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.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
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
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
Monday, July 26, 2010
Alternative Culture: Inception
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
Thursday, July 22, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
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.....
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.....
Monday, July 19, 2010
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!
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!
Saturday, July 17, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)