No religious triumvirate has ever exerted a more powerful, more
sinister, more corrupt, more bellicose, more destabilizing, more global,
more encompassing reach than the emergence of three religious movements
that have made an undeniable impact in the history of Western
Civilization in particular and World History in general than the rise of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
All three religions
share a common denominator, that Moses received the commandments of God
in a mountain in what is today Palestine. They also rose from a region
that was essentially rural, arid and agricultural.All three are rooted
around a set of sacred text, each based on the earlier religion.
Judaism
is the earliest of the Abrahamic traditions and is based on the Torah.
The first five books of the Christian Bible. The Torah was written in
Ancient Hebrew and were written by various authors, known by some
Biblical scholars only by their one lettered initials "J," "E," "P," and
"D."
Because of these multiplicity of authors, the
Torah is actually replete with contradictions, inconsistencies and plain
impossibilities.
For example, the common authorship of the Bible is by Rabbinical tradition attributed to Moses, but chapter 34 of Deuteronomy describes the death of Moses in the third person. Of course, some would say that the last chapter could not have been written by Moses, all other books though of the Pentateuch were his work. Still others would say that chapter 34 was written by one of Moses' disciples.
Another glaring proof that the Torah could not have been written by Moses is the account of the world's creation presented in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. In chapter 1, god created the world in seven days beginning with (I am using the Good News Bible by the Philippine Bible Society):
First day: light
Second day: sky (which is a dome which separated the water above and the water below)
Third day: land (earth) (by commanding the water below the dome to come in one place) and plants
Fourth day: stars (actually lights which appear at night and light which appear during the day)
Fifth day: sea animals and birds
Sixth day: land animals, humans (both male and female at the same time)
Seventh day: god rested (if he is omnipotent, he does not need rest and he could have created everything just by willing it).
However, in chapter 2 of Genesis, the order of creation seems to have been re-arranged, with god creating man first (yes, without the woman), remember in chapter 1 he created man both female and male at the same time. Here, the patriarchal bent of the early Jews were letting themselves be known.
Second to be created: fruit bearing trees
Third to be created: animals and birds
Fourth to be created: woman
If Genesis were even remotely written by one author, in this case purportedly by Moses, then how the heck could he present two conflicting accounts of the same event in succeeding chapters. At least if the second account were five chapters apart, I could say Moses might have forgotten what he earlier wrote. Then again, how could he have forgotten if he were inspired by god while writing the account in the first place. Clearly this is mere rehashing of "facts."
Christianity emerged from the town of Bethlehem with the birth of Jesus. A Jew who was born to humble parents (at least that's what the Bible account says he is). He is reputed to have died at 33 years old. He was born to a virgin mother (not much different from the myth making by the North Korean regime about the sacred birth of Kim Jong-il). Not much is known about his father, Joseph, who is only mentioned in passing.
The books of the New Testament were written at least 100 years after the death of Christ. And like the old testament, is not much consistent. It seems that contradictions is the rule among the books of the Bible. This is evident, as pointed out by Christopher Hitchens in his book, God is not Great, that Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the Virgin birth or the genealogy of Jesus and their account of the "Flight to Egypt." If these were the works of men inspired by god, it seems to be either god made a mistake or the "inspired men" were at best sleepy when the supposed inspirations were being made.
Islam is probably the most militant and radical of the three religious traditions. It was founded by Mohammad, an illiterate shepherd who lived in Arabia and denied in 632 AD (using the Gregorian calendar). According to Muslims, Mohammad received the word of god as contained in the Koran verbatim, although it is known that the Koran is another plagiarism of certain Jewish and Christian works like the Torah and the Bible. As Hitchens pointed out, he was inspired to write the words of God which were already written by no less than two earlier religions. How crazy is that? To top it all, Mohammad's supposed words, known as hadiths, were written exactly hundreds of years after his demise. In fact, the first accounts of Mohammad's life were only written 120 years after his death. And the written Arabic which is now used to present the Koran was only standardized in the late 9th century. Not much needs to be said therefore as to its supposed "truths." The Koran, of all religious texts of the Abrahamic traditions, clearly is the least credible. Notwithstanding the claims it has attributed to itself, it is simply preposterous to be generous about it.
Huwebes, Pebrero 28, 2013
Miyerkules, Pebrero 27, 2013
The Invention of God: The Beginnings
God is man himself hoping for the best while living in a cruel and impersonal world.
