Alternative Culture: Straw Dogs review

[The following post is dedicated to my friend Juliet]

The end of me

John Gray makes a bold claim-- humans are nothing special. He argues that liberal humanism (the philosophy that humans are special) and postmodernism (the idea that truth and purpose is what we humans make of it) are offshoots of the misguided religion called Christianity.

The argument of the book

My friend Juliet has summarised this book in a phrase: "doom in 200 pages". However, I would argue that she does not treat this book fairly. One of my favourite contemporary philosophers, Gray shows off his cutting intellect that would make Nietzsche proud. In this post I would like to explore several of his ideas.

1. Heirs of Christianity

"Humanism is a secular religion drawn from the decaying scraps of Christianity." --pg 31.

According to Gray, the pre-Christian world thought that history was cyclic and not progressive. As Christianity introduced the concept of universal human salvation (and hence progression), Gray argued that humanism borrowed from Christianity in that its adherents (the humanist) support the idea of human emancipation (that humans are special).

The postmodernists go one step further, as they assert that humans themselves can decide their purpose in life.

However, Gray criticises their worldview as the "worst kind of arrogance" (pg 55). Postmodernism states that the limit to humanity is human thought. This unhinges their adherents from the reality but asserting that "man is the measure of all things".

2. The failure of science

"Science has been used to support the conceit that humans are unlike all other animals in their ability to understand the world" -- pg 24

Despite promising the return of Jesus, Christianity has failed to sustain its position as the hope of humanity. The Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason, science and technology will be the saviour of the world.

However if anything, science has made humans better at doing evil things. Gray argues that the Holocaust and Gulags were only made possible with the advancement of technology. There is no evidence that humans are getting morally better.

"As the hope of a better world has grown, so has mass murder." -- pg 98

In fact, Gray makes a chilling prediction towards the end of his book -- "Future wars will be fought over dwindling resources." (pg 180)

3. The myth of progress

"The world will forget mankind. The play of life will go on." --pg 151

Every organism on earth is doomed to extinction-- why should humanity be any different? Since the idea of progression is a myth that comes from the false hope of Christianity, Gray argues that humanity cannot truly move forward.

The purpose of life, Gray concludes, is to simply exist. There is nothing to save humanity, and nothing that humanity needs saving from. According to Gray, this view should be liberating.

Conclusion

You might find it surprising that I largely agree with Professor John Gray. If Christianity is wrong, then there is no such thing as progress.

Unlike Gray, I find this view extremely depressing. Nothing matters in the long run.

But note the conditioner "if". Either Christianity is true and we are all progressing towards a better end. If not, we are all headed towards a dark and gloomy cycle with no way out. You see my friend, theology matters.

The challenge laid down now is whether Christianity is true. How would you the reader attempt to explore this?

For further reading

Gray, J.N. (2002) Straw Dogs

Wetlenses

Alternative Culture: Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher

Socrates Jones (in green), accompanied by his daughter Ari, debates Thomas Hobbes

A game of philosophy
Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher allows you to take the role of an accountant whose lack of interest in analytic thinking frustrates his daughter, a student of philosophy. When an car accident sends the duo to the afterlife, Socrates Jones must argue his way back to the land of the living against the famed moral philosophers.

A Phoenix Wright clone? Nonsense!
Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher is a thinking game that shares many similarities with the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney series (References to Phoenix Wright are made in the game). Sporting similar features like clarifications, objections and an assistant, Socrates Jones nevertheless has its own unique charm.

Instead of using evidences to support your objections (as in Phoenix Wright), Socrates Jones has to expose the contradictions of his opponents.

While Phoenix Wright is pitted against dishonest witnesses and determined prosecutors, Socrates Jones has to content with Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills.

The good
The game does a fantastic job simplifying difficult philosophical concepts, such as the social contract, Act Utilitarianism and even the categorical imperative.

The philosophers portrayed even subscribed to the stereotypes we have about them. For instance, Immanuel Kant walked away from an argument due to his rigid timetable.

Another fantastic point is that the game forces you to think about morality in a deep way.

