difference in genetic composition, the more distant that common ancestor is.

Another important evidence for evolution, besides the transitional fossils, is the experimental observations of evolution occurring in the laboratory. Known as the Escherichia Coli Long term evolution experiment, twelve containers of the bacteria are allowed to grow in a nutrient broth of glucose and citric acid. Due to the rapid rate of reproduction, a small sample of the bacteria would be extracted from each container daily and allowed to reproduce to the original amount on the next day. The rest of the bacteria would be frozen for observational analysis. The experiment has been going on for over twenty years, and has recently reached the 50,000th generation early this year. The significance of this experiment is that the results showed ongoing evolution in all of the different containers. The bacteria in each different container would take a different evolutionary path due to random mutations. The results were indeed stunning. At first, the original bacteria sample could only thrive on glucose as the source of food. However, one sample suddenly managed to evolve and utilise the citric acid mixed with the glucose in the nutrient broth, resulting in a sudden surge in bacteria count for that particular flask. This shows that ongoing evolution can and has been observed, and the fact that it is done based on empirical methods would mean that evolution can be directly verified.

Intelligent design, besides having only a few arguments, has much evidence to disprove it. In human males, the vas deferens (the tube carrying semen from the testes) loops over the ureter before making its way down to the penis. This is unintelligent design as the looping of the vas deferens requires the wasting and channelling of more resources to the building of the extended tube. From an ecological perspective, this is a detriment to the survival of the organism as the resources used could be channelled to other areas that would have otherwise improved other aspects of survival. From an evolutionary point of view, however, all becomes clear. In our ancestors, the scrotum was located above the bladder. After millions of years of evolution, the location of the scrotum ‘moved’ downwards to its present position due to the benefits of having it exposed to the ambient air which is of a lower temperature. During this process, the vas deferens would have to loop over the ureter by that path.

Another evidence of unintelligent design is from the ecological perspective of a forest. In forests, and especially in tropical rainforests, trees compete for sunlight by growing taller than the other trees. Although resources are wasted to increase the tree’s height, the benefits of gaining more sunlight for photosynthesis outweighs the extra resources used. From the perspective of a single tree, this is a requirement for competition. From the perspective of the entire forest, however, large amounts of resources are wasted: if all the trees did not compete with one another, the resultant intensity of sunlight falling on the surface of the trees would still be the same. As an analogy, spectators from a concert might start to stand to get a better view of the performance. However, since their act of standing up would block the view of the people behind that person, the people sitting behind would thus stand up to prevent the person from blocking their view. Over time, everyone would be standing up and the result would still be the same. From an evolutionary point of view, the wastage of resources is due to the fact that evolution occurs on an individual basis and not as a whole.

Part 4: Morality

Many theists disregard the study of science as they think that it is the work of a devil. This is an extremely closed-minded thought. Good and evil do not exist: They are concepts created by us humans. Good usually refers to morally upright acts, or acts that seem ethical. There is no clear distinction between good and evil, as changing circumstances would change what defines both. Furthermore, behaviour is the result of both our psychology (i.e. greed, sex drive), and the living environment (e.g. bad childhood). All people are created with a somewhat similar psychology (with slight variation as a result of genetic mutation), but different living environment. Personality is determined by experiences and not the existence of a soul.

Yet, why do we stand up against injustice? The answer does not lie in a god, but with evolution once again. By feeling pity for another member of the same species, we are increasing our chances of survival. Of course, you might argue that animal-lovers are common and this would contradict evolution. However, evolution does have an explanation for it. It is known as reciprocal altruism (you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours). Reciprocal altruism refers to the apparent non-selfish act involving first helping another organism at the expense of one’s own survival. This is evident in symbiotic relationships between species. Within a single species, each organism has ideal behavioural characteristics that lie somewhere in between all-greedy and all-giving. This ensures that while an organism would aid and cooperate with other members of the species, a form of selfishness must exist to ensure the survival of itself.

Evolution cares nothing for the comfort of any organism. The many wasps sting an insect prey as a host for reproduction. By strategically stinging the ganglia of the host prey, the prey would be paralysed, thereby enabling the wasp to inject its eggs into the body of the insect. Throughout this process, the host insect is kept alive, only paralysed. The larvae hatched from the eggs would then move on to devour the meat of the host insect while it is still alive. This is indeed a traumatising death for the host insect. Yet, this is important for the survival of the wasp as it ensures that the meat is kept fresh. This is a fact of evolution, and nature does not care whether the host insect suffers a traumatising death. Justice often fails to be done. That is a fact of life that has to be accepted. Morality is merely an illusion created by reciprocal altruism. Does this mean that the theory of evolution would cause chaos in society? Perhaps it will. Theists often use this argument that by accepting Darwinism into society, injustice would pervade. This argument is also known as argumentum ad consequentiam. However, our preferences do not decide how nature works. Whether we like it or not, evolution is still true. Per contra, even if Darwinism is accepted by the scientific community, it does not mean that society would function based on its principle. This, however, is beyond the scope of this post.

Part 5: Are humans the only species to qualify the entry to heaven?

This is perhaps one of the most direct evidence against the existence of a God. Many religions assume that only humans would go to heaven. However, fossil evidence shows that there is no clear distinction between humans and apes. Transitional fossils exist with a smooth transition until the human species. If this is the case, how do we define what a human is? Humans are continually evolving, and because the process is so gradual there each successive generation can be considered genetically identical from the previous one. Yet, there exists a slight change in DNA from one generation to the other. This amounts to large scale changes over millions of years. This also means, however, that there is a loss of clear definition of a human, and thus who goes to heaven. The idea of hell is also based on a fallacy. How do we define good and bad? There is no common consensus that clearly defines the two.

Even if all creatures go to heaven, how do you differentiate conscious life from non-conscious life? You might say that this lies in the presence of a brain. However, there is also no clear distinction between what is considered as a brain. For one, some organisms contain a centralised and complex network of nervous tissue but lack what we would consider as a brain. Like I mentioned previously, evolution is a gradual process and no clear distinctions can be made. If a conscious organism is but a smooth transition from an unconscious one (as proven in fossil record), how do we define what can transcend physical death? It is unlikely that a benevolent and omnipotent God would favour a certain group of organisms over another.

Even assuming that all creatures, both conscious and unconscious, would transcend death and go to heaven (or hell), how do we define life and non-life? Viruses show characteristics of both, and the first organisms were just a clump of membrane-bounded RNA. From all the evidence above, it is thus obvious to note that it is unlikely that a God could exist. The absence of any clear distinction between all forms of life, as well as life and non-life, would indicate that it is impossible for any afterlife to exist.

Part 6: The Paranormal

Paranormal activities in the form of haunting by entities returning from the afterlife have been reported in most, if not all cultures across the globe. These cultures exist independently from one another. It is possible, however, that the idea of the supernatural has existed in the very first humans who originated in Africa. For the benefit of the doubt, however, I will assume that the ideas of ghosts were created independently from the different cultures.

If the idea of supernatural forces influencing human lives were created independently across the world, does this mean that ghosts really do exist? The answer is a vehement ‘no’. Reports of paranormal activities are more likely to be the side effect of an evolutionary byproduct. First of all, our natural curiosity towards the universe (which has benefited us by enabling us to develop technology that started in primitive humans) results in a tendency to attribute unknown gaps in information to an unknown force. For example, our distant ancestors believed that fire was the result of a God and required the adding of firewood as a way to appease it and continue producing fire. This characteristic of the human mind has far-reaching consequences that resulted in many theists arguing about gaps in science through an argument from ignorance, or argumentum ad ignoratiam.

