Theology 1.0: What is the Trinity?

What is the Trinity? Do Christians worship three gods?
This is one of the most misunderstood ideas about Christianity. In fact, some critics of Christianity accuse Christians as worshipping three gods (i.e. polytheism) instead of one.

Although complicated to understand, Christians do not believe in three gods, or that God himself dons three masks in the course of human history. Rather, it is one God who revealed Himself in three persons-- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

One God
The Bible is clear that Christians worship one God. In Isaiah 44:6, God says there is no other God but Him, but he is the first and and the last. In Deuteronomy 6:4, the Bible states that God is one. And in case you were wondering, this view is echoed in the New Testament as well. (see Ephesians 4:6)

Pluarlity of God
Yet, the Bible also makes another thing clear-- there is pluality in the unity of God. In Genesis 1:26, God said, "let us make man in our own image". "Us" and "Our" aren't mistranslations or references to angels.

But what about the trinity, then? one might ask. The word "Trinity" does not is not found in the Bible, but one of the many clear references is in Matthew 28:19. Jesus told his followers to make disciples of all men, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This showed Jesus placed all these enitities as equality with God.

Conclusion
Although it might be difficult to comprehend and explain, the Christian God is one, but yet in three personalities.

For further references
historic case for trinity

Verses quoted
“This is what the LORD says—
   Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
   apart from me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Ephesians 4:6)

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28: 19)

With due respect: A powerful and loving God would not allow pain and suffering!

It is one of the most powerful questions I ever encountered, and it was one of the questions that drove me away from Christianity in my younger days. Yet years later, the same question drove me back to Christianity. So let's try to handle the question-- how can a omnipotent and benevolent God allow evil in the world?

Assumptions
Let's put into things into perspective. The question states three things:

1) God is all-powerful
2) God is all-good
3) Evil exist

And that all three things cannot exist together logically. However, the accuser would be right if one of the two following assumptions was true--

A) There is no logical reason why an all-powerful and all-good God would allow evil in the world
B) It is God's will for us to be senily happy

Poor apologetics
Before I start, I would like to say I will be handling the philosophical/spiritual problem of pain and evil. In other words I skip over the practical reasons of evil, such as evolutionary explanations for pain. For example-- the fact that our nerves can detect danger enables us to survive hazards.

That said, any defence that a Christian makes must not reject any of three realities-- that God is all-good, all-power, and that evil exist. For instance, the Christian cannot 'justify' evil. To justify evil is to deny the existance of evil (the reason why something is evil is that it cannot be justified). Are there reasons for evil? Yes reasons, but not justification.

Free-will defence
 For God to be good, (and fair), He has to allows us to experience consequences of every action anyone (or anything) makes (Lewis, 1940). There is no point giving us freedom to choose, while taking away consequences of the choice. If one chooses an evil act, he and others must face the results of that choice-- be it death or imprisonment.


What about natural disasters?
While most people can accept that evils commited by men, few can "excuse" God from the reponsibility of natural disasters. But the thing is that either for God to be omnipotent, He is involved in everything, or nothing. The natural laws that run our universe cannot be broken by any whim and fancy.

On other hand, I have no problem accepting miracles do happen, but they should happen rarely (hence the term 'miracles'). Although one may claim that God is unfair in saving others, one must remember, nowhere in the Bible claims that it is God's will for all of us to be healthy and wealthy. It is His will for all of us to be reconcile with Him ultimately.

Then how is God good?
In Christianity, God allows evil, yet it is not His will. He may use our acts of evil, to bring about His will (Genesis 50:20). God hates evil, but respects our decisions to choose it over Him (Platinga, 1977).

Problem with naturalism
The problem is simple-- without God, how do you know something is evil? Yet the thought process complex-- one may attribute morality to the natural world, but if nature is "red in tooth and claw", why should we view something that happens naturally such as death and destruction as evil? CS Lewis (1952) explores this concept in Mere Christianity, claiming that if anything,the existance of evil hints towards a god. Afterall, one does not call something unjust, unless he/she has an idea of what justice is.

Conclusion
Although the problem of evil has often been touted as a problem for a Christian God, from the Christian view it is not, and from a theistic view, it hints towards the existance of God. In fact, most philosophers regard the logical problem of evil to haven been sufficiently refuted (Gutting, 2009).

Postscript for the Christians
Yet for the followers of Christ, Jesus never promised freedom from suffering or pain from this earth. He told us that that in this world we will have trouble, but we can take heart -- He has overcome the world (John 16:33)

References

Lewis, C.S (1940) The Problem of Pain

Lewis, C.S. (1952) Mere Christianity

Gutting, G. (2009) What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy

Platinga, A. (1977) God, Freedom and Evil

Merry Christmas!

Hello readers!

Currently I am busy with school so this blog has not been updated for a while. Nevertheless, I will post something soon.

In the meantime, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

God bless,
defensedefumer

Alternative Culture: Jack Doe

A Singaporean Comic Book/Graphic Novel

I must confess-- I like reading comics. However, I have not read any Singaporean comic since the Mr. Kiasu series many, many years ago.

When I saw this graphic novel on the shelf in the library, I could not resist the chance to pick it up. After all, if I do not support our local authors and artists, who will?

Opening Shot

The cover art (particularly its black and white colours) immediately hints towards the genre of crime noir, and it is unsurprising that that the story was such.

The story's hero is private eye Jack Doe. As one can tell, Jack Doe is not really his real name, but together with his job, the protgonist inherits the name from his father. Apparently, the pseudonymn protects the protagonist (whose real name is never revealed) and those close to him.

The story begins with Jack Doe being shot in the chest, and as he tumbles down, he recalls the events that led him to such his imminent death. He remembers that he was investigating the death of his good friend Comissoner Blake. The mastermind appears to be his nemesis Judas Black, although more plot twists emerge before we finally get to the conclusion of the story.

However, this being my apologetic/theological/philosophical blog, I want to focus on one part that made me think deeply. That is the concept of the artist who wrote himself into the script.

That sounds a bit like the Christian God, does it not?

I'm not too sure about the author, Shawn Yap or any of his fellow co-authors intended to borrow any Christian themes (the villain is called Judas) for his book, but the concept of God writing himself into our history is one of the cornerstones of Christianity. Even the artist who wrote himself into the book calls himself 'God' at one point.

And the story reveals that the only way for the characters of the graphic novel to be free from the artist's grip on them was to break the flow of the story. This seems to echos the view of the New Atheists (and some past philosophers) that when we finally rid the concept of God, we become truly free.

I wished the book really explored that what freedom really meant. There are suggestions such as when Jack Doe chose to follow the traditions of his father, or when Jack Doe chose to leave his mother. If we chose to be bounded in responsibility are we truly free. I sort of wished that the authors explored this theme further.

A short review

I really like the overall story, and it seems to also borrow from elements of the Batman mythos (one of the villains looks like the Riddler, another like a anoxeric version of Bane. The Gemini twins resemble Tweedledee and Tweedledum).  However, the characters do suffer from lack of development. Jack Doe at times seems like a whiny kid rather than a seasoned detective, and his relationships with his enemies, Comissoner Blake and his friend Cassandra were ill-described.

The art style is simple but effective. However, there are times when the art was a little confusing, expecially in transitions between flashbacks and current time.

Nevertheless, I give this book a 65/100, for a great plot and a philosophical ending.

Theology 1.0-- Who is Jesus

A big issue

This is one of the central issues of Christianity. Christians (like myself) view Jesus as God, many people view Jesus as a great moral teacher and yet there are few who said in Jesus was just a myth. For this post, I will be focusing almost exclusively on four Gospels of the New Testament, on why Christians believe that Jesus is God.

The God who was there

In the 2005 DVD The God Who Wasn't There, one of the interviewees asserts that the New Testament was made up details about Jesus as they were written as 'Gospels' as if the word 'Gospel' was just simply meant a religious text. However, that was not how the people of Ancient Rome would have understood it.

In the Mark 1:1, it makes it clear from the start. 'Gospel' simply meant good news. The Gospels were written to those who have not heard about Jesus. In essence, the four Gospels were saying to the suspicious of intent, that the Gospels' intent was good. And those who were skeptical of content, that the Gospels' content was news.

But of course, just because a text says that it is factual does not mean it is. I will probably cover the historical reliability of the New Testament in another post.

Evidence from Gospels

One of my Muslim friends pointed out that Jesus never directly said He is God in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and I agree. However, He does say and do other things that indicated He is.

Self-centred teaching

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." (John 6:35)

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."(John 8:12)

As shown by three of the many passages, Jesus's teaching about God and spiritual needs focused on himself. He said to follow him was to follow God, to welcome him was to welcome God and to have seen him was to have seen God (Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37; John 14:9). He focused on himself in his teaching as the way to salvation (reconciliation with God).

Indirect Claims

 Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins (Mark 2:5) and judge the world (Matthew 25: 31-46). The Jews at that time would recognise these are attributes of God and actions only God can do.

Direct Claims

In Mark 8:27-30 and John 20:28  Peter and Thomas identified him as Christ and God respectively, and Jesus did not deny it. Even the Jews in Mark 2:7 said he was blaspheming, as no man should claimed to be God.

Lewis Trilemma

Provided that the four Gospels of the New Testament is reliable, I would conclude that Jesus did claim to be God. This does not mean he is. He could be lying, or honestly mistaken.

Liar

If he was lying, he was certainly not a great moral teacher, mainly because he would have pulled of the biggest fraud of all. He convinced many that he was God when he was not.

Mad

Well, if Jesus honestly thought he was God, but he wasn't, he would possibly be crazy. Because the things he did, consistently are reflected in the nature of God (as understood by the Jews based on the Old Testament).

In other words, I find it hard to conclude that from the New Testament that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher (Lewis, 1952).

Why Christians believe Jesus is probably God, not bad or mad

His teaching

His teaching, particularly the Sermon on the Mount are recognised by many, including Gandhi to great works. It would make little sense for a bad or mad person to be able come up with such teaching.

His character

Jesus was the type of person one would not descirbe as mad or bad. He showed great humility, but not weakness, joy but not wickedness, generousity but not self-pity. Even his enemies struggled to build a case against him (Matthew 26: 57-67; Matthew 27: 11-26)

His fulfilment of prohecy

Jesus fufilled over 300 Old Testament prohecies in his life and death. It would be difficult for even a smart con to manipulate the events of his birth and death. Isaiah 53 for instance predicted the manner of his death, while Micah predicted the manner of his birth.


Conclusion

In the light of this, I, like my Christian friends, come to the conclusion that Jesus is God.

References:

Lewis, C.S. (1952) Mere Christianity

With Due Respect: I know more than you!