The history of man is the history of the rise of God, propounded by man, made powerful by man, created by man. The great French philosopher Voltaire once said that "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." And boy did man invent God. Across the centuries a panoply, indeed, a pantheon of gods rose and fell, from the intrigue ridden gods of Ancient Greece to the gloomy, vengeful, almost neurotic god of the Abrahamic traditions to the 230 million all-purpose gods of the Hindu faith, man created a concept that will shape his history and has shaped its history for the last 5,000 years and is undoubtedly continuing to shape man's history.
For all the talk about god, there is always one thing that comes apparent - god shares many characteristics, qualities, even attitudes of man. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition insists that we were made in the image and likeness of god, and by that alone, then the Judeo-Christian God is a sinful , frail , weak god. Man is sinful, frail and weak. The absolutist bent of the Abrahamic god reminds me not of a transcendent, supernatural, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god but a crazed, power-grabbing, megalomaniac middle eastern dictator of the likes of Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad or even the gruesomely tyrannical Joseph Stalin or the bloodletting Adolf Hitler or for a classical bent, the insanely macabre Emperor Nero.
At best, the Abrahamic god is nothing more than a vain, moody, jealous, unreasonable, really psychotic god who vacillates between giving life to the dead to encouraging genocide, the murder of prostitutes, adulterers, homosexuals and those who work on Sundays. It would be safe to say that the Abrahamic traditions is psychosis on steroids perpetuated on a mass-scale that would be the envy of Adolf Hitler.
Bertrand Russel once said that "Religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature." At an earlier time in the evolution of man, there was a daily struggle to literally live through the night. Man can only be said to be really, really afraid of the world around him. The uncertainty of finding the next meal and the certainty that one could be some wild animals meal was paramount and governed his life, his existence and his psychological construct. There must be something that is over and above all the feebleness of life, as Shakespeare would say in Macbeth, "Life is but a walking shadow, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The invention of god was not only inevitable, it would have been virtually necessary to make sense of the world around him, of his life, of his mental well-being.
The invention of God began with the invention of myths. Joseph Campbell in the book The Power of Myth described myths as clues to the spiritual potentialities of human life, these spiritual potentialities were the seeds that sprang the rise of the god concept. As a secular humanist, I no longer believe in a spiritual nature in the sense of being connected to a higher being or the existence of any consciousness apart from man (until of course disproved by science at a later time), but rather, I define spirituality as man's quest to make sense of the world, in a way, it is a search for meaning. However, Campbell continues to say that myths are not the search for meaning but the experience of meaning. Which I might add, is finding meaning in the experiences of life. Which goes to say that it is still a way to search for meaning. For as man searches for his meaning, he experiences life and makes meaning out of it.
The great French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre says that man is thrown into the world and that it is up to him to find that meaning. Man creates his meaning, as Sartre would put it. He alone is responsible for the meaning he attaches to his life. The invention of god is the making of meaning of man's existence. Without the god-concept and without the benefit of science and mathematics, man in his infancy had to do with myths. This is man protecting his psycho-emotional state. This is what Russell meant when he said that "religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature."
The invention of god gave man meaning, purpose and anchor in what Thomas Hobbes called the "short, poor, nasty, brutish and solitary" life of man. God is man externalized, empowered, certain, in-control, powerful, eternal, and enabled. From a sense of utter lawlessness in the steppes of Africa from which man rose to preeminence of the world to the struggle to find a sense of meaning - the god-concept had to be invented.
A Youtube video entitled "God's God" perfectly, succinctly, and comprehensively captures the gist of what the business of god-making is all about.
The history of man is the history of the rise of God, propounded by man, made powerful by man, created by man. The great French philosopher Voltaire once said that "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." And boy did man invent God. Across the centuries a panoply, indeed, a pantheon of gods rose and fell, from the intrigue ridden gods of Ancient Greece to the gloomy, vengeful, almost neurotic god of the Abrahamic traditions to the 230 million all-purpose gods of the Hindu faith, man created a concept that will shape his history and has shaped its history for the last 5,000 years and is undoubtedly continuing to shape man's history.