The bad
One thing that frustrates me in the game is that despite the developers' best intentions, not all the best arguments were captured. For instance, I wanted to explore the theology of Euthyphro (that all religions assert a common good) further, but was not allowed to.

I also wished that more philosophers were added, such as Confucius, Aquinas, Hagel, Hume and everybody's favourite, Nietzsche.

The game also seems to limit you to the philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre. MacIntyre (1988) argued for the recognition that we will never find a complete answer to the question of morality.

Theological review
I loved this game. It is a fantastic introduction to moral philosophy, and made me as a Christian reconsider my paradigms. Part of me wishes to meet Martin Luther in the game though.

I give this game 89/100

References
MacIntyre, A. (1988) Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

With Due Respect: The Council of Nicaea manipulated Christian Thinking!

What council?
After uniting the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine I convened over the Council of Nicaea to settle divisions among the church. He did not want a divided church, especially after claiming that the Christian God had helped him in his military victories.

In 325 AD, he assembled a council of Christians in Nicaea  and they finally decided on one view of Christianity, while throwing out different views. Thus, many non-Christians, such as Mormons often cite this historical event on how Christianity has been manipulated down the ages. Popular books, such as Dan Brown's  The Da Vinci Code and Raymond Khoury's The Templar Salvation, portray the Council as a political tool for Constantine I to rule his empire.

But this is oversimplifying the issue, as I shall explain in awhile.

What are the common misunderstandings of the Council of Nicea?

1. The council decided on Biblical canon
Even a  cursory look at wikipedia reveals that the agenda of the Council. The Council examined mainly the views of Arius (a heretic Christian), the dates to observe religious festivals like Easter and the status of apostates (people who have renounced Christianity).

2. There were many competing views of Christianity
At the time of the council, there were not many competing views of Christianity. There were no Gnostics, Ebomites or even Donatists. There were two views-- the view that the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus) were of the same substance (which eventually became the orthodox view) or that the Father and Son were of different substances (the view of Arius). Contrary to what was portrayed in The Da Vinci Code or The Templar Salvation, the discussion was unambiguous. Out of the 300-odd bishops present, only three (including Arius himself) voted for Arius.

The view on Jesus's status was not decided by a few votes.

3. Emperor Constantine I manipulated the views of the Council
All Emperor Constantine I was concerned about was the stability of the empire. He wanted the unified Christianity, so he could avoid religious unrest among the Christians.

However, he was unhappy with the results of the council. The council condemned the Arian Christians, even though Constantine I wanted the views of Arius to be tolerated. Furthermore, his closest Christian advisers were Arian. (His baptiser was an Arian Christian.)

So if Constantine I manipulated the council, there are at least two issues we must consider--
(a) Why were the views of Arius condemned by the council?
(b) These bishops had undergone a severe persecution by the previous Emperor. Why would they be willingly to renounce their ideals just because Constantine I held a council?

Conclusion
Even though the Council of Nicaea has a bad reputation in recent years, it was not as controversial as it was portrayed to be. The question whether Jesus was divine was never an issue.

For further details:
Inspiring philosophy

Alternative Culture: Pacific Rim Review

Recently, I caught the movie Pacific Rim with my colleagues. Justifying my initial scepticism, I found it to be a mediocre action film, saved only by its cutting-edge graphics.

Synopsis
In the fictional near future, giant sea monsters known as Kaiju emerge from an interdimensional portal in the Pacific Ocean. Conventional weapons such as jets and tanks proved useless against the Kaiju, so the world decided to build giant robots known as Jaegers to combat the Kaiju.

The operating system of the Jaegers proved to be too complex, and required a two-men team to operate. When the Kaiju start to adapt to the battle tactics of the Jaeger pilots, the world turns to former pilot Raleigh (played by Charlie Hunnam) and personal assistant Mako (played by Rinko Kikuchi) to save the day.

What I didn't like about the film
There are many things I take issue with the film.

The science in the film. Let's assume it is biologically possible for the Kaiju to exist (despite the weight of their body structure being too heavy for earthly conditions). Why would the perfect plan be to create an equivalent robot counterpart? The joints are structurally weaknesses and bipedalism provides an unstable support.