Pitting one's authority over the other

You know how sometimes you feel that during a discussion you must object to something. For instance, my friend said that the Bible was "full of contradictions" (I will handle this argument in a future post).

The most natural comment that most people (in my position as a Christian) would make is , "no, it isn't."

But such a comment is not helpful to a discussion, is it? I would be pitting my authority against his/hers and the audience would decide who they would believe more based on personalities. Provided that it is an honest discussion, a much better answer would be "where?" or rather "can you list an example?"

In other words, it would be better to call someone's bluff (Sire, 2006).

Calling one's bluff

Most well-meaning people who make such statements in my experience actually know little about the issue. Let me be honest, such statements have a hint of the truth, but if we are intellectually honest, we cannot base our understandings on issues with one-word statements.

Most of the time, the questioner would decline to elaborate further (in other words, he/she was trolling or just plain trying to make me look bad). However, those who do really have geniune examples, most of them are really misunderstandings. And very rarely, they do have issues I struggle to answer. In that case, I would get their email and promise to engage them some time later.

Speaking authoritatively

I do not. In other words, I cannot claim to speak authoritately or professionally about philosophy/theology. I claim to speak more expertly on biology (since I am a biology graduate), but even then I do not claim to speak as an expert in biology. So although it may sound counter-productive, take what I write with a huge pinch of salt, because I have to be honest here.

Now you know why I try not pit my authority against others.

References

Sire, J.W. (2006) Why Good Effective Arguments Often Fail

Alternative Culture: The Sorcerer's Apprentice

A short synopsis

Merlin had three students, Balthazar (Nicholas Cage), Veronica (Monica Bellucci) and Maxim (Alfred Molina). Jealous of Veronica's relationship with Balthazar, Maxim betrays Merlin by siding with Merlin's nemesis, Morgana le Fay (Alice Krige). Morgana slays Merlin and possesses Veronica, forcing Balthazar to imprison Mazim and Veronica in a Grimhold (a magical prison resembling a series of Russian dolls). With his dying breath, Merlin instructs Balthazar to look for his successor to finally slay Morgana.

He finds the successor in the form of Dave (Jay Baruchel) many years later who aids him in his quest to free Veronica and rid of Morgana.



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I just want to focus on one aspect of the movie, and it is the part where Dave, in an attempt to clean his place up, uses what little he learnt of magic to do so. Mimicking Disney's Fantasia where Mickey Mouse tried to do the same thing 70 years ago, the buckets start filling themselves up, and the brooms and mops start sweeping and mopping respectively. Unfortunately, Dave did not learn how to stop the cleaning equipment, and floods the whole place. He nearly gets himself electocuted, if not for the timely arrival of Balthazar.

And in a way it does reflects us (or rather me) as an amatuer thinker/scientist/theologian/philosopher/student. We tend to take a small piece of the cake of knowledge and assume that is the whole story. And we apply it, flaunting what little we know as the whole cake.

I see it in some of my Christian friends, who take what little they know in science and trying to show evolutionary theory as unscientific. I see it in my non-beliving friends, taking their paradigms of Christianity and are satisfied with that. And I see it most in myself, wondering all the time in intellectual discussions if I misrepresent any viewpoint, with what little I know.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

A short review

A rather simple movie. Not too great, but nice presentation and a decent storyline keep it from falling flat in its face. I give it 60/100.

My confessions: How to participate in religious/philosophical discussions

In my days as an undergraduate, I wonder if it was normal for religious students like myself to participate in interfaith discussions. Maybe it is just me. Maybe it is the university, or maybe it is the country (in my case, UK).

But anyway, here's a post about some tips in entering such discussions (most of them are no-brainers).

1) Be honest

That is the number one, unwritten rule at such conferences. People who are attending such talks are seeking truth (even if you or some of them doubt the existence of truth) in some way, and to lie goes against the spirit of such a discussion. It is okay to say "I don't know". In fact, it is better to concede your ignorance on a matter than to make up facts to support your point.

2) Be respectful

That is rule number 1.1. Being brutally honest will not get you anywhere. Let's face it, everyone thinks their point of view is right. And it is okay to think you are right, but please do not be annoying about it.

3) Attack the idea, or the action but never the person

On one hand, it is okay to say stuff like "Don't you think the concept of God is unknowable?" or "Don't you think that atheism is morally bankrupt?".

On the other, please do not say the speaker is pretending to be knowledgeable or morally bankrupt.

4) Just because you don't understand something, it does not mean it isn't true.

In other words, avoid arguments from ignorance. Once again, it is okay to admit you do not understand you opponents points. But that does not make their point invalid or stupid.

5) Avoid dirty tactics

Remember we are all truth-seekers. Dirty tricks are not helpful towards most discussions.

An example of a dirty tactic would be asking a loaded question such as "Is it true that only recently that Christians have begun accepting the science of evolution?"  (It is a loaded question because if the Christian answers yes or no, it would give half the answer to put the Christian in a bad light.)

6) Odds are, you aren't going to convince anyone

Let's put it this way-- even in the Gospels, Jesus was not able to persuade most of his listeners to follow him. And in the same way, most people have already made up their minds one way or another. Drastic changes in worldviews have happened, but I have never seen one in all my participations (I participated in about five so far). That said, I have seen conversions to Christianity over periods of time (it was a gradual change, rather than sudden).

7) Rhetoric is unavoidable, but don't rely too heavily on it

Let's be honest-- all of us have certain speaking styles, making some of us better speakers than others. That said, discussions aren't debates-- we aren't here to win a match, but rather to understand different worldviews.

Conclusion

Whether we like to admit it or not, we are all truth-seekers in some way and some sort. Be respectful and be honest, so that we can learn from each other, even if we disagree.

Theology 1.0-- An analysis of the prosperity gospel

The Prosperity Gospel

Before I talk about the theology of the prosperity gospel, I must define it to be clear. Prosperity theology is the belief that God provides material prosperity for those whom He favours. To be put it simply, adherents believe that they have a divine right to wealth and health and they can obtain such blessings via positive confessions of faith and regular tithes and offerings.

Note that I am not focusing on any one church (to be fair I only attended one service of one such accused church, and such a theology was not preached at that time).

Adherents quote certain passages from the Bible such as John 10:10 ([Jesus says,] "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.") or 3 John 1:2 (Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.) to support the case for the prospersity gospel.

But let's take things into context. Some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, but some interpretations are just incorrect. In John 10, Jesus was taking about the eternal life he was to give his followers (by dying for the sins of mankind on the cross), and in 3 John 1, the Apostle John was begining a letter with a greeting.

But let's look deeper.

What the prosperity gospel gets right

Despite how mainstream Christianity often criticises it, the prosperity gospel does get some things right. God may choose to bless certain people materially speaking. For instance, in Job in the Bible was blessed in such by God (a fact that Satan points out in Job 1: 9-11) and he was a faithful man.

From my personal experiences, I tend to limit God to certain blessings and excludes Him for others. And the porsperity gosepl is often a good reminder for me that God may chose to bless us in such.


What the prosperity gospel gets wrong

Despite its good intentions, the prosperity gospel gets many things wrong, and I want to look into a few of them.

1) The prosperity gospel misses the point of the God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

John 3:16-- For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Let's be clear off the bat. I said it before, and I said it again. Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind. Not for us to be rich, healthy or adopt a certain political ideology. All these are secondary compared to our reconcilation with God.

As one of my good friends said, "If God wanted all Christians to be rich, God would have been a business plan, and Jesus, a bussiness man."

2) God is not a vending machine

One often chracteristics of prayer is asking for God for stuff. However God has every right to deny our requests. It does not mean if you pray eight times a day, God would heal your chronic lower back pain, or grant you a bank loan. If faith and blessings were always correlated, then either i) Jesus had very little faith or ii) dying on the cross was not painful for Him.

Furthermore, requests in prayers are only an aspect of prayer. We should also pray for (see the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6: 9-13) thanksgiving and praise, sharing and of course, forgiveness.

3) The object of faith

And one of my biggest concerns is this, why are we Christians? Is it because God will bless us for being faithful (as prosperity theology presents)? Or rather that a man called Jesus died for our sins?

If one is a Christian only because he/she gets material wealth and health in following God, then what happens when one become ill and poor, despite this well-meaning person's best intentions? Will he walk away? What happens if the object of the person's faith is God's blessings and not Jesus?

Yes, the prosperity gospel is not totally unChristian. But it is only a small part, and should never be made the emphasis of Christian faith.

A criticism on the attitudes from my mainstream Christian friends

Most of the time, my Christian friends would quickly divorce themselves away from the prosperity gospel. But the fact remains-- they are still our brothers- and sisters-in-Christ, and we are all guilty by association.

We are their keepers (Genesis 4:9), and we should continue to pray and look out for them.



Note: I do not agree with everything said in the video, but I agree mostly.

With Due Respect-- The Bible in scientifically inaccurate, why should we trust it?

Science contradicts the Bible, doesn't it?

Well, it depends what we mean. If you mean stuff like the theory of evolution and radioactivity disproves an ultra- literal reading of Genesis, because it shows that the world is 4.5 billion years, or that death occured before the emergence of humans, then maybe yes.

 But let's be serious here. Ignoring arguments from well-meaning creationist or intelligent design proponents (their arguments are handled in my science blog in the link to the right), we cannot expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate. After all, the Bible was written before science (as a field) was formalised. We cannot expect Biblical authors to have written Scripture to be scientifically accurate or that God to speak to the authors in a scientific language they did not understand. Besides, showing one interpretation of the Bible is wrong does not imply (a) that all interpretations are wrong or (b) the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God (Giberson, 2009).

Wait a minute.. wouldn't making scientific predictions make the Bible more like the Word of God?

Atheist journalist Sam Harris (2006) takes an aspect of the Bible (prophecy) said that if the Bible was really the Word of God, it would have predicted the coming of some scientific discovery such as the internet.

And I must admit, his argument sounds compelling. After all, such a prediction would be beyond men of that time of revelation (when God's Word came down). And since no men can reasonably come up with a such a far-fetched idea at that time, only God would have told them. Thus it would be a convincing proof of God.

However, what Harris fails to consider is about all the people between the time of revelation and the time of the scientific discovery. If the Bible stated a scientific fact that would be discovered only many, many years later, then what of the people who rejected the Bible based on the scientific views of that day (Glover, 2009)?

Fine, you say we can't expect the Bible to be scientific, then how we should read it?

In context. Or as Glover (2009) eloquently puts it, "through ancient eyes". Consider this, Genesis was written by Moses (most likely) 6000 years ago. Would Moses, who wrote Genesis, understand evolution by natural selection if told?