For all the talk about god, there is always one thing that comes apparent - god shares many characteristics, qualities, even attitudes of man. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian tradition insists that we were made in the image and likeness of god, and by that alone, then the Judeo-Christian God is a sinful , frail , weak god. Man is sinful, frail and weak. The absolutist bent of the Abrahamic god reminds me not of a transcendent, supernatural, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god but a crazed, power-grabbing, megalomaniac middle eastern dictator of the likes of Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad or even the gruesomely tyrannical Joseph Stalin or the bloodletting Adolf Hitler or for a classical bent, the insanely macabre Emperor Nero.
At best, the Abrahamic god is nothing more than a vain, moody, jealous, unreasonable, really psychotic god who vacillates between giving life to the dead to encouraging genocide, the murder of prostitutes, adulterers, homosexuals and those who work on Sundays. It would be safe to say that the Abrahamic traditions is psychosis on steroids perpetuated on a mass-scale that would be the envy of Adolf Hitler.
Bertrand Russel once said that "Religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature." At an earlier time in the evolution of man, there was a daily struggle to literally live through the night. Man can only be said to be really, really afraid of the world around him. The uncertainty of finding the next meal and the certainty that one could be some wild animals meal was paramount and governed his life, his existence and his psychological construct. There must be something that is over and above all the feebleness of life, as Shakespeare would say in Macbeth, "Life is but a walking shadow, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The invention of god was not only inevitable, it would have been virtually necessary to make sense of the world around him, of his life, of his mental well-being.
The invention of God began with the invention of myths. Joseph Campbell in the book The Power of Myth described myths as clues to the spiritual potentialities of human life, these spiritual potentialities were the seeds that sprang the rise of the god concept. As a secular humanist, I no longer believe in a spiritual nature in the sense of being connected to a higher being or the existence of any consciousness apart from man (until of course disproved by science at a later time), but rather, I define spirituality as man's quest to make sense of the world, in a way, it is a search for meaning. However, Campbell continues to say that myths are not the search for meaning but the experience of meaning. Which I might add, is finding meaning in the experiences of life. Which goes to say that it is still a way to search for meaning. For as man searches for his meaning, he experiences life and makes meaning out of it.
The great French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre says that man is thrown into the world and that it is up to him to find that meaning. Man creates his meaning, as Sartre would put it. He alone is responsible for the meaning he attaches to his life. The invention of god is the making of meaning of man's existence. Without the god-concept and without the benefit of science and mathematics, man in his infancy had to do with myths. This is man protecting his psycho-emotional state. This is what Russell meant when he said that "religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature."
The invention of god gave man meaning, purpose and anchor in what Thomas Hobbes called the "short, poor, nasty, brutish and solitary" life of man. God is man externalized, empowered, certain, in-control, powerful, eternal, and enabled. From a sense of utter lawlessness in the steppes of Africa from which man rose to preeminence of the world to the struggle to find a sense of meaning - the god-concept had to be invented.
A Youtube video entitled "God's God" perfectly, succinctly, and comprehensively captures the gist of what the business of god-making is all about.
Martes, Pebrero 26, 2013
The Masculine Bias of the Philippine Justice System
Last February 23 was a very interesting and thought inducing experience for me, and I dare say, for my entire class in Legal Logic and Technique. Using Toulmin's Model of presenting arguments, we were given cases by our professor upon which to analyze. The end-result would be a presentation of the merits of the case for and against it using Toulmin's Model.
The cases were those of Rommel Silverio versus Republic (G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007) and Republic versus Jennifer B. Cagandahan (G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008). The Silverio case is about an individual who had undergone a sex reassignment surgery and was petitioning the Supreme Court to have his name and sex changed to reflect his transition from male to female. In said case, the Court rejected the petitioner's prayer arguing, rightly unfortunately, that there is no legal basis for such endeavor. The main crux of the Court's argument is is R.A. 9048, Section 2(c) which prohibits the changing of nationality, age, status or SEX in the civil registry. On the other hand, the Cagandahan case is about a genetically female individual who has developed a condition known and certified by a medical certificate as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). Such condition predisposes the individual to produce excessive sex hormones, in the case of Cagandahan, there was an excess of the production of androgens, the male hormone, this resulted in the petitioner developing masculine characteristics and the stunting of her breast development, the arresting of her ovarian structures, and absence of menstruation. For all intents and purposes, the petitioner thought of herself as male and adopted its corresponding social roles, she also looked more or less masculine. In said case, the court agreed with the petitioner's prayer that her name and sex be changed from female to male.
