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/

It's Not Just About Sex.

“The john, the client, these individuals are usually men who pay for the right to do whatever he desires to the supply. The john is usually the guy next door. He’s someone’s husband, brother, uncle. He may be a doctor, owns his own business, be a painter, a carpenter. The john may desire to tie a woman or a girl up, he may not want to use a condom, he might want to rape the supply over and over until his desire is met. When he is finished with the supply he gives her or her pimp trafficker the agreed upon money. He puts his suit back on, goes home, tells his wife or girlfriend he loves her, kisses his daughter goodnight and goes to bed. As though nothing has happened. He feels justified for what he just did and never thought about how the supply feels. He paid for what he did.”

- Vednita Carter, Survivor and Founder of Breaking Free, St Paul, USA.
(http://www.womenlobby.org/site/video_en.asp)

There are many aspects to prostitution—the social and psychological causes and effects on individuals and society. I didn’t know where to start, and then I recalled a statement similar to “If there are no prostitutes, then rape cases will increase.” I had no idea who came up with such a simplistic statement, and DeMaitre suggested that it might have stemmed from the belief that “all men need sexual relief”.

Generally, all “normal” sexually mature humans (males and females) need some sort of sexual relief. Some do it with their lovers, some go for the quick fix (i.e. prostitution), some with inanimate objects… Others who do not accept their need for sexual relief may develop defense mechanisms, from writing sexual poems to totally abstaining from sex. Finally, if you are a sex addict, you need treatment, not prostitutes.

I do not think that if there are no prostitutes, rape cases will increase.

Firstly, the act of raping is abnormal. Many rapists were victims of sexual assaults or abusive relationships. Clearly, rapists have psychological issues which need to be addressed. Therefore, raping, or sexual assault, is different from paying for sex. In other words, if these men (your loving fathers, husbands, boyfriends, and sons) do not have access to prostitutes, it does not mean that they will go rape someone. Men who patronize prostitutes are not necessarily rapists, and rapists do not necessarily patronize prostitutes.

Secondly, it is not true that only men who are sexually deprived patronize prostitutes. Like I said, many of these Johns may have loving families or a sexually active life with their partners. Then why visit prostitutes? One of the lamest answers I’d heard of was “I love my girlfriend and I want her to be a virgin until after we get married. So I visit a prostitute for sexual relief.” Should I give this gentleman a round of applause for his warped concept of love, sex, loyalty and virginity? Then we have other men who seek a boost in self-worth, either because they have attachment issues with their spouses, or because they need some sort of re-assurance for their manhood. These men too, do not turn into rapists overnight if they have no access to prostitutes.

Lastly, prostitutes get raped too. Let me remind you again, raping is sexual assault, and most women, including prostitutes, do not enjoy being raped. It’s emotionally and physically painful and traumatic. Prostitutes are at a higher risk for rape because of the nature of their job. Most Johns view prostitutes as commodities which they have unquestionable sexual access to. In addition, pimps almost literally “own” their prostitutes, and therefore see any action directed towards the prostitutes as justifiable, including rape.

The relationship between rape and prostitution is not simplistic. If it is, then why are there still rape cases in nations with legalized prostitution? Social systems, beliefs, media, education, economy, and many other aspects of society contribute to human-trafficking and prostitution. It’s not just about sex and sexual relief.

Academics, Intellectuals, Scholars, and Smart People in General

I’ve once again come back to the issue of Intelligence. (De Maitre’s right in a sense, it’s not the end of the “What is” series)

But this time, I’m going to talk about something more practical. Specifically, HOW to be an intelligent person.

Not that I am THAT intelligent to teach what intelligence really is, but my point is to give an idea that intelligence isn’t just how many As one got for the exams, but much more.

But first, let’s look at the general culture about intelligence in our society today.

It’s been covered by many posts in this blog. De Maitre has talked about the attitudes towards intelligence, and how it’s a social construct used by the “smart” to call other people “stupid”. De Maitre, together with Ivan in a guest post, also explored the problem of elitism in Singapore. Meanwhile, I talked about the superficial understanding of intelligence in our society today.

I’m going further. I’m going to talk about elitism in Singapore as a matter of national policy.

One of the key “ideologies” (in inverted commas because strictly speaking, Singapore does not have an official political ideology, unlike say, N Korea) of the Singapore ruling elite is that of meritocracy. The principles of meritocracy are good. Meritocracy gives people positions or responsibilities based on ability and effort.

To realise that it’s good, imagine a time and place, where someone becomes a Minister, or General of the Army, or something like that, simply because he’s the Prime Minister’s brother or best friend. There’s a term for it: nepotism. The problem is, what if the brother or friend is a good-for-nothing?

But the trouble with meritocracy is this: with what do you measure ability? How could someone prove that he/she has the ability?

So here comes the fetish for exam results, for certificates, for titles like Doctor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor Emeritus, etc. You get the idea.