The understanding of the origin of the world at that time was based on Egyptian (and probably other Eastern) mythology of that time. So the best way to deliver a message was to use that context. So the best way to study the Genesis, is to compare Genesis with the origin stories of other cultures.

OK, that would make the most sense for the people at the time for revelation. What about the people now?

To be honest, I don't know. Would it be better if God sent a new book down? I only know that it is unlikely that He would (Revelation 22:18-19). Ultimately, we do have the benefit of hindsight, which enables us to read the Bible in the comntext, it deserves to be read in.

References
Giberson, K. (2009) Saving Darwin

Glover, G.J. (2009) Beyond The Firmament

Harris, S. (2006) Letter to a Christian Nation

Alternative Culture: Another view about Inception

Here's another viewpoint, more eloquently expressed about the movie Inception.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html

My Confession: What type of Christian am I?

In simple terms...

I am just a follower of Jesus and His teachings. I guess that would make me mainstream Protestant. That said, I do consider the members of the Roman Catholic Church my fellow siblings-in-Christ.

The church I attend is Methodist, but I see only minor theological differences between that denomination and other mainstream Protestantism Chruches.

However..

While I treat the Bible as inerrant Word of God and the only to Heaven is through Jesus, I heistate to call my self a Conservative Christian or an Evangelical Christian due to it is political and fundamentalist stereotyping (such as creationism, anti-abortion etc). I rather call myself an orthodox Christian (with a small 'o', lest I get mistaken for Greek Orthodox).

Conclusion

I believe Jesus came to die and rise again. In dying, He made us a way to allow us to reconcile with God. In rising, He showed that He was God, and had conquered death.

With Due Respect: Evolution explains why religion persists!

The evolution of a society

Ever heard of the argument? It goes along the lines of the following:

1) Primitive societies survive better organised than disorganised

2) Religions come about to better organise societies.

3) Hence religions, being evolutionary successful, rather than true persists through time.

4) Individuals bearing differing views are weeded out. They have to accept the society's religion or risk being expelled/killed or discriminated against.

That sounds convincing!

As an evolutionary biologist (or rather an biology graduate), I must admit that such concept relies heavily on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

For one, it discounts learnt behaviour for religions, and assumes that religious ideas and behaviour is mainly genetic. Even if religous ideas are shown to be genetic, it  is probably a complex trait, and not as easily spread in the method shown above.

Lastly, the above idea relies heavily on the idea of group selection, which can only work if all the members in the group are closely related to each other.

But let me be honest here. I don't deny that some religions do use violence and social segregation to discourage apostates. Although absent from modern day Christianity in developed countries, the Inquisition and Crusades are just two of the many examples where by religion has been violently used to put down who the church deemed as heretics.

The smokescreen!

But enough with the smoke. The underlying issue is how the great evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson (1979) so eloquently puts it. Wilson suggests that if he can give the spread of religion a naturalistic reason, he has disproven God.

However, cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller (1999) puts forth a question: Why can't God work through nature? A theistic God, having created a rational universe, in fact is expected to work most of his will through nature. Wilson assumes that God must work through methods that must be evolutionary unsuccessful to show that he exists, but as Miller explains that no one has suggested such a God in the first place.

Why invoke a God, when nature has shown itself to be self-sustaining?

And to this, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (2006) uses Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is probably the correct one) to suggest there is no God (the universe without a god is a simpler explanation).

However, church minister David Robertson (2007) points out that Dawkins brings over the multi-universes hypothesis over God. In that way, which is simpler-- one God or many universes. In addition, he also readily points out that Occam's Razor is dependant on perception, and the simplest explanation may not always be the right one.

Still the challenge to the Christian remains-- he/she still has not proven there is a God based on the above arguments.

How does Hamlet know there's a Shakespeare?

What do I mean? Imagine if Hamlet wants to find out if Shakespeare exists. He cannot truly be very sure by sending himself into space or philosophising about it. The only way for him to truly find out is if Shakespeare wrote himself into the play (Keller, 2008)

Similarly, the only way for us to really be sure if God exists is that if he came himself physically in our history. And that is the story of Jesus.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

Keller, T.J. (2008) The Reason for God

Miller, K.R. (1999)  Finding Darwin's God

Robertson, D. (2007) The Dawkins Letters

Wilson, E.O. (1979) On Human Nature

Alternative Culture: Inception

I watched the movie Inception recently, and it was really good. Beautifully written, the film explores the concept of 'extraction' in which ideas can be extracted from people's dreams and  'inception' in which ideas can be planted in the dreams too.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as one such extraction artist named Dominic Cobb. Hired by Saito (Ken Watanbe) to plant an idea into the mind of his business rival, Cobb assembles a team of specialists to aid him, which includes Ariadne (Ellen Page). However, Cobb's past haunts him, which derails the mission time and time again.

The fantastic storyline and action scenes aside, on this blog, I want to talk about philosophical issues based on the movie. Don't get me wrong, I think any relation to Christianity based on the movie is probably unintenional (unlike Chronicles of Narnia), but I just want to expound on it.

It's still not real!

I heard once that dreams reveal our heart's desire. For Cobb, it was his guilt of indirectly causing his wife's death that pushes him to a desire to be punished. Until he is forced to confront his fears by Ariadne, Cob cannot rid of his guilt and truly be free. In fact, he seemingly wants it as he sedates himself to revisit his wife.

However, as Ariadne points out, no matter how figment of the dream resembles his wife, it's still not his wife. Like the people who willingly sedated themselves in Africa as shown in the film, he was living in a virtual world.

And an aged African man in the movie says, "Who are we to say otherwise (whether the dream world is real or not)?" But that misses the point. It implies that truth is not important, but comfort is.

But as Christians, we must be honest truth-seekers. After Jesus proclaimed that He was the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). We should not be afraid of the truth, if we really worship Jesus. And we must be honest, not matter how uncomfortable it makes us feelm regardless if it concerns evolutionary biology, the historicity of the New Testament, or even in examining our own lives.

For if we based on our comfort on a lie, what if it all falls apart? We have based our lives on a lie?

The idea of planting ideas?

Inception feels a bit like the idea of memes as popularised (but not originated) by Professor Richard Dawkins (1976). The idea is that memes are cultural replicators, similar to genes which are inherited and passed on to descendants. However, memes also explains the problem of religions as they can be transmitted to unrelated individuals like a "virus". Like E.O. Wilson (1979), Dawkins believes that if religion (or the concept of God) can be explained via natural means, we can rationalise God away.

However memes, have some scientific problems (which I will elaborate on my science blog www.defensedefumer.wordpress.com some other time). Even if it memes can explain religion, it also applies to naturalism and atheism.

More importantly, the concept of memes fail to address an essential question: Why can't God work through natural means? Don't get be wrong, this discussion does not prove God's existance, or disproves God. But I will elaborate some other time.

The real issue is this: why invoke a creator, when nature has shown itself to be able to self-proliferate? It is a question all believers (including myself) should really address. And that is a question I plan to address in the near future.

Conclusion

Watch Inception if you have the time! I give it 90/100!

References

Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene

Wilson, E.O. (1979) On Human Nature

WIth Due Respect-- If you were born in India, you would have been Hindu!

A personal account

I recall in months of May and June 2010, I was posted to Silwood park, a rural campus of Imperial College to do my final year project. In that campus, I made good friends with some of the students there, and I am proud to say we became fast friends.

We were having dinner together when one of my new friends, seeing that I brought a book to the table asked me why I was reading a book on religion. (The book was Can a Darwinian be a Christian?, written by atheist philosopher Michael Ruse.) Innocently, I replied that I wanted to understand more on how non-Christian academics viewed Christianity. With sudden aggression, my friend replied that people are only religious because they were born in that environment. To use the exact same words, he used, "If they were born in India, they would be Hindu!"

The many forms of the argument

This arguments comes in many forms:
"If you were born in Japan, you would be Shinto Buddhist."
"If you were born in Morocco/ Malaysia/Turkey, you would be Muslim."

The basis of the argument suggests that people largely believe what they do due to their social environment.

Or to make it more understandable I'll put it like this:
1) The individual would like to think for himself/herself.
2) However, all individuals belong to community which reinforces some beliefs and discourages others.
3) Hence we are all locked into our social and cultural histories, and therefore there is no way to judge rightness and wrongness of beliefs.

Yup, that sounds reasonable, right?

It does, provided that the moral relativists can exclude themselves from their own qualifer. Berger (1969) argues that if everything we believe is socially constructed and therefore no belief is universally, that that is true for the moral relativists too. In Berger's own words, "Relativitism relativises itself." in a way that you cannot have relativism all the way down (Siegel, 1987).

That's not to say I disagree totally with my friend. Our social and cultural biases make assessing competeing truth claims difficult, and of course I agree. Such conditionedess of belief is a fact, but it cannot be used to confirm all truth is relative, or such a claim refutes itself on its own merits. However, we cannot avoid analysing spiritual and religious claims by proposing "there is no truth", or we would be intelluctually lazy (Keller, 2008).

We must do the hard work of searching and checking claims of what we know about God, human nature and reality to determine what is true and false. And if we are being honest with ourselves, we base our lives on some answer to those type of questions (Keller, 2008).

We have heard stories of people converting from one belief systems to another. There are people who have reasoned themselves into atheism For instances, converts from Christianity to atheism include Ken Livingstone (former Mayor of London), John Loftus (former pastor) and Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist). That's not to say people have not reasoned themselves out of atheism to Christianity. Francis Collins (geneticist), Alister McGrath (theologian) and C.S. Lewis (writer).

Conclusion

I guess in a way what my friend was really saying that unlike religious people like me whose beliefs are socially and emotionally constrcuted, his beliefs are intelluctually constructed. However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we believe what we believe for intellectual, emotional and social reasons (Plantinga, 1998).

Don't get me wrong-- it doesn't prove there is a god or disprove one.I just want to encourage us not to be lazy and hide behind relativism.


References

Berger, P. (1969) A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural

Keller (2008) The Reason For God

Plantinga, A. (1998) The Defense of Religious Exclusivism. In The Analytical Theist

Siegel, H. (1987) Relativism Refuted: A Critique of Contemporary Epistemological Relativism

Theology 1.0-- Introduction to world views

Hi readers, this post is an introduction to different world views on religion. Bear in mind I am over-simplifying. And that this list is non-exhaustive.

Theism-- belief that god/gods exists and are involved in humanity and the world. Monotheism would be the belief in one god (such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism), and polytheism accpets that many gods exists (such as traditional Hinduism)

Deism-- belief that god/gods exists, but are not involved with the world. (As one of my deist friend puts it, "A god created the world, but he doesn't care about it.")