The second cause of supernatural beliefs is the result of the psychological need to believe in the continuation of consciousness beyond death. When organisms evolved from non-conscious life to conscious life, the need for survival is transferred from a physical level to a psychological level. This results in us not being able to perceive a time when conscious activity ceases. As a result, we would tend to think that some sort of continuation of one’s self and mind would transcend beyond physical death, resulting in a belief that dead ancestors would manifest in a ghost-like entity capable of returning from the dead.

Most paranormal encounters are the result of psychological activities that stem from psychological inadequacies prevalent in all humans, such as paraedolia, or the natural tendency to look for patterns. Hallucinations are also a common cause, and are often augmented by one’s belief system. Experiments in virtual reality have proven that whenever a person enters a place believed by that person to be haunted, he or she would observe entities or objects that are not really there. This effect can be increased by the addition of electromagnetic fields and infrasound.

Reports of paranormal activity observed by more than one person simultaneously cannot be attributed to psychological effects. However, they too, can be explained by physical effects not quite understood. Human emotions are extremely powerful energies that can leave a signature at a certain location. This is often the cause of residual haunting. Although the neurological model of consciousness and emotions is not yet completely understood, biochemical reactions occurring as a result of powerful emotions such as a traumatic death might release vast amounts of energy, possibly electromagnetic in nature. If the energy is powerful enough, local conditions such as the presence of material in soil that can be easily magnetised might act as some sort of natural recorder. This energy can be replayed continuously for centuries when the electromagnetic fields interact with the brain of the visitor. Note, however, that this is only a theory and that a diverse range of scientific phenomena can account for this. The growing field of Quantum mechanics might also provide another explanation for such paranormal activity.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the existence of a God is highly unlikely. Given all the scientific evidence, rational thinkers would easily assume that the existence of a God is highly improbable. While there is still the possibility that a God exists, our current understanding of the universe shows that it is highly unlikely that there is such a possibility. For one, a God is not required for all that we see today, and closer observation of life and the universe indicates that God does not exist.

Intelligence

From The Blue Sweater, posted 21 September 2009

Note to readers of ContemplAsian: Sorry, I have not been posting for some time. Here's one from The Blue Sweater that would be quite meaningful...

I was having a long conversation with De Maitre about this topic, a topic that in many ways affect all of us in one way or another.

We talked about three things, the meaning of intelligence, government by elites, and of course, this:



The meaning and purpose of exams.

What is intelligence?

It’s a question that I have addressed many times while writing posts for ContemplAsian, Maitre’s blog. But more often, I expounded on the problem of the meaning of intelligence being misinterpreted or distorted, rather than exploring the true meaning of intelligence.

We all know in our society, intelligence is measured by grades and certification. But what Maitre has persistently tried to tell me in our conversation was that there must be more to intelligence.

I certainly agree.

But the thing is, the idea of intelligence, like many things of a conceptual nature, runs into philosophical problems.

I was reminded of my Philosophy module at this point. For the module, I covered one of Plato’s dialogues, entitled Meno, part of which is a discussion between the characters Meno and Socrates on the nature of “success”.

And one thing that is in common with both the ideas of “intelligence” and “success” is that it is extremely difficult to identity the one single criterion or factor that could define the idea.

Take Meno, for example. We can be successful as doctors, as scientists, as historians, as teachers, but what is common between them? Ultimately, it doesn’t answer the question, what IS success?

Likewise, we can be intelligent in this subject, intelligent in another, but what IS intelligence? Still not quite answered.

Of course, one might just give up and say that to come up with the questions I have put up above is itself intelligence.


Next, government by elites.

It’s one of Singapore’s key ideologies - Meritocracy. Those with the ability and skills should and could manage the affairs of the state.

But this reveals a fundamental question:

Do we need elites to govern, if governance is about furthering the interests of the people?

Because here we assume the elites know our interests. But can we always be so sure?

On the other hand, if we don't have elites (or experts, to use a less loaded word), then will things turn out right for the state?

Maitre brought up the idea of separating “technical” skills from the raw ability to lead, but I can’t help but feel that this dichotomy is fundamentally ambiguous. For a start, what is meant by “technical” skills? And what is meant by the “raw ability”?

Even if we take skills to be things like knowledge in economics, public administration, etc, it doesn’t separate leadership from the elites. And even if we say leaders should have the “raw ability”, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are the ones leading.

For example, the result is the bureaucratic state, where real power lies in the bureaucrats rather than the politicians.

This reminds me of a quote: Leadership is Action, Not Position.


Last, examinations.

Maitre was critical of the exam system. Well, such criticism is to an extent justified. The exam system sometimes creates undesirable effects that affect the overall well-being of the education system.

I once wrote a post in ContemplAsian about exams. There, I explored why we needed exams in the first place. Exams are needed as a mechanism with which to incentivise hard work and penalise sloth. This is the most important reason for exams.

Of course, many states and societies also come to use exams as a measure of success and as a tool of academic advancement, but these are, to me, secondary reasons, because many societies (especially in Europe) don’t have stringent exams, but still achieve (arguably) these results.

In a line, exams are a mechanism for competition.

It is true that exams can distort the meaning of education. When people forget the purpose of education and think that they “study so as to pass exams”, then education truly loses meaning.

But I think it’s not so much the institution of exams, but the procedures within the institution.

Take for example Continual Assessment. In university, part of it is participation in tutorial. The trouble with making such things gradable is that it creates certain... how should I put it... strange effects.

This is because participation is subjective, if not downright ambiguous. What is wanted is “meaningful participation”, but what exactly is “meaningful participation”?

So we have people talking a lot, but you can sense they are just hoarding air time.

And for people with nothing or no time to say anything, is it fair to them that they be penalised?


So what is intelligence? Turns out I still haven’t answered the question...

On Freedom of Speech

From the The Blue Sweater, posted 30 August, 2009

“To speak or not to speak?”

That is the question, and the answer to which has persistently eluded me from time to time. Here I share my thoughts on what the freedom of speech is, and what it means for me.

I mentioned in ContemplAsian I had this horrible experience where I invoked the anger of someone while, exercising the freedom of speech, if you will, with a friend. The full story is in ContemplAsian, but long story short, I was chatting with a friend on a bus about school, and as we chatted we got someone we didn’t know angry, and it was a somewhat disturbing experience.

I had several thoughts after the incident, but it’s mainly about the other person, so here I’ll talk more about my own self-reflection.

Well, the problem might not have been as complicated as my friend and I thought. Maybe I was just too loud (after all, I’m aware of this bad habit of mine, where I lose myself during a conversation).

But then again, was it simply a matter of volume, or was there something more fundamental?

This brings me to my topic for today. What is the “freedom of speech”?

I feel that the freedom of speech simply means the ability to say what one thinks without the fear of suppression. Of course, there are important things to recognise, such as issues that are clearly “out-of-bounds”, like comments that threaten racial and religious harmony, and slanderous remarks. But putting those aside, there is freedom of speech in Singapore, at the very least, in principle.

But based on my experience that day, I think there are other issues to consider that are just as important.

First, if what is being said has the potential to cause public anger (like the things my friend and I discussed that day, which, to be quite honest, are quite cynical in nature), would that right still apply? It is certainly true that the freedom of expression should never compromise peace and harmony among people.

But then it begs the question: how would we know whether what we say could offend a person? My friend and I didn’t know we angered that particular person, and then again, the rest of the bus didn’t react in any way that meant displeasure (of course, there is a possibility they feel we were right, or they just can’t be bothered), and if we didn’t mention any names, or any specific institution, where was the need for the person to respond in the way he did? This was the question my friend and I never quite came to terms with.

Or just to quote my friend: “I think that’s his own problem.”

In other words, should we keep quiet simply because of the potential fear of someone getting angry, or should we keep quiet despite being as politically correct as we could? Either way it looks like we are better off quiet, but then, where is the freedom of expression then?