The battle tactics also were appalling. Why did they use a cargo ship as a weapon when the Jaeger's fists were made of much harder titanium? Why did they use the fists at all when they had swords? At one point of the film, they activated a nuke, endangering the other Jaeger in the vicinity (nearby nuclear explosions can shut down electronic equipment).

Theological review
However, I guess you can read the reviews elsewhere. I want to explore an interesting concept by the film-- the idea of the pilots melding their minds in order to operate their Jaeger with one will.

I guess it parallels the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit unifying believers together (Ephesians 4:3), for good works (1 Corinthians 12:7). Unlike the movie, we do not guide the Spirit, but the Spirit guides us (Romans 8:26-27).

Conclusion
I give this movie a 54/100. It has nice visuals, but has a predictable story-line and weak cast.

Theology 1.0: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Editor's note: I am not a philosophy student. I am simply a science teacher trying to make sense of the world. So this is my opinion and analysis of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Thus please do not take this post as authoritative.]

Sunset at East Coast Park, Singapore, December 2012

One of the famous arguments for the existence of God is the cosmological argument. In this post I will be focusing on the Kalam Cosmological Argument as advocated by philosopher William Lane Craig.

The premises
The argument is as follows:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause (Craig, 1994)

Many historical religious thinkers (such as Thomas Aquinas and Al-Kindi) have used this argument (or at least variants of this) to argue that God exists. In other words, the cause of the universe must be God.

Craig (1994) argues that the first two premises are intuitively true, (and therefore the third premise is true), and the onus is on the opposition to provide evidence arguing against.

Objections
Who caused God?
Some opponents that argue that the claim is self-refuting-- if God exists, then who/what caused God? However, note the wording of the premises-- it is not that anything that exists has a cause, but anything that began to exists has one.

In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God has always existed (i.e. has no beginning), therefore God does not have or require a cause.

Infinite regress
Some opponents argue that it is possible that an infinite series of events, rather than God caused the universe to begin. Iqbal (1986) argues that to elevate one of those infinite events to "First Cause" status is unnecessarily discriminating.

Nevertheless, Martin (1997) refuted the reality of actual infinities, stating that infinity only exists as abstract concept in mathematics and has no place in the real world. He further added that proposing a series of infinite events only pushes the idea of First Cause a step back and is merely a distraction.

The universe did not begin to exist
Other opponents attempt to challenge premise 2-- the idea that the universe began to exist. McTaggart (1908) proposed that there could a B-theory of time, in which that the universe is four dimensional (with the fourth dimension as time) and the universe is always in existence (for ideas of past, present and future are limitations of human consciousness).

Craig and Moreland (2009) accepts that the Kalam Cosmological Argument relies on the A-theory of time (the conventional view of time), but the B-theory of time would beg another question-- why is there something, rather than nothing?

Conclusion
Regardless of what we think of the cosmological argument, all of us should think about the question of existence. Why are we here, and what are we here for?

References
Craig, WL (1994) Reasonable Faith

Craig, WL and Moreland, J.P. (2009) The Blackwell Companion of Natural Theology

Iqbal, M. (1986) The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam Lahore

Martin, Christopher (1997) Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations

McTaggart, J.M.E. (1908) The Unreality of Time. Mind, 17, 453

A video summary: Documentary

Alternative Culture: The sex-for-grades case

A display of dresses at the Singapore Science Centre for the Megabugs exhibit in May 2013

On 3 June 2013, NUS law professor Tey Tsung Hang was sentenced to a total of five months in jail. He had been found guilty of six counts of corruption, including the charge where he had sex with a student, Darrine Ko in exchange for favourable academic results.

Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye labelled the relationship between Tey and Ko "laced with malicious intent". Despite earning more than S$20 000 a month, Tey made his student pay for some expenses for meals and his American trip

As usual, the purpose of this blog is not to give an account of what happened, or even a day-by-day account of the legal proceedings. If you are looking for that, look here. Instead being a theological blog, I will make an analysis of the situation from a Christian view.