Pantheism-- belief that God is in nature. Unlike theism where God/gods is separate from nature.

Panentheism-- belief that nature is part of God. Unlike pantheism which equates nature to God.

Agnosticism-- belief thatthe question if God/gods exists is unknowable.

Atheism-- belief that no deities exist.

This are just some of the views of the world. Bear in mind some of the views are not mutually exclusive. For instance, one can believe in pantheism and still be a deist. And of course, there are varying levels of beliefs, such as strong atheism, weak agnosticism etc.....

Theology 1.0-- Why is theology important.

This video [based on Pastor Joshua Harris's book Dug Down Deep (2010)] says it more eloquently as I can.

How we view God, whether we believe or disbelieve in Him, shapes our lifestyle, and our point of view. That is why theology, the study of God/god/gods, religion and faith is important.

Update-- why start this blog?

I started this blog because I was both angry and frustrated. On one hand, I am angry because some of my less accomodating atheist friends, and well-known atheists keep misrepresenting Christianity, and portraying it in such a way that no reasonable person could believe it. On the other hand, I am frustrated that a lot of my brothers-and-sisters-in-Christ do not give our non-believing counterparts enough respect in engaging them and also misrepresenting their points.

So I started this amateurish Christian apologetic site, to publish my thoughts and musings. I hope to be respectful and truthful enough to help people think about issues, regardless if they agree with my point of view. While this site is not as extensive as my science blog (I am a biology major, not a theology/philosophy major), I'm glad to announce that maintaining this blog makes me less frustrated and angry. And I can sleep better tonight.

To those who complain my posts are too superfisical or deep, I'm sorry. They probably can justify their reasons, and I did so unintentionally. If I misrepresented any one, I apologise again.

My future posts will have the following labels. In Updates, I post about what I am currently doing, and the direction this blog will take. In Alternative Culture, I will analyse Christianity in relation to culture. It maybe a book review, thoughts on a movie, or even a comment on some piece of art. In With Due Respect, I will talk about views from non-Christians and analyse their critisism of Christianity. In Theology 1.0, I will talk about views from other Christians, and the Bible. Lastly in My Confessions, I will talk about my personal journey and struggles with Christianity.

Thanks for reading!

Conversion Story-- Winter

Winter (2007-2008)

One month before my university started I converted to Christianity. Why? I guess you could say my scientific and skeptical mind could no longer take it. Maybe I would try this Christianity out again, for real. If it isn't real, then I would have lost nothing. After all, one of the best ways to find out something isn't true is to test it out for myself.

And I remember that warm night in Singapore, no one (other than God) heard me utter a sincere conversion prayer. To be honest, I was quite disappointed that there was no applause, no thunder or no warm assurance that God did hear me. Was it too much to ask for pink lightning to flash across the sky, I pondered.

The story could end here, but I was not finished. I only had a juvenile understanding of God, but I still needed to understand Him more, and whether the Christian understanding of the world held water. So I read books like Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and The Reason for God by Timothy Keller.

But life did not get better after accepting Christ. I had a long intelluctual struggle (embarassingly, lasting over a year) with creationism and intelligent design, fell out with a Christian brother over a Singapore Society issue and relationship problems. And at times I wondered if God really cared about me. It was a chilling winter of personal struggles for me, one that rivalled my dark depression during the army.

But as I studied the Bible (and related texts, including the anti-Christian ones), I realised I could not honestly say Jesus was not God , did not exist or did not rise from the dead. The evidence for me was too overwhelming.But evidence could only bring me thus far. I had to commit. Who was Jesus? In the Apostle Peter's own worlds, I also said He was Christ (Mark 8).

And despite the hostile winter to me conversion, I stand, unashamed to say that I am Christian. But my journey in understanding God is not over. Like a relationship, it is still an ongoing journey. And I'm still travelling.

Conversion Story-- Fall

Fall (2005-2007)

You know, people say Autumn follows Summer, but for this post, I found Fall seems more appropriate.

I can't remember how it happened, but the service in the military destroyed me emotionally, socially and intellectually. As much I would like to blame the army for changing me, rather, I thank the military for exposing who I was at that time.

And I was insecure, selfish and snobbish. As the months passed by, I became darker and more obessive. I wanted to be respected and loved by any means necessary. So I was not above backstabbing and sabotaging people, in order to get a good grade on my army peer appraisal. Although it may sound stupid of me then, that was the way I saw the world.

But the same thing happened to me. I was also manipulated and plotted against. At that point of time, my heart demanded justice. But I halted myself. Why justice? Who am I to say something is more right than the other> To be fair, I tried arguing that all morality was relative, but somehow, that line of reasoning seemed weak to me. "Could there be a relative without an absolute?", I wondered.

And then there was another issue. After I was posted into my unit, I had a conversation about religions with some of my army friends. And painfully it was revealed how little I knew about the religions of the world. It was very easy for me to disbelief in caricatures, which was exactly the mental images of religions that I had. In other words, I was no true atheist-- I was ignorant.

So I decided to be agnostic, but I hated that term, as it seemed to imply that I didn't care about the issue. I did, so I went to the library often to read up on major religions. I read parts of the Bible, the Quran (the English translation), the Buddhist Sutras, but did not understand them. So I read books on them.

At that time I found Christianity most convincing as weirdly enough, I felt it was the most falsifiable. Here was a man claiming to be able to forgive the sins of all mankind, but to be God. If he really did the things he did, and said the things he said, then that would be really strong evidence for Christianity. On the other hand, if he never existed, never died or never came back from the dead, Christianity would instantly fall apart. (Interestingly, the Bible says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15: 12-19).

So I checked up on mainstream scholarship (Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus) and discovered that this man Jesus probably did live and did die and did come back to life again. But to be honest at that time, I still hard trouble accepting the Christian God as the on true God. So I was a less strong atheist, a weak agonsitc and leaning towards Christianity.

One of my Christian friends then challenged me. If the historical Jesus was as the New Testament described him, who did I say He was? Was he mad (for thinking He was God)? Was he evil (for misleading us)? Was he God (as claimed by him)?

And I could not answer him. Maybe it just wasn't the season yet.

Conversion Story-- Summer

Summer (2001-2004)

So there I was in the summer of my academic growth. To my own surprise, I was excelling in almost every academic subject. I could not remember what it was like to struggle barely a year ago. I remeber feeling as if I was a different person. I graduated from secondary school, finishing the top 10% of the cohort, and went on top one of the best pre-universities in Singapore (Victoria Junior College). Although I was not anywhere near the top student of that school, I am preety proud of the way I progressed. Thanks to the school, the Debate Society, the Writers' Circle and the Science Research Society, my analytical and critical thinking skills improved and by far.

Nevertheless, I thought that God could be reasoned out. The world was such a pluralistic place; how can anyone religion be right? When I was taught evolution, I realised we removed God from the origin of species. Why did we need God, when nature could show itself to create? In my despair, I remembered praying alone in school, hoping God would send a sign. But there was none. No thunder, lightning or even rain fell from the sky.

"That's it!" I thought in my heart. I thought God did not exist. However, I kept it from my parents, and still attended church regularly. The strong didn't need God. I was strong, both academically, and intellectually, or so I thought.

Little did I know, after my summer, I was due for a fall.

Conversion Story -- Spring

Hello readers!

As promised, my next series of posts will be my personal story, of how I became Christian.

I will write it in probably a four to five part series. So without further ado, I let me begin.

Spring (1986--2000)

I am truly blessed and loved. My parents never fail to remind me about that fact through their words and deeds. I have a caring family who brought me up in a stable home. Although I was never well-to-do, at least the income my Dad brought into the family was enough for three full meals for the five of us.

I guess that's one of the blessings of a Chinese Christian family. My parents, although strict with me, also showed great affection for me, and I can never repay them for that.

However, between me and my siblings, my parents did note something different about me-- I had a keen mind that was always questioning. At least that was what my teachers, parents and my peers remembered of me.

For instance, when I was 6, my teacher read the story of Snow White to us, and all the kindergarten children were happy with the story except me.

"What happened to the woodcutter?" I recalled asking (or along that line).

The teacher asked what I meant, and I remembered telling her that if I were the queen who dispatched the woodcutter to kill Snow White and he let her go, I would have taken my revenge on him.

On another note, my parents noticed how interested I was with the natural world, raving about dinosaurs and observing the movement of ant colonies above ground. At that age, I marvel at the wonderness of nature and atrributed it to a divine Creator. At that age, the reason why I really wanted to study biology was to know God better. At that time, God was still an abstract concept

However, I was not a really a well-behaved, or disciplined student in my early days in secondary school. I guess it was because the friends I made in primary school and the fact that I did not need to work hard to get promoted to the next level. Sometimes, I wonder if my secondary two teacher ever forgave me for the horrid time I gave her.

Then I realised I had to work hard-- due to limited resources, my school only could offer 1 biology class for the students. And the class was only available for the top students. After the Secondary 2 mid-year examinations, it was revealed that I was ranked 100+ out of about 160 students. I had to jump over 60 positions in order to make the top class of 40.

So I gritted my teeth and I slogged hard. I started reading and spending more time in my work. After the final exams, I was ranked 16th, better than I expected, and I made it into the top class unexpectedly.

I attributed my success to God, but my spiritual life was unprepared for the summer of my personal ego to come.

Books I have read about Chrisitainity and other religions/philosophy

Hi readers,

Over the years, I have been reading a lot of books about Christianity. Although I am Christian, in a way I am interested in finding out what others view about religion/philosophy and Christianity in general.

So here's a list of the books I read so far, and a short review of them.

A) About Christianity
1) Mere Christianity
By C.S. Lewis

Even as Lewis speaks from the grave, his ideas were not outdated, leaving me speechless about Christianity. He presents Christianity without all its bells and whistles, muisc and lights, smoke and mirrors, and makes it clear, concise and reasonable.

This book is abptly named "Mere Christianity". I enjoyed the book, and appreciated his intelluctual honesty in his journey in coming Christian.

2) Reason for God
By Timothy Keller

This book is inspiring, and again presents the case of Christianity in a simple way.

Although not as extenisve on philosophy as Mere Christianity, it is simple and easy to read.

B) Science and Christianity

1) Finding Darwin's God
By Kenneth R. Miller

This book is more of a defence of Monotheism, rather than mainstream Christianity. It is an exciting read, especially if you are a science student.

That said, I didn't quite understand about the use of quantum theory in free will. The argument sounds like a God-of-the-gaps argument, which his book argues against throughout.

2) God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
By John Lennox

A philosopher and mathematician, John Lennox handles the limits of science and religion, and the relations the two have.

It is quite a fair and balanced book, as he handles misconceptions thrown out by the New Atheists.