The reason is simple. You can’t really prove that you are good at something simply by saying it, but you can prove that you were a uni grad with your degree scroll (a real one, that is, sadly for the students at Brookes), and when you're addressed as “Dr so-and-so”, everyone knows you’re somebody.

So the point is, meritocracy can easily be construed as elitism, when ability came to be interpreted by A+, A, A- etc. Grades can tell us something about effort, and arguably ability, but there are so many other important things that degrees (and grades in general) cannot tell us.

To make things worse, because these measures of ability became so important, people came to misunderstand their true meaning. People only see titles and qualifications as status symbols, but forget that these titles and qualifications carry with them important responsibilities. There are parents that want their children to be doctors or academics because it looks good on them, without knowing what doctors and academics actually do, or actually get for their work.

Doctors do get fair pay, but there’s a mile of difference between a family doctor and a specialist. Academics do get fair pay, but they have to do a lot of work for it, and contrary to popular belief, it’s not an “iron rice bowl.”

This is where intellectual snobbery comes in.


So, how to be an intellectual person?

Let’s first identify all the nuances.

What is the difference between confidence and arrogance?
What is the difference between conviction and stubbornness?
What is the difference between humility and deference?
What is the difference between relevance and irrelevance?

Everyone has his/her own answer, but here’s what I think.

Confidence comes from knowing your stuff. Arrogance comes from thinking ONLY YOU know your stuff. Smart people wouldn’t be doing that, simply because no one has a monopoly on knowledge.

Conviction lies in respect for evidence. Stubbornness resist the weight of evidence.
When the “ideal” (again in inverted commas, because ideals are themselves subjective) intellectual is humble, he/she is willing to learn from others, and from him/herself. Because no one has a monopoly on knowledge, no one can also claim to know everything, and no one can claim to have known everything better than anyone else.

As the old Chinese saying goes, “for every mountain there is a mountain yet taller.”

The difference between relevance and irrelevance?

Just read my post, What is Intelligence.


To end off, here’s another story from the philosopher Zhuang-zi (how I admire Zhuang-zi, all the interesting stories):

During spring, the yellow river will flood the surrounding plains. The river god travelled along the river on a tour, and he was very pleased with himself, and said: “I’ve covered the land as far as the eye can see. How great I am!”

But when he reached the mouth of the river, and saw the sea, he sighed: “If I haven’t been to the sea, I’ll have been deceiving myself. The sea is so much bigger!”

But then the sea god came to him and told him: “there is something even bigger than me. It’s heaven and earth. Heaven and earth created all things, they are the greatest.”

The moral of the story? For something good, there’s always something better.

Reminiscence- Good ol' Sesame Street and the Muppet Show

I think I'm getting old... I'm starting to miss watching Sesame Street and the Muppet Show, especially five of my favorite characters- Cookie Monster, Grover, Kermit, swedish chef and MISS PIGY!! I'm posting up a few clips to share with our readers. Hopefully, it will bring back some memories and a lot of laughter back into our lives.

Cookie Monster in the Library

I love Cookie Monster's obsession with cookies. His entire brain is centered on the word COOKIES- nothing else makes sense or matters beyond it.

Grover is all out of food

I always liked the sound of Grover's pattering feet and his attempts to use "cheem" English.

Grover And A Fly In My Soup

Grover and the term "the customer is always right". Ironically, the soup looks more like mashed potatos or oats...

Kermit And Elmo Discuss Happy And Sad

This is memorable because its the first time I see Elmo the bipolar monster...

Muppet's rendition of "Temptation"


The Muppet Show- "Never smile at a crocodile"

It's a cute song that always puts a smile on my face...

The Muppet Show: Swedish Chef and Hot Sauce

This mad chef never fails to make me laugh at his unorthodox cooking methods.

The Evolution of Male-Female Relationships in the Modern Context

Typical of WK to come up with such long titles, but the topic I’m going to explore is something that has been talked about very often, and which De Maitre had an interesting interpretation of:

Relationships (Romantic, sexual, platonic, whatever) between males and females.

To be very honest, I’m not been in any relationship, so I don’t have the “authority” to talk about boy-girl relationships. But I certainly can talk about it using a sociological, philosophical, even technological approach, as De Maitre had done.

The points that De Maitre had identified are as such:

First, women have long been subordinated by men, and hence they desire and deserve freedom.
Second, technology and social change has helped free many women from that subordination, and created that freedom.
Third, because of the first and second point, women don’t really need men.


First, it’s true that women were subordinated by men for too long in history. Women had no legal or constitutional status, and in many places and times, no social status as well. And times haven’t changed much since. Women in many places are free, but millions of women are still subordinated to men, often with saddening and horrifying consequences.

Second, the same millions of women are still subordinated because technology and social change hasn’t reached them. Even when it did, enforcement is a key problem in spreading freedom for women.

Take for example, in India, child marriages (imagine marrying your eight-month old daughter to a, say, eight year old boy?) and sati (a form of ritual suicide where the widow immolates herself in her husband’s funeral pyre), and in China, female infanticide (killing of babies), still very prevalent in rural areas today.

