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
Friday, August 27, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Alternative Culture: The Sorcerer's Apprentice
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.
Monday, August 16, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, August 13, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, August 09, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
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
http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)