3) The Language of God
By Francis Collins
A nice, honest and personal view of God from the ex-head of the Human Genome Project. I appreciate Professor Collins's bravery in standing up for his faith to be counted.

That said, he struggles with some aspects of philosophy. For instance, his argument for morality sounds as if it is an argument from ignorance.

C) Atheism

1) God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
By Christorpher Hitchens

This book was puzzling to me. At first it starts out as a platform than discussion, and then wraps the chracteristics of religion so bad, that I do not recognise it. For instance, the author makes it sound as if all bad things come from religion, and for the good things that happen, the religious people used secular principles for them. Case close. No further discussion needed.

That said, he makes good arguments against the participants of religion, rather than religion itself. For instance, how religion resulted in the War on Terror and the Crusades.

D) Islam

1) The Myth of the Cross
By A.D. Ajjola

This book examines the central claims of Christianity, but the version I borrowed from the library is riddled with many grammatical errors, making it a hard read.

Nevertheless, I did read it through and was appalled by the line of logic it makes. For example, it says that Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man does not make him divine, as Ezekiel was also called "son of man" in the book of Ezekiel. However, he does not bother to observe the differences of language (the captial letters, for one), the context, the audience and so on. Even if he could not bother to check the original Greek/Hebrew Bible manuscript, he could at least cite someone, which he does not either.

That said, it does give a rough explanation why my Muslim friends do not except Jesus as God.

The future?

Currently I am reading Can a Darwinian be a Christian? by atheist philosopher Michael Ruse. Unfortunately, I have yet to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (because it's on loan in the library). I have read about it (and a lot of other books) though.

I need to read up more about other religions, so if anybody can recommend me anything, go ahead.

Points on Letter to a Christian Girlfriend

Hi readers,

Hopefully, you have read the previous post, where someone replied to my arguments. I guess I am humbled by some of his points which I will clarify for sure. Most of it is due to my brief explanations, so it does cause some confusion, and I apologise for that. Thanks to the blogger (how should I address you? Local Atheist?) who pointed the confusing parts, despite our differing worldviews.

I respect LocalAtheist because what he could have said was "Look at this moron ( or something like that)-- he misrepresented Taosim!". But in his graciousness, he pointed out a few of my errors quire amicably in his post.

1) Puropse of my post (Reply from a Christian Observer)
I made a mistake of sounding too harsh in the post, that readers treated it as a counter. Although majority of the post counters the writer of "Letters to a Christian Girlfriend", I guess I wrote it more aggressive than I should. My purpose was to clarify some of the points he made that I felt were unfair for two reasons-- intellectual honesty, and to present Christianity as something reasonable to believe in.

2)Where do non-believers go?
I think I probably wrote this too poorly, resulting in the major misunderstanding by "Local Atheist" (the blogger). I didn't say that Christians were sinning by marrying non-believers. In fact, it is not a sin at all. That said, it is hard for Christians in such a relationship because of differing world views.

Everyone is doomed to hell (eternal separation from God) becuase they are sinners. However, in accepting Jesus to cleanse our sins, believers join God in heaven.

So in a way (bearing in mind I'm simplifying a lot), it's fair in the sense that God honours our choice whether we want to spend time with him eternally (in heaven) or not at all (in hell).

3) Science and the universe

This one, was a major mistake by me. I failed to clarify certain issues. I wrote "Atheism is not as pro-science as you think". What I mean to write was "Atheism is not ALWAYS as pro-science as you think". And I failed to add that in a sense I agree with Stephen Jay Gould, that science is equally compatible with atheism as with religious belief.

It's hard to understand the second part too. God is by definitation in and out of the universe at the same time. Persoanlly, I am troubled by it, because it does sound like a cop-out. And I was not using this explanation as evidence of God, but rather to clarify why in Christianty God has no beginning (and no end).

PS: I know the writer of Letters to a Christian Girlfriend is agnostic.

4) The what if hypothesis

I think the bigger issue I failed to highlight is that how do we know ANYTHING is true if everything is environmental (or genetic)? I think if we push this hypothesis to the fullest, it seems to argue against the concept of ultimate reality. In other words, if we cannot know reality as it is, then how can I be sure that something exists as real at all?

It's quite hard to grapse, I concede. I myself took quite some time to get my head around it.

5) Bible as moral compass

I admit this part of my response sounds the weakest, but bear with me, because I am still reading on it.

I guess when I write "in context", we must take the "text" in the time it was written in. You say if the Bible inerrantly true, it should be unmistakeable throughout time. However, you realise that societies change over time, and hence interpretations vary. And I agree. But some interpretations are just wrong.

Let's take the case of King David and the death of his unborn child in 2 Samuel 12. After finding out his baby died, he said that "I will go to him, but he will not return to me". Does that mean the Bible (from this passage) says that all fetuses who die before birth will go to heaven? Maybe, but you have to remember that this part of the Bible is written as a narrative (of what David said), rather than what God told David.

Admittedly, it's hard to get the context of the Bible in normal reading at times. Hence Christians are encouraged to attend sermons/Bible study/read various translations of the Bible. That said, reading the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek and learning the historical context of the times is the best way to go about it, but not everybody has that gift.

6) Evidence

I will handle this at the last part.

7) Religion/Philosophy/Science as a tool for harm.

I largely agree you on this issue. If you were next to me, I would hi-five you :)

Science in its purest sense, is just a tool with no bearing of right and wrong. That said, scientific naturalism as a philosophy can lead to people doing good or bad things.

8) Professors

I did not say that majority of academics believe in a Christian God. All I wanted to point out was that there were academics who were Christian, and it's not the odd one or two.

I heard that 40% of scientists believe in a "personal God who answers prayers" (i.e. a theistic belief), but this survey was done in the United States only (I think). (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are lying). I hear from cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller that for science academics, majority do not believe in God because we are simply trained to be skeptics. So scientists are less likely to believe in anything. I don't know about other academics, though.

9) Funeral rites

Again, I apologise for misleading people. Bowing is a form of respect for parents, I agree. But in some Chinese religions, it also involves asking the deceased parents for protection. Isn't it a form of worshipping too?

And one more thing, about the contradiction, it is not a sin, if it is simply respect. The issue is up to an individual. If his conscience is weak, then he better not do it. (i.e. if he feels that by bowing to his parents, he feels guilty, it is better he does not do it). You may oversimplify the funeral rites (eg: Josssticks to sandalwood, bowing as respect), but some of us do not. Admittedly, I was never in such a position (I was an atheist when my grandparents passed away), so I can't tell you what I would have done (or how I would have felt).

(For reference see 1 Corinthians 8)

10) The problem of evil

I admit that these is a problem I struggle with in Christianity. Like why does God let bad things happen? In letting bad things happen (eg: He lets Satan destroy Job's home, wealth and health in Job 1 -2), isn't He a direct cause of them?

Let me be clear: If you quiz me on stuff like what is the theological reason everyone except a boy died on a Libyan airplane crash on May 12, 2010, or why God let a tsunami happen, I will answer you honestly-- I don't know.

There could be a number of reasons-- a consequnce of natural law/free will, judgement (although for someone to say so conclusively is insensitive; see Luke 13:1-5), or a warning. The point is I don't know.

The main point I was highlighting was the fact that we can recognise something as evil, right or wrong, hints towards a God. Local Atheist suggest simulations (I'm not too sure what he means), but to do so seems to give free will without consequence.

You point out the benefits of a moral system, in primitive animals, and I applaud that. But I just want to point out that it does not mean that it being beneficial disproves God (nor does it prove God).

6) Evidence

As promised, the evidence for belief. While there are many hints towards God existance, such as beauty, moral systems, etc, I just want to get straight down to it and talk about Jesus, which is the strongest case of Christianity.

Mainstream historians (as far as I know), accept that there was a man called Jesus. He claimed to be God, did miraclous things (Roman and Jewish historians who did not like him said he did black magic), and died on the cross. They wrote that more than 500 eyewitnesses saw him alive three days after his execution.

However, the implications of this (ie: whether He was God or not) differ among historical scholars. I will cover this in a later post.

But I would say if you can prove that a) Jesus didn't exist, b) Jesus didn't die or c) Jesus stayed dead, you would disprove Christianity. Again, I will cover this in a later post.

Conclusion

I'm sorry if my points are brief.

To my friend LocalAtheist, I don't know if you will write a response to this, but if you do counter this, I probably won't write a reply, because I want to move on. I will either focus on my journey towards Christianity or why we pray.

For our next post, why don't we list some books that will be helpful for our readers?

And have a good week ahead!

PS: Can I link your blog to mine?

Letter to a Christian Girlfriend – the counter, and the counter-back

Hi readers, I'm currently busy with an olive tree project in Silwood Park , Ascot, UK.

Unexpectedly, I received a reply to my post on "Reply to a Christian Observer". I do not personally know the person, but I am hopeful we can have a good, honest discussion.

The replies are in two posts:

http://localatheist.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/letter-to-a-christian-girlfriend-the-counter-and-the-counter-back/

http://localatheist.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/a-reply-to-a-christian-observers-response-continued/

His posts are really enlightening to read, no matter what your religious/philosophical background is.

Reply from a Christian Observer (to the "Letter to a Christian Girlfriend")

Dear non-christian peer,

I do not know you nor your girlfriend personally, and thus it would be inappropriate for me to comment on your relationship. As the Eminem song "Like Toy Soldiers" goes, I do not want to write about "anything I know nothing about". I may not fully understand your frustration, but I see that you are hurt, and I just want to pray for you.

Reading your widely publicised letter, I see that you are particularly antagonistic when it comes to religion, particularly Christianity. After you probably did derive the name of your letter from a book by atheist Sam Harris, Letters to a Christian Nation. Now, I see that you wrote it under emotional pains, so I am in no way condemning you. However, as I read on, I see that you bring up many, many good points, but most of those points are pure misrepresentations of Christianity. Let me start point by point, as you did in your letter.

Undone by Corinthians 6:14?

When reading the Bible, one must take things into context. You picked out one line from one verse in the Bible ("Do not be equally yoked with non-believers"), and then claimed that Christians believe they will go to hell for marrying non-believers.


Now, the apostle Paul did write it, but as a guideline for relationships. It is hard for Christian and non-Christians to get into a serious (but not impossible) relationship because they have different goals. Both want to please the spouse, but for the Christian, marriage is a way to bring us in a closer relationship with God.

I am unsure if you read the whole passage, but if you did, you will realise that the Bible did not say Christian go to hell for marrying non-believers. In the Christian doctrine, people go to hell because they are sinners. That is why we need Jesus to cleanse us from our sin to enter a relationship with God.