In addition, the same standards for female equality in say, Europe, are unrealistic for other parts of the world, where the problems are much worse. In Africa for example, female genital mutilation (female circumcision is one) is a major problem.

Social, constitutional, legal, economic equality for women cannot be expected without first dealing with this more prevalent and dangerous problem. One should be realistic and aim for gradual, marginal improvements.


Alright, that’s all for the depressing stuff. So what IS freedom for women? I think it’s the right to an unmolested life.

Why the word “unmolested”?

“Unmolested” has many important connotations.

It has the idea of protection physiologically, where women have rights over their own bodies. If you know how female genital mutilation works, trust me, you’ll be horrified.

It has the idea of protection psychologically, where women have freedom of thought and expression.

It has the idea of protection socially, where women can govern their own lives without the pervasion of irrelevant social doctrine.


So, do women need men? And vice versa?

De Maitre has pointed out that technology has created the scenario where women are no longer dependent on men. But the same can be said of men to women.

The thing is, technology allows us to create the ideal for both genders. It reminds me of Japanese pop culture, where they explore the idea of having robot boyfriends or girlfriends.

Like the J-drama Absolute Boyfriend, and the anime Chobits.

Technology is fundamentally value neutral. People sculpt ideals and values into value-free technology, deriving different meanings from them.

As De Maitre said, “They can be programmed to be faithful, loving, caring, considerate and generous…”

I say, for men programming female robots, “they can be programmed to be caring, considerate, and cute…”

So De Maitre is right in this respect.

But there is something slightly more to it, in my opinion. This is because there is a possibility for a different outcome.

I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, Robots, Their Quest to be Human and the Meaning of Humanity, robots can help us understand more about ourselves. Here, our understanding of human relationships deepens when we recognize the imperfections of robots in their perfection.

The perfect boyfriend or girlfriend, as created by technology, can fulfill one’s every dream and desire.

But ultimately, one can get too caught up with the idea of perfection, and forget that imperfect humans exist alongside oneself, not to mention that one is him/herself an imperfect human.

Technology has not so much freed women from men, than both men and women from themselves and each other. Given this freedom, wouldn’t it be possible that humans can explore their relationships further?

Overdoing sexual vitality- Baby Soup!

Some time ago, I received an email from my good friend, SH. It involved the desperate pursuit of the Chinese for sexual virility. It was taken from a news report that Chinese are now turning to “Baby Soup” to boost their sex life. Yes, you saw the word “baby”, it’s not about the portion of the soup, it’s about the CONTENT of the soup. They use human fetuses to cook the soup.

Is that gross to you? If that’s any consolation to you, they only use fetuses of aborted or miscarried babies. Due to the graphic nature of this report, I will not be posting up any pictures or talking much about it. I’ll leave you to read the report on your own if you think you can stomach it. [Read it here]

It costs approximately SGD800 for a bowl. Is this truly a sign of desperation? The Chinese have been known for eating weird stuff for their aphrodisiacal properties- tiger penis, bull penis, dog penis, deer penis, etc… But this is really going too far- its cannibalism!

A factory manager was interviewed and he testified that it is effective because he is a frequent customer.

It is a delicacy whereby expensive herbs are added to boil the baby with chicken meat for eight hours of boiling and steaming.

He pointed to his second wife next to him. She is 19 years old. The 62-year-old man testified that they have sex everyday.

The Chinese are legendary when it comes virility- the more children the wealthier you are, more sex means better health, etc. They like deflowering virgins because they think it will bring them vitality and youth. I think drinking herbal soups made from babies is really overdoing it. I hope their nuts will fall off from overuse.

Censorship Gone WRONG

In this clip, a police officer in charge of the 911 line refused to send an ambulance when he encountered a girl who was swearing off the roof in her panic when her father collapsed in the kitchen from a severe seizure. This behavior is typical of an average teenager in the USA, especially when they are placed in a stressful situation. Instead of asking her what was her emergency, he focused on telling her off for swearing. Ironically, he was making her a lot more hostile in her desperation to get help for her father. When she ran down to the police station to get help, she was arrested on charges that don’t even exist.

I don’t approve of swearing badly on a daily basis which I know many teenagers undergo as a phase. However, in times of stress, it’s perfectly normal for people to swear nonstop. I don’t understand why can’t the official be more understanding during an emergency? Why didn’t he ask her what was the problem she was facing?

That is NOT how you teach people to mind their tongues when talking to a representative of the Law. NO. This officer nearly caused the death of a taxpayer just because of his pettiness. Imagine calling 911 when discover that your mum has just collapsed on the floor from a heart attack. The officer refuses to help you out and you have to waste 15 precious minutes trying to force him/her to cooperate and send an ambulance?

I hope they are successful in their attempts to sue this cop. STUPID upstarts like him should never be allowed to work in the police force because they lack sympathy and they focus on the wrong thing most of the time. Use the correct concept for the correct situation.