Being academically educated does not make one a moral example

I have observed these in my students. Those who are generally well-behaved in class tend to do well academically. However, I must also stress that academic achievement is no guarantee for moral behaviour.

If anything, knowledge just gives a person one more tool to misuse for evil. According to Judge Tan, Tey manipulated Ko (abusing his academic authority) into an unhealthy relationship with him.

Unlike what was promised during the Enlightenment, education is not the way out of crime and moral dilemma. Just as with the past, we are stuck with the problems of corruption. Murders, rapes and thefts still happen at every educational level of society.

Conclusion : What is the problem with man?

If you were more conservative, you would lay the blame of this weakness of the individual. If Tey had listened to the right voices, he would had been strong enough to not fall to lust and deciet.

If you were more liberal, you might run into a different conclusion. Usually liberals tend to blame environmental factors. If Tey has been brought up in a society that was more stringent in their checks, this moral travesty would not have happened.

I concede that both sides may have a point. However, I would like to as a Christian the problem lies with mankind. As the Apostle Paul states in Romans 5:12-14:

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Mankind is incapable of curing himself of sin. It is simply the nature of mankind to disobey God. As St Augustine stated, "it is impossible not to sin."

So what is the solution then? Paul continues in Romans 5:15-17

¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! ¹⁶ Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. ¹⁷ For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Thank God for Jesus.

PS:

²⁶ The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

²⁷ Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10: 26-27)

For further reading:

Chesterton, GK (1908) Orthodoxy

With Due Respect: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

A criticism of miracles

In the 1980, popular cosmologist Carl Sagan made a comment concerning miracles in episode 12 of his famous TV series, Cosmos.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

This statement became dubbed as "Sagan's Dictum" and is often used by atheists and sceptics to dismiss the eyewitness accounts of Jesus's miracles and resurrection.

To be fair, this statement is healthy as it encourages checking of claims. Too many a time, we see reports on how honest, hardworking people are conned of their valuables by cheats or charlatans. Too often we are too trusting and take wholly the word of advertisements.

However this statement is flawed to some extent. Let me explore why.

1) Self-refuting claim
This statement itself is an extraordinary claim! Because it claims to be true for all possible extraordinary claims. We cannot prove this claim to be true with extraordinary evidence.

2) How much evidence?
Furthermore, the person asking for evidence tends to not to define the how much evidence would be considered extraordinary, and whether this demand is reasonable. Let's take the claim for Jesus's resurrection.

More evidence?
Some people argue that if Jesus really rose from the dead, there would be much more accounts than the Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John). However the fact that most people living that time period were illiterate, and the fact that we even have copies of the original manuscripts is extraordinary!

Higher quality evidence?
Some people argue that since the Gospels were written so some time after the life of Jesus that they cannot be considered accurate. The copies of the original Gospel manuscripts were written about 100 to 200 years and sceptics often claim for evidence of a higher quality (copies closer to the events themselves).

However, when we compare the copies of the Gospels to other records of the Antiquity (i.e. that that time period of Ancient Romans and Greeks), the Gospels are of extraordinary quality! The earliest copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars were written 1,000 years after the events,  but few doubt the events happen. The earliest copies of Aristotle were written 1,100 years after his lifetime, but no one doubts that there were Aristotle original works.

A different kind of evidence?
Lastly, some people demand a different criteria for reliability. Some people lament the lack of video evidence (why should there be?) or more secular records of Christ. However, we have to wonder why such demand is resonable.

3) Flawed reasoning
The statement also fails to acknowledge that extraordinary claims need not extraordinary evidence. For instance, in 2008 I won a poker tournament despite having zero experience at card competition and only played poker at a recreational event once before. Despite this being a highly unlikely event, I did not have any supernatural evidence for it.

My friends witnessed the event, I have a trophy to show for it and my victor was announced by the emcee. None of this evidences can be considered extraordinary, yet none of my friends doubted the event.

Conclusion
While Sagan's Dictum sounds intelligent on paper and encourages proof-checking, it is inherently flawed.

For further reading

Apologetics

CARM

For evidence on the resurrection of Christ-- bethinking