A reason driven life

I have no real comment about this section. I applaud your determination to better yourself though the ages. Like you, I was brought up to consider evidences carefully and critically, and I emphasised with you in this aspect.

You have great questions here-- Do Christians have unquestioning loyalty to God? Is Christian faith blind faith?

I would disagree. Even Jesus questioned the Father on the cross as He was dying (Mark 15:34). Do Christians have doubt about their beliefs? I do. And every time we do, we are encouraged to real about it and settle it for ourselves. If the evidence is lacking, should we continue being Christian, or search harder?

The sciences (Bang Bang, Age of the Earth, Noah's Ark)

As an undergraduate biology student, there a lot of things here I can say "Amen!" too. However, you have to bear in mind that Creationism and Christianity are two different things (even though some proponents insist otherwise). My issues with Creationism is the same as yours. That said, you must remember that although evolution is often named to be anti-Christian, the Big Bang was once regarded to be anti-atheistic (as it implied the universe had a beginning). Atheism is not as pro-science as you think.

But you bring up a good point is this. God is described as always existing, even though no natural analogue exists. That's just it-- the Christian God is not purely natural, but also supernatural. If you insist that the natural world is all that exists, it's not a scientific statement, but rather a faith statement. Then your probability of God is zero. However if you entertain questions like, "Does meaning exists?" and "Why am I here?", you will probably find God.

So many religions, which one is true?

I agree with you on the issue of many religions to a large extent. You say maybe all religions are true in some sense or another, and they can't all be right. However, I must impose here. To say someone's religion has a touch of the truth, is only valid if you have the whole truth.

Then you go on with "If you were born in country X (Japan/India), you would be Y (Shinto/Hindu)". In philosophy, this is known as a what if hypothesis. It is another faith statement. Would it make atheism/agnosticism any less true, if it was pointed out that you are like that only because you had a certain background? What if hypothesis is an interesting concept to explore, but meaningless to follow up on.

Bible being not a good moral compass/Cherry-picking within the Bible

Again, this might sound surprising, but I do have roughly the same issues. Why did God test Abraham on Issac? Why did God have such harsh laws? Why did God approve of genocide? It's something I do not have all the answers to, yet I am reading on them.

And I am glad you get the point that the God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament.

Just because we have issues about something does not render it invalid. You misunderstand what apologetics say about Israel in the Old Testament.The Israel of Biblical times were one nation following God's laws, to be God's representative on Earth. Thus their punishments were harsher (stoning for adultery etc). However, no one nation today can make that claim. You can't take something of the Old Testament out of context and accuse Christianity of playing double standards. Remember Jesus spared an adulterous woman from stoning in John 8. Oh, but you would not accept that, would you? However, if you read John 8 in its whole, it is exactly address the issue you made a fuss of, and that's not "cherry-picking".

By the way, your one line from Confucius can only triumph all Christianity if you accept it to be your epitome of moral perfection. But again, that is a faith statement to make.

Why did Jesus need to die? Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Punishment for sin is separation from God, and is not to be taken lightly. And through the Old Testament time, a sacrifice (usually a lamb) had to be used for a sin offering. So a death was necessary to cleanse us from sin. However, with Jesus's death, we no longer need to do it.

Disagreement among various sects

You say Christians differ on so many issues. I agree. However, disagreement does not render something invalid. Evolutionary biologists differ over punctuated equilibrium and systematic gradualism when it comes to the fossil record. Does that make evolution invalid. Some atheists promote a militant lifestyle (advocated by your hero, Richard Dawkins), while others are more accomodative (Michael Ruse). Does that make atheism any less valid?

(I would not consider Mormons Christians in any sense, for their perception of sin and salvation is drastically different from mainline Christianity.

Worldwide conflicts as results of religion

Religions can cause great harm, no doubt about that. However, so can science and political ideology (eg: Korean War). You have to tease out what is an excuse and a reason. For instance, if you asked the Northern Irish if they were Protestant, they would say yes. If you ask them if they go to church, they would say no, but they were from Ulster. Does mainline Christianity sound like it is involved there.

Radicalism?/Christians as good role models?

You cherry-picked a few issues to further suggest religion cause conflicts. I already covered it in the paragraph above, but your statement about scholars and religion is just wrong.

No religious scholars? Really? What about Christian scholars? Do they count?

As for scientific scholars (since I am in that field), there are definitely many of them. Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris and Kenneth R. Miller are few of the many Christian professors of science out there.

Contradictions between Commandant 1 and 5

I was most irritated by this comment, to be honest. Just because you cannot see how you can honour God by honouring your parents does not make it invalid.

Do you know why the converts do not want to carry out the full Chinese funeral rites? Because it involves bowing and worshiping the parents, which would place their parents above God. But I think you would object to that, saying that being filial is more important than following God.

Wait a minute, first you accuse Christians of not following the Bible to the letter to be hypocrites. And when they do, you paint them as blind and in this case, unfilial. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

The problem of evil

You described natural disasters issue very well. I have no idea why God would allow such terrible things to happen. But to say that disproves the Christian God you are assuming that there is no benevolent reason why an omnipotent and good God would allow a disaster to happen.

Furthermore, the fact that you can recognise something is evil must have come from something. After all, the fact that you can call something bad and good when it comes from nature is unusual, isn't it?

Satan as an excuse?

Satan, according to the Bible is the Prince of lies. However, no where in the Bible does it pin the responsibility of sin on Satan, but rather on men.

Conclusion

When it comes to examples of bad Christians how religions can be misused, you basically ace the test. However my friend, you know little about theology/philosophy and thus it drives you to misinterpretation at times.

Letters to a Christian Girlfriend

I decided to start of my new blog with a controverserial post from a NUS student. After breaking up with his Christian girlfriend, he posted this on his facebook notes, calling it "Letters to a Christian Girlfriend". I must put a disclaimer though, I do not know him personally, nor did I have his permission to use his note on my blog. I just thought it was thought-provoking, for me as a Christian. I will post a future response to it, not to mock him or put him a bad light, but to clarify some issues which I strongly felt misrepresentated.

Some Memories; No Doubt just Ramblings to the Passerby

When I first entered the National University of Singapore, I was the loner kid who did not bat an eyelid at girls. Girls, with all their idiosyncrasies like gossiping or buying pairs of shoes after shoes, were too much for me to handle. I was more interested in climbing, and girls only served to take away my climbing time.

You first approached me. You started giving me gifts, like chocolates and small cards. These little nuggets made a boring day suddenly exciting. In all your little notes, you asked about my life; you dropped encouragements; you made me feel special in a way no other person has managed to. Any unfeeling heart would melt under these circumstances.

In the one year that we spent together, I cannot remember a single unhappy moment. Sure we had disagreements, but we sorted them out as soon as they surfaced. Never once had we an argument. I still remember the incident when you crashed the car. To the best of my ability, I arranged for a mechanic to repair the damages, negotiated for a good repair price between the accident victim and the mechanic, and paid for all the upfront costs first. Do you remember how I told you then since you did not have any liquid assets; you could try to barter your fully stocked cupboard with the parties? A little nasty yes, but all for your own good. In the end, I still helped you make the payment with the money I scrupulously saved.

I still remember our overseas trips. Those weeks spent away from urbanisation, getting to learn more about each other, and gaining insights together. All these memories I hold close to my heart. But they aren’t important anymore. After one year together, without warning, you dropped a bombshell on me – convert or break up. I was devastated. I cannot begin to describe the hurt and anguish I felt. You’ve left me behind to walk the long road ahead on my own. I languished in my grief. I can’t even do the thing I loved to do most – climbing. All the fight has been drained out of me. How long will it take to pick up the pieces? I wonder. One Chinese proverb particularly lent me support: If you can pick it up, you should be able to put it down. In my desire to understand how a religion, which in its entirety claims to preach love and compassion, drove you to unilaterally and resolutely want the break up, I achieved revelation. Indeed, the learning process is accelerated when feelings are invested.

Undone by 2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked together with non-believers. You believe that God created you in His image, and that He is ‘a member of your body’. Because of this religious doctrine, you believe that the resulting union between a Christian and a non-Christian is unholy. You believe that you will not be granted entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. You believe that if you commit the sin, you will burn for eternity in hellfire.

I realise now how you could be so calm when you made your decision to break up known to me. I collapsed with grief, whereas you could still go jamming with the rest in the immediate aftermath. You felt like you were doing God’s work, and you found peace in Him. I had no such consolation. My life just fell apart. In sorrow, I grasped at reasons at why you might be unhappy with me. Did I treat you badly? Was I overly possessive? Was I not spontaneous enough for you? All these queries drew a blank.

Only after reading the scripture did my hurt, disappointment and anger subside. I realised the very difficult spiritual position you were in. Just like how Christ is head of the Church, the man is to be the head of the house. I cannot provide you with the spiritual support that is demanded of me in the bible. The bible you believe to be the divinely inspired word of God.

A Reason-Driven Life

You shared with me how you attended Sunday school since you were in primary school and finally got baptized in secondary one. You shared with me how you were previously a naughty and unruly girl, and how religion has changed you for the better. Unfortunately, I do not share that same background as you. But like you, I am a social construct of our upbringing.

I used to be the typical nerd in school and studied diligently. From a young age, I’ve learnt to correlate good results with hard work. If I studied hard and obtained good grades, I deserved all the credit. If I decided to be lazy, took a back seat and get punished with bad grades, then I reap what I sown. I do not praise the Lord for everything good thing that happened in my life and vice versa, blame Satan for everything bad. Rather, I encourage and berate myself in accordance to my successes or failures. As a result of my firm belief in effort and reward, my grades have always been above average, if not excellent. In the blink of an eye, 23 years have passed. In that same duration I have lived without a God in my life.

Because of this upbringing, I am firmly steeped in reason and anecdotal evidence. Just like how you are indoctrinated in unquestioningly faith as a virtue, I am indoctrinated in intellectual scepticism as a merit. For me to convert to become a fundamentalist Christian like yourself, instead of becoming a half-past-six Christian (as one Christian friend has appallingly recommended me), I need to be surrounded by overwhelming, mutually self-reinforcing evidence. I embarked on reading the Bible, and within the first few chapters of the holy book I already found several distasteful contradictions. Contradictions I am unable to reconcile. At this point, we must decide if we think whether intellectual scepticism or blind faith more virtuous. Should a child be inquisitive and ask and question and debate or should he be obedient and servient and accept everything spoken to be the truth of the world? Perhaps I failed to read the Bible spiritually, or adopt its teachings with the same unquestioning acceptance as you did. If I were to become a baptized Christian, then all my queries have to be answered to me by the faith, one by one. Prepare yourself for a deluge of intellectual bombardment.