So maybe I was too loud. Maybe if I whispered to my friend this incident would have a different outcome, or would never have taken place.
This brings me to my second point. Is the freedom of speech conditioned not by what we say, but how we say it? This is a very plausible case. Since the point is to minimise disturbance or distress amongst others, it would help if the contents of the conversation is limited to just, say, my friend and I.

But then again, putting it into perspective, does it mean we can whisper to each other about how a certain race or religion is (whatever)? Certainly not.

Besides, if that person still managed to hear us, and still got angry, it’s still our responsibility, since the conversation has already spread beyond the two of us.

The bus, as an example of public space, shows indeed how the issue of free speech can be so complex.

To be honest, as I’ve said in ContemplAsian, I would apologise for making that person so angry, but I would not apologise for what I said, because I feel I have the right to talk about the issues regardless of my standing.

It was regrettable that what we said has caused the breach of peace, if I could put it that way, but ultimately, the balance between peace and free speech was never an easy one to strike in the first place.

Singapore: The nation of closet slobs

Singapore is an economically developed country with one of the most modern infrastructure in Southeast Asia. We have a reputation for being a clean and green country with a very polite and industrious working force. We have a strong economy, sound political structure and social harmony. Our students are intelligent and capable potentials being groomed to lead Singapore into greater heights.

Well, that’s what they all tell you. In truth, we are a nation of slobs- the main philosophy in life here is “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Nothing resembling progress occurs until someone submits a serious complaint that sends everyone scrambling to fix it before they lose their jobs… We hire others to do the dirty work whilst we maintain the illusion of soaring success and acute intelligence.

Look at the young adults today, for all their academic and corporate achievements, how many are actually capable of cooking a full meal? I.e. rice, fish, meat, veg and soup? Most of the people I’ve spoken to are woefully unable to progress beyond frying an egg and cooking instant noodles. When I spoke to my old art teacher who went for a year long course in Australia, she told me the horrors she noticed in the hostel there. Singaporean students were making a lot of calls back home to mummy to ask stuff like:

“How long does it take to boil an egg?”
“How to use the laundry machine?”
“How to get rid of the stain on my white shirt?”
“What type of soap powder to buy?”
“How to cook rice?”

The first and last ones were a real joke. To me, they are really basic. Ok, maybe rice cooking needs some skill and practice. As a general rule, the water level should reach your mid knuckle when you press down the rice. It varies with different brand and type of rice. As for egg boiling, it’s about 10 minutes for hard boil and about 5 minutes for soft boiled eggs. This is a website for all those who can’t even manage an egg- http://www.mrbreakfast.com/ask.asp

Singaporeans are too dependent on their mothers and maids. I’ve witness many a scenario where children are brought up in a completely safe environment till the point that they are nothing but spineless upstarts with a brain that they don’t know how to use properly. Scoring well academically does not equate to intelligence in my opinion. Having a PHD means you are clever but not necessarily wise nor insightful.

For example, when children fall down and scrap their knee, the maid gets blamed and scolded. As a result, the kid is always kept closeted to ensure his safety. To me, there’s nothing wrong with children getting a little bumped and scrapped now and then as it teaches them the following principles:

• Pull yourself up when you fall; mummy isn’t going to be there forever (she has a shelf life and expiry date, you know)
• Pain reminds you that you are alive and it will be a constant factor in your life. Learn how to cope with it and use it as a motivating factor to push you into achieving greater feats in life. Mummy isn’t going to coddle you and give you a big kiss each time you undergo emotional turmoil or an injury later on in life.
• There is danger everywhere, you (and only you) can protect yourself by learning how negotiate your way around them with care. Mummy can’t be telling you to mind the wet floor everyday of your life.

These are precious lessons in life that we need to learn through experience. If parents deprive their children of experience, all the children have are certificates proving their academic capabilities and nothing more.

Singaporean children are so spoilt that they have almost everything they want and need. Primary school kids have a handphone, mp3, computer, good clothes, a lot of assessment books, tuition, etc. Is it the fault of the parents? Yes. It is possible that they work hard to give their kids the luxury they never had in their youth. It is possible that there is a competition among them to see who can provide the best for their children. What they do not know is that they are spoiling their children beyond belief. I’ve seen children screaming at their maid to get them a glass of water and it’s suddenly the maid’s job to ask hospitable questions to guests such as “Would you like a drink?” Tsk, that’s what the host should be asking the guest and instructing the maid to serve up.

Children today do not know the meaning of having to go hungry because their parents go hungry for them. They don’t know how to make their own beds because the maid or their mother does it for them. They can’t cook because parents are afraid that they will burn themselves as well as the entire house. Children are taught to packet food or eat cup noodles rather than cook a proper healthy meal for themselves. Children contribute to household cleaning with a broom/mop or “Magic Clean” dusters. That’s easy. But many of them do not know how to sweep or mop the floor properly! By my standards, they are merely rearranging the dust. When I mean clean, the floor is the “safe to eat your food off the floor” clean. =) I’m a Detol monster who insists on moping the floor by hand.

Look at home economics taught in schools today. In my mother’s generation, they were taught which parts of the cow/pig/goat were to be used for what type of cooking. They were taught how to do mending in addition to doing pretty stitches. They were taught how to use the sewing machine. Mum said she was thought how to cut and make her own dress. They were taught how to bake muffins and cookies! And the used the proper fire stoves and ovens.

By my generation, home economics was a joke. It was more like a financial management class with cooking demonstrations thrown in. All I learnt was:

• How to differentiate between a want and a need when it comes to spending
• Kitchen and household safety
• How to have a healthy balanced diet (not that I follow it)
• What I would call a sewing demonstration rather than a actual sewing class. We made a hand puppet and a letter holder. The stitches I learnt were oversewing stitch, running stitch and cross stitch (for sewing the button eyes onto my puppet. And I also learnt how to use fabric glue. That’s it. The pieces were all precut for me and I didn’t go anywhere near a sewing machine. I guess they didn’t want students to cut or prick their lovely little PERFECT fingers.
• I learnt how to cook macaroni chicken soup, shepherd’s pie and spaghetti. The stoves were all induction cookers to ensure that we won’t burn down the entire building or ourselves. The macaroni was the most tasteless and healthy soup I ever had in my life. The chicken meat was so fat free that I could kill you if I threw it at your head after boiling it. It was dry and HARD. Never mind that, there’s no salt at all. The shepherd’s pie was a greater joke. There was a pre-boiled potato waiting for me. All I had to do was to take a fork and mesh it. The teacher fried the meat for all of us. Than she filled up the aluminum foil cups for us with the meat, told us to spread the potatoes on top of it and baked it for us. The Spaghetti was also an interesting experience- boil the spaghetti and open a bottle of tomato paste (not the Preggo Spaghetti sauce type, it’s really tomato paste). Again, it was a tasteless disaster.
• I also learnt the cooking appliances were unpredictable monsters since only half of the stoves/ovens in the HE room can be used at one time. Out of which, you have to chose to use either the stove or the oven. Otherwise, the whole building will black out.
  

All in all, I call the revised HE curriculum a joke. It overdid the tradeoff between safety, taste and health. Ask any mother or grandmother, who can cook well, how many times have they been burnt by spraying oil or being too careless near a hot wok/stove? I have quite about twenty burns accumulated from the past 10 years. My interest in sewing died as I grew older, but I still do it for fun when I feel like it. =)

Another point that I’ll bring up is- how many Singaporeans can actually survive on their own in a jungle, without modern technology? I’m going to throw out the NS guys and OBS monsters for the sake of this argument. If a war comes to Singapore, how many Singaporeans know how to identify edible plants and animals from our forests? How many Singaporeans can start a fire without the following tools- matches, lighter, solid fuel and a fire starter?