It is worth noting that in both cases, there was actually no legal basis to grant the prayers of both parties. As mentioned earlier, the governing law regarding changes in name and sex as it appears on the Civil Register is R.A. 9048 and it specifically prohibits the changing of nationality, age, status or SEX. However, in the Cagandahan case, the Court ruled in the petitioner's favor. The main reason for the Court's decision is basically on the premise that since the petitioner considered himself and lived as a male, considering also that she has CAH and that anyway her body is, although genetically female, effectively more tilted to being male as her female reproductive organs are non-functioning and undeveloped, then she should be allowed to live as a male and correspondingly, be allowed to change her name and sex as it appears in the civil registry.
R.A. 9048 speaks of no qualifiers for the grand of name and sex change in that it just prohibits the same. However, in the Cagandahan case, there seems to be a bias towards a "change" to being male. Although in the Cagandahan case the petitioner did not really do anything active towards her body, unlike in the Silverio case that a medical procedure was performed to anatomically change the birth genitalia of the petitioner, still, in both cases, the petitioner's were moving for a change to the gender they most identified with. It is worth remembering that in the Cagandahan case, the petitioner is identified to be genetically female - the court therefore is redefining what femaleness or maleness for that matter really is. In the Silverio case, the petition was rejected because there is no legal basis for the move, citing that reasons of equity cannot be basis of granting the petition. But this is exactly what happened to the Cagandahan case, reasons of equity, although not equivocally articulated, was the basis for the grant of the petition. Jennifer Cagandahan is genetically female although her female sex organs were undeveloped and ambiguous. Rommel Silverio is genetically male, although he had them changed to female though an operation.
The only difference therefore between the two cases is that one actively changed her sex while the other relied on the ambiguity of a medical condition - nevertheless, both has no legal basis yet the Cagandahan case was acted on positively. There is only one conclusion - the Court is biased towards the male sex. Once again, latent and sublime sexism reveals itself in the most auspicious and cunning way cloaked under the banner of legalistic foreplay.
It is sad that in the 21st century, the long running animosity and bias towards half of the human race is still alive and running - in a country that claims to be republican, secular and democratic.
The cases were those of Rommel Silverio versus Republic (G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007) and Republic versus Jennifer B. Cagandahan (G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008). The Silverio case is about an individual who had undergone a sex reassignment surgery and was petitioning the Supreme Court to have his name and sex changed to reflect his transition from male to female. In said case, the Court rejected the petitioner's prayer arguing, rightly unfortunately, that there is no legal basis for such endeavor. The main crux of the Court's argument is is R.A. 9048, Section 2(c) which prohibits the changing of nationality, age, status or SEX in the civil registry. On the other hand, the Cagandahan case is about a genetically female individual who has developed a condition known and certified by a medical certificate as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). Such condition predisposes the individual to produce excessive sex hormones, in the case of Cagandahan, there was an excess of the production of androgens, the male hormone, this resulted in the petitioner developing masculine characteristics and the stunting of her breast development, the arresting of her ovarian structures, and absence of menstruation. For all intents and purposes, the petitioner thought of herself as male and adopted its corresponding social roles, she also looked more or less masculine. In said case, the court agreed with the petitioner's prayer that her name and sex be changed from female to male.
It is worth noting that in both cases, there was actually no legal basis to grant the prayers of both parties. As mentioned earlier, the governing law regarding changes in name and sex as it appears on the Civil Register is R.A. 9048 and it specifically prohibits the changing of nationality, age, status or SEX. However, in the Cagandahan case, the Court ruled in the petitioner's favor. The main reason for the Court's decision is basically on the premise that since the petitioner considered himself and lived as a male, considering also that she has CAH and that anyway her body is, although genetically female, effectively more tilted to being male as her female reproductive organs are non-functioning and undeveloped, then she should be allowed to live as a male and correspondingly, be allowed to change her name and sex as it appears in the civil registry.
R.A. 9048 speaks of no qualifiers for the grand of name and sex change in that it just prohibits the same. However, in the Cagandahan case, there seems to be a bias towards a "change" to being male. Although in the Cagandahan case the petitioner did not really do anything active towards her body, unlike in the Silverio case that a medical procedure was performed to anatomically change the birth genitalia of the petitioner, still, in both cases, the petitioner's were moving for a change to the gender they most identified with. It is worth remembering that in the Cagandahan case, the petitioner is identified to be genetically female - the court therefore is redefining what femaleness or maleness for that matter really is. In the Silverio case, the petition was rejected because there is no legal basis for the move, citing that reasons of equity cannot be basis of granting the petition. But this is exactly what happened to the Cagandahan case, reasons of equity, although not equivocally articulated, was the basis for the grant of the petition. Jennifer Cagandahan is genetically female although her female sex organs were undeveloped and ambiguous. Rommel Silverio is genetically male, although he had them changed to female though an operation.