Big Bang Theory

Mathematicians have calculated that the probability of us coming into existence out of random chance is very, very minute. Therefore, some higher being must have created us. But this hypothesis creates more problems than it solves – the problem of infinite regress. If you follow the logical train of thought, if God created us, then who created Him? Christians tell me that their Judeo-Christian God is uncreated, and that he has simply always existed. There is no analogy, no basis for comparison against this argument in nature, and I cannot wrap my head around this claim. If I were to worship a God, then naturally it behoves me to worship the ultimate creator. Can you conclusively prove to me that your God is the ultimate creator? Just because you firmly believe in something doesn’t necessarily mean it is correct. If I firmly believe that there is a teapot orbiting around the Earth, then the onus is on me to prove my theory. The onus is on you to prove your God to me.

So many Religions, Which one is True?

How are we supposed to know which religion is the true religion? Just because someone follows a certain faith does not necessarily mean it is the right path. Perhaps no one religion contains all the truth of the world. Perhaps every religion contains fragments of the truth and it is our responsibility to identify those fragments and piece them together. Or perhaps there are no gods. No one can say for sure. There were 3200 religions in the world since the start of time. Since only 1 religion can be correct, then the other 3199 religions must be wrong. Christians say their God is the one true God, as do the Muslims, Jews, Hindus and more. And radicals from each faith are willing to be a martyr for what they think is the highest ideal.

Do you not see that the place of your birth determines your religion? If you were born in Japan, you’ll be a Shinto. If you were born in India, you’ll be a Hindu. If you were born in Tibet, you’ll be a Buddhist. If you were born in Norway during the times of the Vikings, you’ll believe in Thor and his hammer! The fact that Christians think a child to be the child of God, instead of a child of Christian parents, or Hindu parents, or Muslim parents, is unacceptable.

Do not all religions appear strange to those who stand outside of them? A case in point: when I recounted my predicament to a PRC friend, she found religion to be a ludicrous myth. Only an insidious force such as religion can break up such a happy relationship, she told me. She also shared with me how the Fa Lun Gong Movement is creating a lot of social problems in China.

Age of the Earth

Creationists argue that the world is 6000 years old. But science, through using several independent methods of radiological dating, has repeatedly proven the world to be about 4.5billion years old. Dinosaur fossils are tested to be about 65million years old. That the age of the Earth is 6000 years old is a myth. How Christians stand steadfast in their story of creation in the face of such staggering evidence defies understanding.

Noah’s Ark

Genesis 6:15 states that Noah's ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits in size. Today, experts agree that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, yielding a volume (if perfectly rectangular, the most voluminous possible shape of three unequal dimensions) of 1,518,750 cubic feet. Into this, you must fit two of each of the 30,000,000 species on earth (60,000,000 creatures altogether), plus all the food needed to keep all of them alive for about a year when the flood raged. Even without the mind-boggling amount of food required, it is technically impossible to pile all the creatures in the ark, together with space for bedding or room to stand. Furthermore, Noah has to go the Arctic to collect 2 penguins, go to Antarctic to collect 2 polar bears, go to Kalahari Desert to find 2 meerkats, go to Asia to find 2 tigers, and get 2 Tyrannosaurus Rex to enter the ark.

Also, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, then given the severe drop in salinity of the seawater, most of the fragile marine species should have died out – something not evident in the world today. Given the above analysis, the story of Noah’s Ark cannot be true.

Bible not being a Good Moral Compass

God tells you to stone people who believe in other gods to death

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy father; Namely, of the god of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the Earth; Thou shall not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shall thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).

Abraham makes an offering of his son to appease God’s whimsical wishes

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of (Genesis 22: 1-2).

Abraham heard an imaginary voice in his head telling him to murder Isaac. He subsequently lifts the blade to his son’s throat. These actions demand unquestioning belief. It requires what philosophers refer to as a leap of faith. Earlier, God had promised Abraham that he would spread his seed far and wide for him. A dilemma is presented at this point. How can I possibly spread my seed if I kill my only son? That God ultimately did not claim the sacrifice is of secondary importance. What if one day, you hear an imaginary voice in your head, telling you to sacrifice your child? I can only imagine hapless believers, killing their children over what they think is God’s mandate. To people outside the faith, this act of abomination is nothing less than cold-blooded murder. Furthermore, this contradicts with the ‘Thou shall not murder’ commandment. So many inconsistencies, yet you can effortlessly accept where I find it morally repulsive to.

Moses the Prophet

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Numbers 31: 17-18). Moses, who was angered at the Israelites merciful restrain towards the conquered Midianite people, ordered his men to kill innocent children in cold blood, and kill every female that is married to the Midianite men. What sin did the Midianite male children and married females commit that demands this genocide? The greatest irony is that it was Moses who brought down the 10 unbreakable commandments inscribed in stone. Given the savage nature of what you have already witnessed, it should come as a big surprise to you that one of the commandments were actually Thou shall not kill. Yet, here was Moses, ordering the mass slaughter of children and women in cold blood, not unlike the gas camps of the Nazis or the killing fields of Pol Pot.

Rape My Daughter as you Please

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid down hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel (Judges 19: 22-29).

This entire particularly nasty paragraph describes the inferior status of women, equivalent to that of playthings, as sanctioned in the Bible. The man offered his concubine to be raped, instead of fighting to defend her, as I would have done without hesitation. Following that, the same man desecrated her body when she died instead of providing her with a proper burial. I hope this piece of scripture shocks you as much as it has shocked me. In today’s civilised world, such acts of betrayal and moral destitution are considered socially repugnant, yet these are the teachings you meekly accept with unquestioningly faith. These are the issues that you must grapple with if you truly accept your faith in its entirety.

Cherry Picking within the Bible

Of course now Christians will be protesting, because they claim that Jesus, who has descended onto the world to die on the cross for our sins, has changed the world since the nasty days of the Old Testament. No doubt the New Testament is an improved version of the Old Testament from a moral position. The idea is that God had himself incarnated as a man, Jesus, in order that he should be hideously tortured and executed in order to redeem our sins. And not just the original sin of Adam and Eve, but all future sins, whether we decide to commit them or not. Ultimately when we die, God is both judge and jury in the decision to allow entry into the gates of the Holy City. So then, why does he need to die on the cross for us to atone us for our sins just so he can judge us again at the end? Why not just forgive us outright? Is he not supposed to be all powerful and all merciful?

In fact, contrary to what many Christians believe, the New Testament openly endorses the laws of the Old Testament. Think not that I am to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For I verily say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5: 17-18). All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3: 13). It cannot be any clearer. The laws in the Old Testament are to be obeyed. It is downright shameful how Christians can interpret otherwise.

Christian apologetics reason that in the days of the Old Testament, we had to follow the moral, civil and priestly laws. For them, because we are not under a theocratic system today and because by sacrificing himself Jesus fulfilled the priestly law, only the moral laws apply today. This explains why homosexuals and adulterers were stoned in the past, but are not today. This explanation is flawed. The moral law is created by God, the civil law by whichever political system was governing the country at that time, and priestly laws by the priest. If God commanded that adulterers be stoned, then it is solely a moral law set by him. Do the civil or priestly laws have the right to interfere? Do you mean to tell me that the state or the priests have more power over the supreme Creator of your universe? How can Christians allow the moral law of their God be tainted by the secondary laws set by humans, especially since human beings were intelligently designed to be imperfect? I would think that if you were a true Christian, you would follow your God’s law to the letter.

As much as the Bible supposedly preaches values of love, compassion and mercy, it also advocates slavery, hate, pettiness, anger, jealousy and narrow-mindedness. Just one line from Confucius could triumph all the moral pretentiousness of the Bible. “Do not do unto others what you do not wish to be done unto yourself”. Imagine if this phrase was incorporated as one of the tenets of the 10 commandments (instead of the morally inept “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife” commandment). It is obvious that the world will see much less conflict or better still, no conflict at all. Not to mention the irrational breaking up of a perfectly happy relationship.

Disagreement among the Different Sects

There are many different Christian denominations, all of which disagree with one another over which doctrine to place emphasis on, which church to follow, etc. The faith is spilt into the 3 branches of Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and Protestantism. Under each of these denominations there are further sub-groups. For example, under the Protestant group, further denominations include the Anabaptists, Pentecostals, Adventists, Baptists, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists and Lutherans. Not forgetting other sects like the Puritans or Pletism that have died out since the 1800s.

As if the disagreement between various religions is not conflict enough, denominations within the Christian faith all disagree with each other. Catholics believe that Mary had no original sin, remained free of sin throughout her life, is the “Mother of God” and the new Eve. They also believe of her bodily assumption into heaven instead of death. Other Christian factions disagree. Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Saturday, originally the seventh day of the Judeo-Christian week, should be the Sabbath. Other Christian factions disagree. Mormons think that all drugs, including caffeine in coffee and tea, are a travesty to biblical laws. Other Christian factions disagree. It appears that conflict, not consensus, is a central theme of Christianity.

Debate over Homosexuality

Recently, the issue of gay pastors has been thrust into the limelight in predominantly Christian America.

In August 2006, leaders of the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination began a tense debate in Minneapolis on whether to ordain gay men and lesbians. The denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, is considering lifting a ban on noncelibate gay and lesbian pastors, permitting the ordination of people in committed same-sex relationships. Let’s see what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20: 13). Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolater, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, not extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). Is it not peculiar how the Lutheran Church leaders interpret the scripture in a vastly different way from how you interpret it? Such church leaders, with the power to influence the minds of all of their gigantic congregations, has despite the warnings listed down in the Bible, decided to go ahead with the vote to ordain gay pastors. Can you not see how religion is susceptible to starkly contrasting interpretations, and subsequently abuse? I cannot imagine the day when Singaporean church leaders decide to interpret the Bible in the fundamentalist way (that their religion is the one true religion and all other religions are profoundly false and necessarily wicked), and incite religious hatred against other faiths.

In November 2006, leader of the 30million-member National Association of Evangelicals in the US, Pastor Ted Haggard, resigned after being embroiled in a gay sex scandal with another man. The other party, prostitute and masseur Mike Jones felt he had to expose the hypocrisy behind Pastor Ted’s anti gay marriage preaching on one hand, but engaging in sexual activities with a man on the other. Pastor Ted has since been stripped of his ministry. Saying one thing but doing another? That’s old news to me, at least where Christianity is concerned.