Here we are, all proud of our meager accomplishments in life when most Singaporeans don’t even know how to unclog their own sink or toilet bowl… Did you know that one part of baking soda and 4 parts of vinegar can unclog a choked sink? How many of you know how to change your own lock? Given our ever increasing levels of affluence, we rather call the handyman to do this short of menial labor and call them stupid and unaccomplished behind their backs. Well, don’t call people idiots-with-no-future unless there’s nothing they can do that you can’t do.

Most of the Singaporeans that I know are lacking general knowledge. They read the newspaper religiously for exams and to ensure that they won’t look like a complete idiot when questioned about the latest global scandal. They reject the notion of reading beyond the school curriculum because they have this mentality that the important stuff will be covered in school, anything beyond that it useless. Well, they’re wrong. There’s never such thing as useless knowledge. Almost every Singaporean, who doesn’t specialize in history, is blissfully unaware that Singapore was MORE than a little fishing village when Raffles swung by. We have archaeological evidence that we were once a thriving trading center during the Srivijaya Empire. Secondly, I would like to highlight that Sir Stamford Raffles isn’t our founder. The name “Singapore” was given to us by Sang Nila Utama, so he is our founder, not the angmoh that waltzed by looking for a nice place to set up a new trading post. See how terribly history can be misconstrued? And how stupid students gobble it up wholesale for the sake of exams? We can’t even be bothered to question what we have been taught, because it is unacceptable and it’ll most likely lead to an F grade.

Schools today are so anal about MCs, which is something I frown upon greatly. I understand that this system was set up to prevent students from forging letters on their parents’ behalf to excuse them from school, so they can do more meaningful stuff like playing. But if I’m having a fever due to a cold, why do I have to see a Doctor so that I can get an MC when I can just bloody well spend a day or two at home gulping down lots of water, Panadol Cold and sleeping the illness off? I have better things to throw my money on. I think more discretion should be practiced such as calling up the kid’s parents to verify the authenticity of the letter. See, even teachers are lazy!

Look at parents today! As long as they can afford to hire the maid, the maid has to settle the household chores, taking care of the employers’ mad temper, their rabid children, etc. In Singapore, maids are the surrogate mothers to their employer’s children. It’s their “duty” to make sure the child eats well, sleeps well, shower well, study well and play well. It makes you wonder- what the hell are our Singapore mothers doing? I think the excuse that she has to work for her children’s comfort is crap. All children need are clean comfortable clothes, a full stomach, comfortable bed and a mother’s love/companionship. The last factor is the most important; they don’t need the branded clothes, expensive fish/meat, King-Koil mattress, etc. They can live without it. I strongly suspect that such expensive treatment is due a mother’s guilt that she isn’t spending enough time with her children. That’s why when children turn deviant; I blame their parents first more than anyone else, for not nipping the problem in the bud.

Misplaced Pity and Misunderstanding

When I travel overseas, I always get plagued by beggars. It brings up the question: to give or not to give? On the practical note, it is not advisable to give them any money because you will be merely feeding the begging industry, which is already overstaffed with all the lazy never do wells. Not to mention, once you patronize one beggar, you might see a long queue forming up behind him. On the ehical level, it is hard not to feel pity for the poor people trying to get some money to feed their families.

In the past, I donated money only to beggars who lost either both arms or all limb because I figured those with hands and legs can jolly well make themselves more useful than that. This continued until the day that I found out that some of them had their limbs forcefully amputated by gangs in order to use them as icons to milk sympathetic money out of soft hearted people. So I'm a hard hearted person now. I gave up the moralistic battle because I'm not sure if I'm helping to feed the beggar or the godforsaken gangster.

Take a look at the following video about the street kids and the dead poor people in Manila. Do you feel pity for them? People stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty, unable to afford school or even a proper meal, etc?


Well, I don't pity them because of a few reasons. In Jarkata, I learnt that women walking around with a troop of children to beg for money along the streets are not necessarily poor and neither are the kids their beget. They have an industry of borrowed children. These women "rent" their neighbours kids in order to create an image of a poor woman bogged down with the task of feeding her children.

The business of begging has reached the point where pretty much everything is staged. Walk along the streets of Jarkata or Manila and you'll see children lying down by the roadside as if they are halfdead from the lack of food. It would be natural to assume that they would be living somewhere nearby as they won't have the energy to walk off right? When nightfalls, the street is mysteriously empty, and there are no little kiddies lying postrate on the road pavements. And I've once seen the kids get up and run at the sight of an aggressive policeman too! So I have my doubts.

In ELDCs [i], the poor aren't as poor as they look due to the low standards of living. When I drove into the rural parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, I learnt that you can survive on very little money there. For example, a trishaw rider in the kampung probably earns less than 10 SGD a month. He peddles probably an average of one or two kampung women and her shopping from the market to her home each day. Each trip costs only a few cents. And yet, he can bring up a huge family of probably 4-8 children. You must be thinking, how is that possible? Unlike the gluttons that we Singaporeans are, they are normally content with rice and some chili paste for their daily meals. Meat and fish are only served on special occasions or to a sick family member only. Even the extremely poor loafers in the kampungs get by on coconuts they pluck from the multitude of coconut trees growing around. Very few people have died of starvation in Kampungs unless there is a famine.

Some foreigners insist that Singaporeans violate human rights by paying our maids a criminally low wage. All I can say is HA HA in the most sarcastic tone I can summon. A maid earns approximately SGD50 working in Jarkata. She earns approximately $350 here. That's seven times more! And some caucasians have even said we treat them worse than humans because we don't give them a room on their own nor do we give them a bed. Why must we give our maid a room on her own??? Unlike most Americans who can easily afford to give their in-laws and children a room on their own due to cheap landed property, most Singaporeans are barely able to buy landed property. Given a kid his own room is tough, much less a maid. And what's wrong with sleeping on the mattress?? Back in the Kampungs, they use mats in most households! In fact, they are so poor that its quite a feat to have a sofa in the house.

As I get older, I think it is good to be generous to some people rather than everyone because they have the will to improve. For example, I wouldn't mind "adopting" a few street kids in Jarkata and Manila by paying for their education and some decent food. However, I would only do that IF the kid is willing to possess a little more ambition in life than being the next king of the beggars.

To me, the poor people always remain poor for a reason- they don't know how to keep their money. I was a little taken aback when I was in Jarkata. Almost everyone had a handphone (even the beggars dammit). In the kampung, I see women yaking away on their handphones whilst their children are dressed in rags/hand-me-downs, with no other toy beyond a cardbox (because they can't afford anything more). Calls might be cheap there, but it's still money. The men in Indonesia can easily be mistaken for chimney pipes- they are serial chain smokers! Even 14 year old boys are smoking. Sheesh. Ciggies are cheap there, but once again, it's still money. Money that could be channeled to better uses such as education or patching up that hole in the roof which could pass off as an airwell or sun roof.

This is a photo I took myself of a little boy playing with a cardbox. That's his only toy and his father can't even afford to buy him shoes. The clothes you see on him is a gift from his neighbours. His father has a really severe case of pile due to heavy labor (his pants are always bloody at the back). His mum is working in Taiwan, but she just went there, so she has no money to send back yet.


So, should we pity them? It is hard to say isn't it? But that's life to them. If we give money to them, are we helping them or harming them? After my long exposure to these poor people, I realized, it is better to leave them on their own because you can never help them all. If you truly want to help them, the old saying "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time" could not be more true. You will have to teach them to value of working hard for what they want instead of giving them money in hope that their lives will improve in time.

[i] Economically Less Developed Countries- please note that this is the politically correct term to use when describing countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, Cambodia, etc. The terms first world and third world have be phased out after the Cold War and Vietnam War. F.Y.I.: First World refers to US and its allies (i.e. democractic countries), Third World refers to Communist Countries and Second World refers to all the other countries that don't fit into either categories.