The only difference therefore between the two cases is that one actively changed her sex while the other relied on the ambiguity of a medical condition - nevertheless, both has no legal basis yet the Cagandahan case was acted on positively. There is only one conclusion - the Court is biased towards the male sex. Once again, latent and sublime sexism reveals itself in the most auspicious and cunning way cloaked under the banner of legalistic foreplay.
It is sad that in the 21st century, the long running animosity and bias towards half of the human race is still alive and running - in a country that claims to be republican, secular and democratic.
Lunes, Pebrero 25, 2013
The Catholic Church is Politicking Again!
The passage of the "Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012" otherwise known as R.A. 10354 last December 2012 has bruised the corrupting influence of the Catholic Church in Philippine Society. Indeed, it has tarnished its already brutal legacy of misinformation, arrogance and its time-honored tradition of bullying secular leaders that think independently of its irrational, unscientific and medieval doctrines into submission and scaring the ordinary folk into the realm of hell, God's wrath and other also time honored scare-tactics.
Well, it has been recently reported that the church is at it again, this time, a Bacolod City Diocese is actively encouraging the faithful of the said city to reject and refrain from voting six lawmakers who had supported R.A. 10354. Classic, very classic maneuver of a corrupt, morally bankrupt and essentially dictatorial church! That is more than I can generously articulate when I read the irritatingly familiar but nonetheless ingrained modus operandi of a church who fancies itself and deludes itself of a lot of exclusive access to "truths." I would call them, "truthisms", these are truths for which the Catholic Church has the monopoly upon, including, but not limited to the belief that condoms actually promote the spread of HIV. Geez, the Filipino people should bury and castrate once and for all this macabre of an institution masquerading as a savior of the conscience and moral integrity of the Filipino people but at the same time replete with pedophile priests who have not only destroyed the lives of thousands of children across the world, but also a clergy that has endangered the lives of millions of people in Africa for promoting unscientific and baseless beliefs, among others, that condom is an HIV spreader!
It seems that the Catholic Church wants to control the mind and thinking of the Filipino people for as long as it can in any way it can. This is obscene and utterly ghastly, instead of pontificating about moral values - it should first restrain its own priests and the bishops and cardinals who condone them by shuffling such rapacious priests among and between dioceses, instead of committing them to serious sex therapy and most of all, defrocking them from the ranks of the clergy.
It is about time that the Filipino people wake up from this ecclesiastically induced coma of reality denial, one nation under a secular and republican system!
Well, it has been recently reported that the church is at it again, this time, a Bacolod City Diocese is actively encouraging the faithful of the said city to reject and refrain from voting six lawmakers who had supported R.A. 10354. Classic, very classic maneuver of a corrupt, morally bankrupt and essentially dictatorial church! That is more than I can generously articulate when I read the irritatingly familiar but nonetheless ingrained modus operandi of a church who fancies itself and deludes itself of a lot of exclusive access to "truths." I would call them, "truthisms", these are truths for which the Catholic Church has the monopoly upon, including, but not limited to the belief that condoms actually promote the spread of HIV. Geez, the Filipino people should bury and castrate once and for all this macabre of an institution masquerading as a savior of the conscience and moral integrity of the Filipino people but at the same time replete with pedophile priests who have not only destroyed the lives of thousands of children across the world, but also a clergy that has endangered the lives of millions of people in Africa for promoting unscientific and baseless beliefs, among others, that condom is an HIV spreader!
It seems that the Catholic Church wants to control the mind and thinking of the Filipino people for as long as it can in any way it can. This is obscene and utterly ghastly, instead of pontificating about moral values - it should first restrain its own priests and the bishops and cardinals who condone them by shuffling such rapacious priests among and between dioceses, instead of committing them to serious sex therapy and most of all, defrocking them from the ranks of the clergy.
It is about time that the Filipino people wake up from this ecclesiastically induced coma of reality denial, one nation under a secular and republican system!