A Holistic Interpretation

Here is what the Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, has to say on the issue of homosexuality. “Well if you take the issue of homosexuality, there is no doubt that more so in the Old Testament, but also present in the New Testament, that there are a number of texts, not as many as people think there are, but there are a few, that clearly regard homosexuality as wrong. But it is a question of how you interpret the Bible - whether it is right to extract a few isolated texts, rather than seeing the whole message of the Bible; the whole message of Jesus.” He says that in the past during the Roman times homosexuality as a choice is frowned upon; whereas from the understanding that biology gives us today, it appears that homosexuality is a circumstance. Progressive values espoused from such an authority figure in the religious circles are steps forward for mankind. Christians need to read the Bible in its entirety and inculcate the over-arching loving and compassionate message of Jesus.

If the Bishop of Oxford says that extracting a few isolated texts from the Bible is morally unjustifiable, then extracting the sole “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers” line, and basing your decision to break up on religious dogma should be considered most absurd!

Worldwide Conflicts as a Result of Religion

I see how you remain blissfully (or should I use woefully) unaware of current world affairs. Whenever I point out conflicts arising as a result of religion to you, I notice how you always looked shocked. It is as if you live in protective little bubble your religion provides, and think it impossible how so much evil can arise out of a supposedly good thing like religion.

You are fortunate you reside in Singapore, where religion is kept separate from politics. Having the Internal Security Department hawk over the evangelical groups to toe them in line, though admittedly draconian, does have the merits of preventing religiously intolerant religions like your own from inciting racial and religious hatred. Case in point: Pastor Rony Tan shooting his mouth off in his sermons.

Do you not see that incompatible religious doctrines have divided our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed? Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past (Crusades and Spanish Inquisition). The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point.

I sincerely hope that I have opened your eyes to blood spilt all over the world by people who fight over whose God is truer. You still think religion is always a force for good? Think again.

Radicalism

In 1994, Reverend Paul Hill shot Doctor John Britton and his bodyguard, James Barrett outside the doctor’s abortion clinic in Florida. The crime of the doctor, as religiously perceived by Hill, was the carrying out of abortion procedures for a woman who requested it. In a religious fervour to do his version of God’s work, Hill turned his back on progressive values and went against civil law. In a statement before his execution, Hill said that he felt no remorse for his actions, and that he expected a great reward in Heaven. In his last words, he encouraged others who believed abortion contravenes the word of God to ‘do what you have to do to stop it’.

This psychopath, who somehow managed to get himself ordained as a reverend, is telling his followers to go and commit more of such cold blooded murder of abortion practitioners. Has he decided to selectively skip the ‘Thou shall not kill’ commandment? In the course of his journey to become a priest, has the values of love and compassion and mercy (the same values that you probably hold dear to your heart) not been drilled into him? How can he commit such an atrocity and yet remain defiant even till his deathbed? Perhaps just like the peace you found in God when you decided to break up with me, he found his peace too. This same ‘peace’ has led to uncountable nights of me sobbing into my pillow. The same can probably be said for the wife and young children the doctor has left behind.

In Malaysia, dispute over the use of the word Allah in Christian doctrine had erupted in conflict. Churches were vandalised and set on fire by fanatical Muslim youths who believed that the word Allah belonged their faith and not to Malaysians who practiced other faiths. Retaliatory attacks were soon launched on Muslim mosques. How many more places of worship has to be defaced, how many more lives have to be lost, before you peer out of your cocoon and see the truth of the world?

Religion is seen by the scholars as false, by the commoners as true, and by the politicians as useful. Case in point: United States President George Bush Jr. told the American public that God gave him the mandate to attack Iraq. In a media boo-boo, he said that it was a crusade against evil. Crusade. The word rings a bell, doesn’t it? The reason behind the illegitimate invasion was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein kept, but they found none. They found barrels of black gold though.

Christian Leaders as Good Role Models?

AWARE Saga

Earlier I pointed out how the Bible is not exactly the best moral compass. Similarly, the actions of some Christian leaders leave much to be desired. A right-wing Christian group who perceived the campaigns of AWARE (a non-profit organisation), as being pro-homosexuality, storm-troopered the advocacy’s group annual general meeting and snatched power. AWARE saw a stunning leadership change when newcomers captured 9 of the 12 executive committee posts. Older members questioned their motives as well as the sudden influx of new members who joined AWARE just months before the AGM. The new team sacked the AWARE centre’s manager, a paid employee, changed the locks at the AWARE office and had a stand-off with old guard members who turned up later.

With four of the new exco members attending the same church – and having the same ‘feminist mentor’ in the form of lawyer Thio Su Mien – and all espousing ‘pro-family’, anti-gay sentiments, it is obvious that a religious group is trying to impose its agenda on a secular non-profit organization. Do you not see the problem here when religious people, no doubt in the zeal to do God’s work, go beyond simply evangelising their beliefs to attempting to pass their preferred moral practices into legislation. By their actions, the Christian Right has notoriously established a benchmark for religiously inspired activism that may well be emulated by people of other faiths. This is the start of a slippery slope. The consequences of skidding down that slope are unimaginable for a multi-religious society like Singapore’s.

Father Joacquim Kang

Kang was sentenced to seven and a half years in jail in 2004 for misappropriating $5.1 million in church funds while serving as a parish priest at St Teresa's Church. I wonder if his followers will still have faith in him. Leadership by example, anyone?

Pastor Rony Tan

Rony Tan, the leader of Lighthouse Evangelism, an independent church with 12,000 members, ridiculed Buddhism and Taoism in his sermons to his church. The most appalling thing was that as he was inserting snide remarks and nasty untruths about other faiths, the entire congregation was laughing together with him. I shudder to think that some of my Christian friends may be sitting among those in that congregation.

Catholic priests molesting children

The catholic sex abuse cases are a series of lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and scandals related to the sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests against minors. Beyond the actual abuses, much of the scandal focused around the actions of some members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report the crimes to legal authorities and reassigned the offenders to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors, giving them the opportunity to continue their sexual abuse. Again and again, we see examples of how these people with religious authority abusing their power and causing hurt and suffering in their charges. How many more examples do you need before you understand my unwillingness to be blindly led around by the blind?

Personal Contradiction between 2 of the 10 Commandments

Commandment 1: You shall have no other gods before me
Commandment 5: Honour your father and mother.

My father and mother pray to other gods. When they die, as the eldest son, I have the traditional duty to conduct funeral rites for them, which would inevitably conflict with Commandment 1 should I have converted to the Christian faith. But if I do not take up this duty, then I am guilty of contravening Commandment 5. A lose-lose situation. Personally, I place a higher premium on filial piety than on religious dogmatism. During his 2009 National Day Rally speech on religious tolerance, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recounted stories of Christian converts who refused to do as their parents wished on their deathbed and ended up hurting the very people who have painstakingly brought them up for many years. Fulfil your parent’s deathbed wishes – to do or not to do? Honestly, I am repulsed at the actions of those ingrates and will definitely do as my parents wished to the best of my ability.

I found it ridiculously easy to reach this conclusion just with rational reasoning. There is no need to commit to a book to resolve moral questions of this sort.

Natural Disasters

Explain the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami or the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. When the waves of the massive tsunami crashed into the city of Aceh and when the gusts of the hurricane slammed into New Orleans, what was going through God’s mind? Why did God, in all his omnipresence and omnipotence, not stop the tsunami from crushing the lives out of hundreds of thousands of innocents, many of them children? What crime did the children commit? Hundreds of thousands of lives were killed in an instant. These were people of faith, dying! In New Orleans, did he not hear the prayers of the elderly who fled to the attics to escape the rising waters, only to be slowly drowned as they murmured their prayers? What kind of all-powerful and all-compassionate God is this?

Not surprisingly, the people who survived reaffirmed their faith. Praise the Almighty Lord for delivering us from harm, they would say. But do they not see that the same God who has supposedly spared their lives has also mercilessly drowned infants in their cribs? If you accept that there is a God, then He must be powerless, or evil, or He does not care.

Why is it that the Bible can dedicate huge chunks of texts to encouraging slavery, to promoting gender inequality, to curtailing sexual behaviour, to describing in gory detail how to punish adulterers and homosexuals, yet it cannot prophesize natural disasters of such biblical proportions? God told no one of the impending doom. Science did. Hours before the tsunami or hurricane struck, meteorological calculations and satellite imagery foresaw the imminent disaster. Meteorologists rushed to warn people to evacuate the danger zone. Without science, more lives would have been lost.

Isn’t it amazing how God can address the prayers of those who ask for good grades in their exams, or good results for their competitions, but fail to hear the prayers of those about to die?

Promising Young Lawyer Killed in Mumbai

Ms Lo Hwei Yen, 28, a promising Singaporean lawyer, was one of at least 188 people, including 22 foreigners, killed in a shooting and grenade rampage by 10 militants who terrorised Mumbai for 60 hours in 2008. Incidentally, she happens to be a devout Christian.

Why did God put such a promising girl like this girl into the world, only to claim the life back when she is at the prime of her life? Is the purpose of her life to die in the cross fire of some religious extremists?

Do you think the Muslim terrorists from Pakistan, indoctrinated with their highest ideal of introducing an Islamic state in South Asia and liberating Muslims residing in Indian-administered Kashmir, cares about the collateral damage? It saddens me to note what extremism in the name of religion has led to the passing of a beautiful yet innocent soul like Ms Lo. It should sadden you too.

Satan as the Convenient Excuse

Please do not be so foolish to think that Satan is the cause of all these evils. It was apparent in my conversations with you that you think that Satan is solely responsible for everything you cannot explain. In my conversations with more enlightened Christians, they tell me that Satan influences, but ultimately the choice belongs to the person. Father Joacquim Kang and Reverend Paul Hill should have known better. And if God is all-powerful, why didn’t he eliminate Satan? Or better still, why didn’t He simply just not design Satan?

For Better or for Worse? Till Death do us Part?

Much to my chagrin, there have been several attempts by Christians who earnestly invite me to their church time and time again. I appreciate their goodwill and kind gestures. However, my issues with the faith cannot be simply resolved by repeated visits to the church.

In one of your letters to me, you told me that you liked me for my big brain. I’m assuming that you like me for my intellectual discourse. Oxymoronic then, that what attracted you to me in the first place is also responsible now for turning you away.

This brain of mine is my blessing. It is also my curse. I just wonder if I were indeed intelligently designed by Him, why didn’t He erase my persistence in reason.

The heartache
Dull sensation in my chest
Never seem to fade away


There is no all-seeing, all-loving God which keeps us from harm. Atheism is not a recipe for despair. I think the opposite. By disclaiming the idea of a next life, we can take more excitement in this one. The here and now is not something to be endured before eternal bliss or damnation. The here and now is all we have – an inspiration to make the most of it. Atheism is life-affirming, in a way religion can never be.
Richard Dawkins, Oxford Professor and Prominent Atheist