You'll never know when Retribution will COME

Do you think there's such a thing as retribution? In today's ST, I was quite upset with the report regarding the elderly being preyed on by a plump con-woman in her 40s or 50s. She posed as a welfare worker who knocked on their doors and invited herself to clean their homes. The part that disgusted me the most was that she preyed on those who lived alone and on a shoe string budget. One of the victims survives on the $360 he gets from public assistance every month! That sorry excuse of humanity (aka the con-woman) stole his $100 angpow, which he could have used to buy other daily necessities or treat himself to a better meal.

The elderly are frail and dependent on other people in society to take care of them. The last thing they need is someone to take advantage of their dependence. They have lived for so long and contributed much to society, they have experienced all the joys and crap that life has to offer. So treating them in such a manner, is just plain disgusting and reflects badly on one's morals. I hope that woman gets her just desserts; I trust karma to come around chewing her ass. Speaking of karma/retribution, have you guys watched the movie "Hard Candy"?

Its a pretty disturbing movie about a pedophile, Jeff, getting his just desserts. He meets up with this girl called Hayley that he chatted up with online. They engage in some flirtation and they go to his home to listen to his Goldfrappe concert recordings. Hayley mixes them some screwdrivers and before Jeff knows it, he passes out. When he wakes up, he finds himself bound to a wheeled computer chair, and Hayley reveals that she's not the 14year old girl that she said she was. She begins to interrogate him about his involvement with the murder and rape of Donna Mauer. Jeff denies it all and distract Hayley whilst he tried to get his gun. Unfortunately, Hayley predicted this move and quickly asphyxiate Jeff with plastic wrap into unconsciousness.

When he next gets up, he finds himself on a steel table with an ice pack over his nuts, listening to Hayley calmly informing him that he will be castrated for the good of humanity, so he could never prey on another innocent kid again. She sets up a video tripod aiming at his exposed genetilia and linked it to his kitchen TV, so that he can watch himself being castrated (is this evil of what). This is the castration scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMXed9Nvjfo Unfortunately, I can't embed it. Guys, you might get a litte uncomfortable especially when you hear the sound of Jeff''s testicles going into the garbage disposal (for those of you who don't know what it is, its a grinder that most Americans have in their sinks to chop up their rubbish into small bits) after she's done with the castration.

If you watch the full movie, you'll learn that he wasn't really castrated. She just used a clothes peg to clip his testicles to give him the sensation of pain and played a medical video of a castration op. Lord knows where she got the testicles that she dumped into the garbage disposal unit.

You can read more here

The moral of this movie is- you don't know where or when revenge will come nor what form it will take. Ultimately, restribution came in the form of Hayley who convinced Jeff to commit suicide using a combination of guilt and stress.

This is the trailer:

A question for the Patriachal Social Model

I just have this burning question- "Why are family names only passed down through sons?"

This is applicable to almost every society in the world. Well, technically, you can never doubt the mother of a child, but you can certainly doubt who the father is... So if the child's genes are in doubt, why should surnames be passed down from the father's side instead of the mother's side of the family?

Anthropologist would typically say that it has to do with the social organisation-Pastoral and Agrarian societies tend to be paternalistic because males do the hard work but Horticultural societies tend to be maternal.

That bullshit aside, surnames are meant to identify the offspring as members from a certain family. Only the women can assure that their children carry half of the family genes, not the men. ^^ So is it time to revise that antiquated system and redraw the family tree based on maternal links?

Guest Post: The Meaning of Life V.2

WRITTEN BY: IVAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of life is perhaps mankind’s most fundamental question as it gives reason to our existence. For millennia, many philosophers, and even scientists, have tried to decipher this mystery. Yet, many argue that life has no special purpose, and the reason that we are here is due to random chance. However, the ability to ponder about our very existence on this planet is something that defines humanity from all other life forms as we know it today.

Life and consciousness have an extremely complex origin and have often been debated in science. It is our nature in reality that makes us wonder about our place in the cosmos, and without it, our lives would be meaningless and our existence, futile.

In my opinion, life is all about making the world a better place than it was. As a whole, it is the spirit of humanity that keeps us from having wars ever so often, and allows us to progress. Since the appearance of our species, many fights and violent happenings had occurred, and it is only because mankind is in itself an inherently angst-driven being. Yet, why is it that people nowadays seem to show more care and concern for others than thousands of years ago? Well, the answer lies in the fact that many people nowadays are trying their best to aim towards harmony amongst all. Despite having wars and terror attacks plaguing the general public, it is no doubt that many of us have advanced from a fight for survival to a fight for peace.

Many times, the amount that people can go toward standing up against atrocities and injustice has shown that we are not always following the course of evolution. In the Darwinian theory of natural selection, stronger species tend to survive better than weaker ones, and fighting between humans is generally a result of this. Yet, is our movement toward world peace nature or nurture? It can be both, but the latter is the most likely cause. The shift toward global unity lies within us, and it is what gives life its meaning. If everyone does their own little part to contribute toward society, the change will be tremendous and our place in the large expanse of the cosmos, justified.

Life is full of unpredictability, and many times we might meet obstacles and challenges. The will and power to overcome them also gives meaning to life, and it is our determination that changes our lives. Through all the trials and tribulations, we have all made it to what we are today. I firmly believe that life is about surviving each day, and it is this that gives us the reason to live on.

On Belief – The Response: The Realities of Religiosity

Before I start, the usual disclaimer: what I postulate in this post is strictly based on my observations and readings about the nature of religion, and in no way aims to discredit any religion. I simply want to highlight the realities of belief in our society today, the purpose of which is to highlight the problems to the public.

This post of mine is a response to Ed Chng’s On Belief, which discusses the relationship between science and religion, and what it means for the nature of belief. While I am going to question the nature of belief and religiosity, I’ll be focusing more on the realities of belief in the world today.

I identified three main issues from Ed’s post:

First, the premise of the scientific discipline,
Second, the complexity of the universe,
Third, the reality of religion as a social institution.


First, on the premise of the scientific discipline.

It is true that the scientific discipline only recognises what can be proven. This is the core principle of the scientific method. Knowledge is based on experimentation that can be repeated, with observable and measureable results.

But this reveals two questions:

First, does it become “epistemological axioms”?
Second, in “reducing” phenomena to numbers, equations and models, does it not limit or eliminate the possibility of entities not measureable by such empirical methods, an entity like... like God?

My responses to the following questions are as follows:

First, science recognises the temporal nature of knowledge, and accepts change. By contrast, religion is bound by doctrine, and assumes knowledge to be absolute and eternal.

Of course, religious doctrines have themselves undergone change and evolution, but in today’s context, they have fossilised into “unquestionable truths” about what theologians think about the world.

In addition, the axiomatic nature of scientific knowledge doesn’t mean it cannot be proven wrong. There are places in the universe where the laws of physics break down (black holes, at the quantum level), and these phenomena are discovered with scientific methods. Theories are constantly subject to change and challenge, but rather than resist change, theories undergo improvement through these processes.

What atheist scientists (like biologist Richard Dawkins) and philosophers are against is when religiosity closes the minds of people. For these people, God is simply another word for “I don’t know.”

When this happens, knowledge will completely lose its meaning.


Second, on the complexity of the universe.

Ed argues that science does not recognise the complexity of the universe. The reverse is true. Science recognises the complexity of the universe, because it can comprehend the universe in scales beyond the human imagination.

Look at the values. What is a light-year? The distance travelled by light in a year: 9,460,730,472,580.8 km. And the distances between stellar objects are measured in the millions of light years.

What about time? There’s the cosmological decade, which is logarithmic in nature, which means a cosmological decade is ten times its preceding decade. So by the time you reach the estimated end of the universe you’ll need several pieces of paper just to draw zeros.

On the other extreme, there’s the Planck time: 1 attosecond, one billion billionths of a second. Can you imagine what can be done in that time?

Religion, on the other hand, is handicapped by the weaknesses of human language.