Linggo, Pebrero 24, 2013
The Teacher as the Midwife of Knowledge
Walks with knowledge
As life walks by
To bring not mere facts
But wisdom too
And bring minds
Into the light of enlightenment.
Talks with calmness
Yet exuding authority
Not insisting but encouraging
To probe questions
Into life and existence
And finding meaning in life.
Lives for others
Live meaningful lives
Living life to zest
As life he infuses in others
To bring meaning
Through knowledge as midwife.
As life walks by
To bring not mere facts
But wisdom too
And bring minds
Into the light of enlightenment.
Talks with calmness
Yet exuding authority
Not insisting but encouraging
To probe questions
Into life and existence
And finding meaning in life.
Lives for others
Live meaningful lives
Living life to zest
As life he infuses in others
To bring meaning
Through knowledge as midwife.
Sabado, Pebrero 23, 2013
Does Science refute God?
There is this interesting debate sponsored by intelligence squared about the proposition "Science refutes God." The debaters were composed of two scientists and two non-scientists, one from each side. In favor of the motion was Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist) and Michael Shermer (author and founding member of Skeptic magazine) and against the motion were Ian Hutchinson (nuclear scientist and engineer) and Denis D'Souza (author). The side for the motion got 37% of the voete before the debate while the side against the motion got 34%. After the debate, the side for the motion got 50% while the other side got 38% of the vote. The winner of the debate was based on the side which had the highest increase of support after the debate. With a 13% increase for the positive side, the winning team went to the side for the motion. With the debate being held in New York, I had a high premonition that the positive side would win, and in fact was correct as shown by the results.
I am a secular humanist, having said this, I would say that science does not refute God. Why? Simply because the domain of science is different. Science is based on testable facts, it is experiential, it is governed by the scientific method (hypothesis, data gathering, experimentation, conclusion) and most of all, it is dynamic. On the other hand, the concept of God is based on a belief, most are unreasonable, rooted usually on a pre-existing text purported to be the "revealed truth" by its respective believers and is therefore, static and permanent.
Science teaches us about the workings of the world and as such, takes the question about everything into the realm of the world itself. In that, science works on the principle about observability, repeatability, testability and of course, intellectual honesty. Belief in God takes us to religion, which practically has the monopoly on the unknown and insists on unprovable, unconfirmable and unverifiable experiences.
Science has over the centuries provided mankind with a better understanding of the world and the things around has, has improved human life through technology and provides us greater understanding still about the reality that is existence. Religion however, has become merely a reactionary force. Gone were the days when it held sway over the life and death of man. It's monopoly over the truth shattered by the veritable facts of science. It's attempt to explain everything about the world has been, in most respects, been replaced by the reasonable and orderly workings of science. Indeed, religion has been relegated to the sidelines, at least with regards to the interpretation of reality. And unfortunately, by clinging to the idea that not all things are explained by science, it has fallen into the trap that has for long been its domain, that is, it explains those which science has not yet explained. And there is for me nothing wrong with that, as long as such religious idiosyncracies are left to the personal life of each believer.
Science is the best instrument man has in its quest to understand better the universe and himself. Although science cannot really refute God for the reasons explained above, I would adopt Stephen Hawking's assertion that science makes it nearly impossible for one to believe that there is God.
I am a secular humanist, having said this, I would say that science does not refute God. Why? Simply because the domain of science is different. Science is based on testable facts, it is experiential, it is governed by the scientific method (hypothesis, data gathering, experimentation, conclusion) and most of all, it is dynamic. On the other hand, the concept of God is based on a belief, most are unreasonable, rooted usually on a pre-existing text purported to be the "revealed truth" by its respective believers and is therefore, static and permanent.
Science teaches us about the workings of the world and as such, takes the question about everything into the realm of the world itself. In that, science works on the principle about observability, repeatability, testability and of course, intellectual honesty. Belief in God takes us to religion, which practically has the monopoly on the unknown and insists on unprovable, unconfirmable and unverifiable experiences.
Science has over the centuries provided mankind with a better understanding of the world and the things around has, has improved human life through technology and provides us greater understanding still about the reality that is existence. Religion however, has become merely a reactionary force. Gone were the days when it held sway over the life and death of man. It's monopoly over the truth shattered by the veritable facts of science. It's attempt to explain everything about the world has been, in most respects, been replaced by the reasonable and orderly workings of science. Indeed, religion has been relegated to the sidelines, at least with regards to the interpretation of reality. And unfortunately, by clinging to the idea that not all things are explained by science, it has fallen into the trap that has for long been its domain, that is, it explains those which science has not yet explained. And there is for me nothing wrong with that, as long as such religious idiosyncracies are left to the personal life of each believer.
Science is the best instrument man has in its quest to understand better the universe and himself. Although science cannot really refute God for the reasons explained above, I would adopt Stephen Hawking's assertion that science makes it nearly impossible for one to believe that there is God.
Biyernes, Pebrero 22, 2013
Tidbits of Wisdom from Chanakya
I have come across a facebook "share" about an ancient thinker known as Chanakya. According to Wikipedia he lived between 370-283 BCE in India and was a philosopher and royal advisor int he court of the emperor Chandragupta.
All are great thoughts for reflection. However, I find number 14 quite confusing, it seems, and I hope this is just a mistake of typing or something, improper analogy. How is for example, a mirror useful to a blind person? Without a doubt, a book is helpful to an ignorant person as it can help me cure his ignorance. However, a mirror would be useless to a blind person simply because the primary function of a mirror requires the use of eyesight, which is obviously absent in a blind person. I hope this is just typographical error. The actual source of these quotes would have been really helpful in clarifying said matter.
15 GREAT THOUGHTS BY CHANAKYA
1) "Learn from the mistakes of others... you can't live long enough to make them all yourselves!!"
2)"A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are cut first and Honest people are screwed first."
...
3)"Even if a snake is not poisonous, it should pretend to be venomous."
4)"There is some self-interest behind every friendship. There is no friendship without self-interests. This is a bitter truth."
5)" Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions - Why am I doing it, What the results might be and Will I be successful. Only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions, go ahead."
6)"As soon as the fear approaches near, attack and destroy it."
7)"The world's biggest power is the youth and beauty of a woman."
8)"Once you start a working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest."
9)"The fragrance of flowers spreads only in the direction of the wind. But the goodness of a person spreads in all direction."
10)"God is not present in idols. Your feelings are your god. The soul is your temple."
11) "A man is great by deeds, not by birth."
12) "Never make friends with people who are above or below you in status. Such friendships will never give you any happiness."
13) "Treat your kid like a darling for the first five years. For the next five years, scold them. By the time they turn sixteen, treat them like a friend. Your grown up children are your best friends."
14) "Books are as useful to a stupid person as a mirror is useful to a blind person."
15) "Education is the Best Friend. An Educated Person is Respected Everywhere. Education beats the Beauty and the Youth."
All are great thoughts for reflection. However, I find number 14 quite confusing, it seems, and I hope this is just a mistake of typing or something, improper analogy. How is for example, a mirror useful to a blind person? Without a doubt, a book is helpful to an ignorant person as it can help me cure his ignorance. However, a mirror would be useless to a blind person simply because the primary function of a mirror requires the use of eyesight, which is obviously absent in a blind person. I hope this is just typographical error. The actual source of these quotes would have been really helpful in clarifying said matter.
15 GREAT THOUGHTS BY CHANAKYA
1) "Learn from the mistakes of others... you can't live long enough to make them all yourselves!!"
2)"A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are cut first and Honest people are screwed first."
...
3)"Even if a snake is not poisonous, it should pretend to be venomous."
4)"There is some self-interest behind every friendship. There is no friendship without self-interests. This is a bitter truth."
5)" Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions - Why am I doing it, What the results might be and Will I be successful. Only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions, go ahead."
6)"As soon as the fear approaches near, attack and destroy it."
7)"The world's biggest power is the youth and beauty of a woman."
8)"Once you start a working on something, don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest."
9)"The fragrance of flowers spreads only in the direction of the wind. But the goodness of a person spreads in all direction."
10)"God is not present in idols. Your feelings are your god. The soul is your temple."
11) "A man is great by deeds, not by birth."
12) "Never make friends with people who are above or below you in status. Such friendships will never give you any happiness."
13) "Treat your kid like a darling for the first five years. For the next five years, scold them. By the time they turn sixteen, treat them like a friend. Your grown up children are your best friends."
14) "Books are as useful to a stupid person as a mirror is useful to a blind person."
15) "Education is the Best Friend. An Educated Person is Respected Everywhere. Education beats the Beauty and the Youth."
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)