Let’s take for example Genesis. If God created the universe in six days, what is a day? Earth was created in Day 2, so it might be fair to assume Days 3, 4, 5, and 6 is one Earth day (not specifying the number of hours, because there is no consensus across civilisations), but what about Day 1? Still one Earth day?

Not to mention the idea that God's concept of time is different from ours in other parts of scripture.

So it begs the question: is science reducing the universe, or is it religion?

Of course, here I’m criticising the literalist approach taken by the born-again evangelicals , but the point is, who now has a true sense of scale?


Third, the realities of religion as a social institution.

Since religion is a social institution, it does fulfill certain social functions. I agree with that. For many, it has provided security, or a moral compass. I do not question the ethical ideals of religion. But seeing the realities of religiosity created many doubts in me about the nature of belief in this world.

According to the Thomas Theorem, from a sociologist of that name, situations that are defined as real are real in their consequences. So putting aside the question whether God does exist or not, the fact that people believe in God creates social structures and behaviour that are very real in their consequences.

Like for example the Crusades, and international terrorism today.
And since religion is a social institution, power relations apply in any social institution.

The institutionalisation of Christianity in post-Roman times generated wealth and influence, which in turn created interests and power structures that remain in place today. And it is these that had been the cause of human suffering throughout our history, because churchmen gave up the spiritual for the mundane.

As the saying goes: “Power corrupts.”

When clergymen launch wars in the name of God, they are in actuality fighting for worldly interests. When theologians launch inquisitions, they are trying to maintain their monopoly of knowledge and control of thought.

So when ministers preach the love of God yet at the same time warn of eternal damnation in hell, it makes you wonder whether that love is truly unconditional.

Why De Maitre doesn’t have a Religion

A few people have asked me what do I have against I have religion. I don't have an issue with religion per se; I just have issues with believers.

To me religion is merely a social construct. Being an avid historian, I don’t believe in abstract concepts of divinity or miracles. As I mentioned before, 2000 years ago, a man who claimed to speak with God and spread warnings of doom was a prophet, but today, a man who does the same is said to suffer from schizophrenia or paranoid delusions. And our ancestors have a way of over-glorifying hear-say and great-deeds. For example, the ancient Greeks worshipped dinosaur bones as the bones of long dead heroes like Achilles, Hector and Hercules because they believed that heroes were larger than life.

Religion and the concept of hell were designed to inspire fear in evil-doers and motivate them into doing charitable, gracious and kind deeds in their lifetime. It aims to build a Utopia on Earth; unfortunately, people have a way of manipulating religion to suit themselves. Example would be the blatant use of fictional “divine origins” as a means to a king’s legitimate rule or one’s ability to perform extraordinary feats. E.g. The Holy Roman Emperor of Medieval Europe, The Divine Emperor of China and The demi-God Hercules (son of Zeus). Another example would be the blatant corruption of the Catholic faith by the Catholic Church, the primary example would be the “Sale of Indulgences”, where the church literally created certificates indicating that the holder would be sin-free in the eyes of the Church and therefore God. Somehow, God became secondary in comparison to the Church.

As you can see, the original tenants of religious belief have been lost over time due to flawed human interpretation. There is nothing wrong with religion it’s just how people interpreted it that becomes an issue! It is the people’s belief that gets corrupted with disillusions that we have created over time to comfort and cheat ourselves that made me write off religion for good. I don’t have a religion, but I think God (if any is around) is a little more discerning and forgiving than that. Let me inject some reason in “If I have done no evil, but just because I’m not a Christian (or Muslim for that matter), why do I deserve to go to hell?”

I question this more avidly in view that a believer is promised a place in heaven just because he kills a non-believer. This is what I define as my issue against the believers rather than the religion. This concept of Crusade/Jihad has been wrongly intepreted by believers. I believe the original intentions were to protect the faith, not to wipe out other faiths in a bloody and forceful manner. I'm sure God (if any) had a better sense of ethics than we do.

In today’s context, on occasions, belief has been reduced to the point of ridicule to me. That’s why I use the term Modern Christianity and Modern Buddhism. I will be using these 2 examples for my writing here.

We have anthropological studies, archaeology and written records deciphered by historians to tell us what the world was like in the past. Yet, I have met many Christians who still have to insist that the Bible is an infallible source of historical information. As a diehard historian, I’m really tempted to take off my slipper and slap them to death for their blind faith in a book that was NOT written by Christ or God himself, but from a cesspit of authors handpicked and compiled by the council of Nicea. I’m using the word cesspit because there are thousands of religious literature out there written by thousands of authors hundreds of years after the death of Christ. The creators of the bible merely picked out what suited their ideals and rejected unacceptable bits. E.g. The Bible mentioned that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, but no one knows who Cain (their son) married. Ever wondered why? Draw up a family tree and you’ll realize that the only possibility would be that he either married his sister or his niece. That would be incest wouldn’t it? Naturally, the Church wouldn’t have that, so it was conveniently excluded.

When I ask many Christians or Catholics this question, their answer is always this mysterious “only God knows”. To me, God (if there’s one) gave us a brain; I think he meant us to use it with a little more discretion and common sense. Sometimes, people have really weird beliefs that leave me flabbergasted.

EXODUS 20:4-6 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

Tell me then, how do you classify a cross? Some have said that it is not a likeness of God, so the second commandment has not been violated. The original cross was depicted with the body of Christ on it. And since Christ is the son of God, he is an extension of God. So we’re back to square one. Some might argue that it is from the first testament and not very valid, all I’ll say is “it’s the same God we are talking about isn’t it?”

Christians aside, let me move on and attack Modern Buddhism. Ideally, Buddhist monks should shun the materialistic world, look at the Buddhism monks in Singapore, some drive around in a Benz and live in a condominium. Temples are becoming grand buildings designed by architects. The “life of self-denial and spiritual-enlightenment”, my ass. I'm not saying all Buddhists are like this, but it’s a growing trend in today's context. I think the term "embracing modernity" is a terrible excuse for the abandonment of old value of "humility".

Buddha preached about letting go of one’s material demands in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. As I mentioned in my previous post, if Buddha still had a body to flip and jump in, he would be positively bouncing in indignation in his grave and the degeneration of his teachings. There are thousands of Aunties and Uncles flocking to his temples to pray for luck at 4D and TOTO. Buddha’s teachings were never about him turning into a religious icon. It was the work of his disciples. I think even the preservation of his bodily remains as relics would have made him scream in frustration, if he weren’t beyond the demands of humanly emotions and not that at peace.

If he were still alive, he would be puking blood at the hierarchical system practiced by monasteries. It was NOT created by Buddha. He didn’t even mention anything about an exclusive retreat for monks/nuns. Buddha believed that all men were equal and rejected the hierarchical system based on birth right or hierarchy. Social hierachies within temples are the unforunate by-products of monasticism. I’m certain that he would not approve of the structural system of novices, junior monks, senior monks, abbots, etc. because it would only result in internal conflict of power and control due to ambitions of certain individuals. The inventions of status and rank would also result in the death of humility. How many people have heard of an abbot doing his own laundry and helping to sweep up the temple courtyard?

Buddhist monks charge you for conducting funeral rites instead of the time honored way of giving them a token of appreciation. Today, even if the token of appreciation method is used, the quality of the funeral rite depends on your generosity. The poorer you are, the more short-cuts and mistakes there will be. So much so for reaping karma and detaching oneself from the material world. Thankfully, there are still true Buddhist monks around who genuinely believe in the concept of Dharma.

Back to the topic of Christianity, many of the Christians today are too fanatical in my opinion. Thanks to Saint Augustine (may he rot in hell), they have lost their respect for the religion's of other people. They are trying too hard to convert people to their “true” faith. Peer pressure, grand churches and gifted orators as pastors are used to convert lost souls to their faith. They are so successful that many of the Christians that I have spoken to don't seem to know what their religion is about. All they can describe to me is this warm abstract fuzzy feeling of love and forgiveness that they feel in church. To many of the born-again-evangelicals, questioning one’s faith is completely out of the question.

So to me, religion has been reduced to a shadow of its glorious past and many of its believers are following in the words of their ancestors rather than the word of God (if any).

Different Versions of Hell- Part 1

Today, I'm just going to do a LONG post based on PICTURES with commentaries (taken from Wikipedia) about the different versions of hell. Please click on the links if you want to read more. If I have made any errors or you disagree with my bias, please send me an email.

We have all been taught at one point of time or another that evil souls will be condemn in hell forever. So what exactly is hell? No one knows for sure, when I say this, I meant, no one has reported back in a verfiable manner what hell is like. How many versions of hell are there? Many! I'll explore some here.

Greek Hell

The deceased entered the underworld by crossing the Acheron, ferried across by Charon, who charged an obolus (a small coin) for passage placed in the mouth of the deceased by pious relatives. Paupers and the friendless gathered for a hundred years on the near shore according to Book VI of Vergil's Aeneid. Greeks offered propitiatory libations to prevent the deceased from returning to the upper world to "haunt" those who had not given them a proper burial. The far side of the river was guarded by Cerberus, the three-headed dog defeated by Heracles (Roman Hercules). Passing beyond Cerberus, the shades of the departed entered the land of the dead to be judged.

The five rivers of the Realm of Hades, and their symbolic meanings, are Acheron (the river of sorrow, or woe), Cocytus (lamentation), Phlegethon (fire), Lethe (oblivion), and Styx (hate). Styx forms the boundary between the upper and lower worlds.

The first region of Hades comprises the Fields of Asphodel, described in Odyssey xi, where the shades of heroes wander despondently among lesser spirits, who twitter around them like bats. Only libations of blood offered to them in the world of the living can reawaken in them for a time the sensations of humanity.

Beyond lay an area which could be taken for a euphonym of Pluto, whose own name was dread. There were two pools, that of Lethe, where the common souls flocked to erase all memory, and the pool of Mnemosyne ("memory"), where the initiates of the Mysteries drank instead. In the forecourt of the palace of Hades and Persephone sit the three judges of the Underworld: Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus. There at the trivium sacred to Hecate, where three roads meets, souls are judged, returned to the Fields of Asphodel if they are neither virtuous nor evil, sent by the road to Tartarus if they are impious or evil, or sent to Elysium (Islands of the Blessed) with the "blameless" heroes.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades

In this case, all of the dead have to pass through hell for judgement before they are reassigned to "a place of their deserving".

Ancient Egyptian Hell

When the body died, parts of its soul known as ka (body double) and the ba (personality) would go to the Kingdom of the Dead. While the soul dwelt in the Fields of Aaru, Osiris demanded work as payback for the protection he provided. Statues were placed in the tombs to serve as substitutes for the deceased.

Arriving at one's reward in afterlife was a demanding ordeal, requiring a sin-free heart and the ability to recite the spells, passwords, and formulae of the Book of the Dead. In the Hall of Two Truths, the deceased's heart was weighed against the Shu feather of truth and justice taken from the headdress of the goddess Ma'at. If the heart was lighter than the feather, they could pass on, but if it were heavier they would be devoured by the demon Ammit.

Egyptians also believed that being mummified was the only way to have an afterlife. Only if the corpse had been properly embalmed and entombed in a mastaba, could the dead live again in the Fields of Yalu and accompany the Sun on its daily ride. Due to the dangers the afterlife posed, the Book of the Dead was placed in the tomb with the body as well as food, jewelry, and 'curses'.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Ancient_Egypt

The crimes of those who are condemned to hell consist of nothing more and nothing less than having acted against the divine world order established at the beginning of creation. Hence, they have excluded themselves from ma'at, while at the same time revealing themselves as agents of chaos. After death, they became forever reduced to a state of nonbeing., which was the chaotic state of the cosmos before creation. For them, there is no renewal and no regeneration of life, but only a second, definitive death...

In every respect, the fate of the damned is the opposite of that of the blessed... when the damned died, their flesh was torn away by demons and their mummy wrappings were removed so that their bodies were left to decompose. In the underworld that the blessed successfully navigate, their order of things is reversed, even to the extent that the damned have to walk upside down, eat their own excrement and drink their own urine. Their hands are tied behind their backs, often around stakes. Their heads and limbs are severed from their bodies and their flesh is cut off their bones. Their hearts are removed and their ba-souls are separated from their bodies, forever unable to return to them. They even loose their shadows, which were considered an important part of the ancient Egyptian being. They have no air and suffer from hunger and thirst, as they receive no funerary offerings. Worst of all, they are denied the reviving light of the sun god, who ignores them, even as they cry out load and wail when he passes them in the underworld at night.

Taken from: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hell.htm

The Egyptian belief in the afterlife is very unique in a sense. Like the Greeks, they believed in the Journey through the underworld towards Judgement. However, they demanded the preservation of the body as a means of entering the afterlife. Somehow, over time, money could help you cheat death in these rites- more money means better mummification, so your chances of surviving an eternity is higher; more money means more amulets to ensure that everything is in your favor; more money means more funeral texts to extol your non-existant virtues to the Gods. I think the Gods are more discerning than that, but humans always like to cheat themselves.

Christian Hell
Unfortunately, the christian concept of Hell is a mess. I humbly beg forgiveness for my sarcasm, I can't help it- the christian beliefs have evolved a LOT over the centuries till the point that it no longer follows God's word. According to Christ, Judgement Day will come later (lord know when) where the Angels will seperate the damned from the righteous and throw them into a furnance of fire. Until that day, the dead will remain, well, dead. There is no mention or description about where or what the "waiting" room is. And I wonder if I will die a second death there, or will I just be charred to a piece of crisp bacon, be healed and thrown back in to repeat the cycle for all eternity. That wasn't mentioned specifically as well.

In the Book of Relevation, Judgement Day somehow mutated into a cosmic battle between Satan and his minions versus the Angels. Everyone will wait in hades for Judgement.

Centuries later, Hippolytus of Rome created the impression that in hades, the righteous are happily anticipating judgement day, whist the damned are tormented by the sight of the "lake of unquenchable fire" into which they are destined to be cast into. Somehow, God decide through Hippolytus that the furnance wasn't big enough, so a massive lake of fire was more economical. Somehow, God became this evil tyrant that made you watch your torture device before tossing you into it. That is really worse than death to me.

Centuries later, Saint Augustine (I still don't know how a lecherous pervert like him became a saint) proposed the concept of Original Sin where "the unbaptized go to hell, including infants, albeit with less suffering than is experienced by those guilty of actual sins". Basically, all non-believers are condemned to hell regardless of their moral character. I'm not quite sure how the concept of less suffering will work out. Will I burn at a higher temperature, so I'm reduced to nothing faster? Or will I burn at a lower temperature, so its not so hot, but I take a longer time to be reduced to nothing?

By the medieval era, Gregory of Nyssa's concept of Purgatory was finalized and further elaborated on as a "state of painful purification of the saved after life".
Adapted from personal knowledge and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Christianity

Naraka of Buddhism

Buddhism teaches that there are five (sometimes six) realms of rebirth, which can then be further subdivided into degrees of agony or pleasure. Of these realms, the hell realms, or Naraka, is the lowest realm of rebirth. Of the hell realms, the worst is Avīci or "endless suffering". The Buddha's disciple, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha on three occasions, as well as create a schism in the monastic order, is said to have been reborn in the Avici Hell.

However, like all realms of rebirth, rebirth in the Hell realms is not permanent, though suffering can persist for eons before being reborn again. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha teaches that eventually even Devadatta will become a Buddha himself, emphasizing the temporary nature of the Hell realms. Thus, Buddhism teaches to escape the endless migration of rebirths (both positive and negative) through the attainment of Nirvana.

The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha, according to the Ksitigarbha Sutra, made a great vow as a young girl to not reach Enlightenment until all beings were liberated from the Hell Realms or other unwholesome rebirths. In popular literature, Ksitigarbha travels to the Hell realms to teach and relieve beings of their suffering.

Taken from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism)

Buddhism has also evolved a lot over time. If Buddha still had a body to flip around in, he'll probably be tossing all over his grave. He created a philosophy that somehow mutated into people grovelling before statues of him today, begging for material wealth and blessings, the very things that he preached against.

According to tradition, the Buddha emphasized ethics and correct understanding. He questioned the average person's notions of divinity and salvation. He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens; and the Buddha is solely a guide and teacher for the sentient beings who must tread the path of Nirvāṇa (Pāli: Nibbāna) themselves to attain the spiritual awakening called bodhi and see truth and reality as it is. The Buddhist system of insight and meditation practice is not believed to have been revealed divinely, but by the understanding of the true nature of the mind, which must be discovered by personally treading a spiritual path guided by the Buddha's teachings.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

I'm very certain that the Naraka was not a concept handed down by Guatama Buddha himself, but a belief created by his disciples. It was probably to make Buddhism more appealing to Chinese and Hindu converts.

Hindu Hell (Naraka)

Early Vedic religion doesn't have a concept of Hell. Ṛg-veda mentions three realms, bhūr (the earth), svar (the sky) and bhuvas or antarikṣa (the middle area, i.e. air or atmosphere)). In later Hindu literature, especially the law books and Puranas, more realms are mentioned, including a realm similar to Hell, called naraka (in Devanāgarī: नरक). Yama as first born human (together with his twin sister Yamī) in virtue of precedence becomes ruler of men and a judge on their departure. Originally he resides in Heaven, but later, especially medieval traditions, mention his court in naraka.

In the law-books (smṛtis and dharma-sūtras, like the Manu-smṛti) naraka is a place of punishment for sins. It is a lower spiritual plane (called naraka-loka) where the spirit is judged, or partial fruits of karma affected in a next life. In Mahabharata there is a mention of the Pandavas going to Heaven and the Kauravas going to Hell. However for the small number of sins which they did commit in their lives, the Pandavas had to undergo hell for a short time. Hells are also described in various Puranas and other scriptures. Garuda Purana gives a detailed account of Hell, its features and enlists amount of punishment for most of the crimes like a modern day penal code.

It is believed that people who commit sins go to Hell and have to go through punishments in accordance with the sins they committed. The god Yamarāja, who is also the god of death, presides over Hell. Detailed accounts of all the sins committed by an individual are kept by Chitragupta, who is the record keeper in Yama's court. Chitragupta reads out the sins committed and Yama orders appropriate punishments to be given to individuals. These punishments include dipping in boiling oil, burning in fire, torture using various weapons, etc. in various Hells. Individuals who finish their quota of the punishments are reborn in accordance with their balance of karma. All created beings are imperfect and thus have at least one sin to their record; but if one has generally led a pious life, one ascends to svarga, a temporary realm of enjoinment similar to Paradise, after a brief period of expiation in Hell and before the next reincarnation according to the law of karma.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Hinduism

I like this concept the most because it is realistic in its realization that all beings have at least ONE sin on their record. We are all flawed human beings aren't we...

I'll talk about Islamic and Taoist hell another time if I can't get guest posters.

Guest Post- On Belief

WRITTEN BY ED CHNG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a matter of clarification, let it be known that I am neither religious, nor am I a spirited atheist of the ilk of Eric. Religion interests me purely at an intellectual level, with such an interest primarily stemming from how much religion affects literature. Secondly, I do not claim to quote reliable statistics to back myself up, neither do I lay claim have a take on a higher truth. Any conception of the truth is, after all, inherently unstable.

I start by quoting J.M. Coetzee, who could not have accented it better:

I have no desire to associate myself with the people behind the Intelligent Design movement. Nevertheless, I continue to find evolution by random mutation and natural selection not just unconvincing but preposterous as an account of how complex organisms come into being. As long as there is not one of us who has the faintest idea of how to go about constructing a housefly from scratch, how can we disparage as intellectually naive the conclusion that the houseful must have been put together by an intelligence of a higher order than our own?

As a rule of thumb, one of the premises on which the scientific discipline operates is that what cannot be proven to be true, is untrue. Unfortunately, such a ‘rule’ has been elevated to into what Coetzee calls ‘epistemological axioms’, or in other words something close to a ‘universal truth’. Such a measure of validity has been advanced onto all accounts of life, above and beyond the discipline of science. It is one favourite argument of atheists, to argue that if you cannot see God, or if his existence cannot be proven, He does not exist.

I would like the militant atheists also to consider the possibility that we human beings do not even come close to comprehending the exact degree of complexity that the universe holds. In short, we know, and are capable of knowing, far less than we would like to know about how the world came to be and what kind of beings we are. It can therefore be said, that this is one yay for religion.

Nevertheless, the concept of Intelligent Design is still regarded very much as a creation myth, rejected in schools as a credible alternative to Evolutionism. Most schools do not even explore the theory of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Yet, as Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas and author of various books on this subject succinctly puts it, “intelligent design is not open to being tested experimentally and has no basis in science… (therefore) such treatment is not disrespectful of people’s religious beliefs, but simply intellectually honest.”

Playing the amateur sociologist, the functionalist theory with regards to religion holds that religion plays the important and much under-appreciated role of ensuring social solidarity and cohesion. Stretching the term ‘religion’, one could also take the communal fervour excited by events like concerts or football matches to mean that the very events themselves are somewhat religious. At least I know for me, I have idols to worship and rituals to follow when I watch Chelsea play. Lucky shirt on, beer always after chips. Religion, therefore, can loosely be defined as any such thing that evokes in one a belief in and of anything.

So, is not the fervent and ardent, not to mention collective belief that there is no God, or as Friedrich Nietzsche famously proclaimed, that “God is Dead”, in a sociological sense at least a religion? Quasi-religion, some may call it. My point is, that atheism and it’s beliefs in the absence of God as well as the fierce determination to prove themselves right has a lot in common with what we may call the traditional institutions of ‘religion’. Atheists hide behind supposed logic and reasoning, which I personally purport, because of the abovementioned elevation of scientific inquiry to the level of ‘common sense’, to be flawed. Is not a belief that science can magically provide all answers, even as we ourselves do not comprehend what we do not yet know, in itself a leap of faith?

I do personally believe, even if I am not myself a believer or religious by any consideration, that the very concept of religion is positive. While it is true that people throughout history and even today abuse religion for their own negative ends of violence, such as against those with contrary beliefs, or wrongful subjugation of certain groups of people like women, that itself is no fault of religion. The blame has to lie squarely at the criminal religious leaders.

So, live and let live. I hate the way some ‘evangelists’ have their tongues down my throat. Yet neither do I thus believe in the cause of the atheists. We all have different beliefs, and these beliefs contribute in no small part towards who we are, for better or for worse, whether or not it is huge and is institutionalised globally or it’s just some idiosyncratic OCD quirk. The religious people (in the traditional sense) have their gods, the militant atheists believe in overthrowing religion. And I believe in beer.

In the course of this rambling entry, I hope my other point has not been lost. It goes along the lines of: Don’t be complacent with whatever version of the truth you think is right. The very nature of truth is precarious, and whatever we know of everything is simply what everyone else accepts to be right.

We all have our lucky shirts, lucky underwear, et al. And I believe that when Chelsea win I must not brush my teeth for that particular night, for good luck. The whole world tells me I’m disgusting, but I simply shrug and move on.

Taken from: http://blueballs.wordpress.com/