Alternative Culture: Pacific Rim Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theology 1.0: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

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

Sunset at East Coast Park, Singapore, December 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
Craig, WL (1994) Reasonable Faith

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

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

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

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

A video summary: Documentary

Alternative Culture: The sex-for-grades case

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

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

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

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

Being academically educated does not make one a moral example

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

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

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

Conclusion : What is the problem with man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank God for Jesus.

PS:

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

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

For further reading:

Chesterton, GK (1908) Orthodoxy

With Due Respect: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

A criticism of miracles

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

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For further reading

Apologetics

CARM

For evidence on the resurrection of Christ-- bethinking

Theology 1.0: Who is Sophia Blackmore?

Sophia Blackmore

Despite Singaporean, I realised I often do not post about the Christians would contributed to Singapore. So let me give a brief description of the life of one Christian-- Sophia Blackmore. She is more famously known as the founder of Fairfield Methodist School (Primary) and Methodist Girls' School.

In the beginning...
Born 18th October 1857 in Australia to devout Methodist parents, Sophia had a calling to be a missionary after meeting American missionary Isabella Leonard.

However the Australian church did not dispatch unmarried woman as missionaries, so Sophia had to rely on the American church (and thus the help of Miss Leonard) to sponsor her instead. She was then sent to Singapore.

Welcome to Singapore
Arriving in Singapore on 16th July 1887, Sophia started the Tamil Girls' School (later known as the Methodist Girls' School) within a month with a cohort of nine students. She then set up a mission to spread the gospel in Chinatown, making 800 visits to 90 homes a year.

In August 1888, she set up a Chinese girls' school (now Fairfield Methodist) with a cohort of eight students. Still not done, she also established a shelter for homeless girls, calling it Nind home, in honour of a friend (Mary Nind) who supported her.

Church planting
In 1894, she planted a church in Singapore catering to those who worshiped in the Baba Malay language. This was affectionately called the "Baba Church", and now is known as Kampong Kapor Methodist Church today.

In 1928, Sophia returned to Australia. She passed away on 3rd July 1945.

Personally
I admire Ms Blackmore for her dedication to the Christian faith, and her aid to teenage girls. This is despite her initially setback with the Australian church and her struggles in a foreign land.

Updates: My career

Hello readers, as you all my know (or may not know), my teaching career has now taken full swing. As such, I am now unable to update this blog regularly.

Nevertheless, this blog will still be operational, but posts could come quarterly. Don't expect high quality apologetics or theological articles, but I'll try my best.

Thanks for reading faithfully!

Regards,
Defensedefumer

With Due Respect: My Christian friend is a bad example!

"The worst people I know are Christians"

When I was in the military, one of the reasons I hesitated in becoming a Christian was because some of the worst people I worked with were Christians. They would avoid responsiblities, feign illnesses and were undependable. Their terrible work ethic and moral behaviour were reprehensible to me.

Why should any non-Christian be attracted to Christ in the light of the behaviour of his followers?


Some Christians have done terrible stuff
Now I have to admit this: Some Christians have done terrible stuff in history. Many people have listed the examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition that have caused many deaths in the name of Christ. Torquemada, one of the Spanish Inquisitors, deported more than 40,000 Jews and was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 2,000 people during the Spanish Inquisition.

If following Christ maybe leads to people doing horrible things, it is little wonder people find Christianity a turn-off.

Some non-Christians have also done terrible stuff
However, we need to be fair. Non-Christians have also done many terrible things in the name of their worldview. During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao of China caused the death of millions for his view of atheisitic Communism. During World War II, the Japanese killed millions in the name of their divine Emperor or Shinto Buddhism.

If not following Christianity also may result horrific things, where does this lead us?

What about the issue of truth?
However in philsophy, this line of logic (that the argument is bad because the person saying it is bad) is an ad-hoc argument (Sire, 2006). In other words, an argument is cannot be considered invalid just because a person is of bad character.

As someone who is seeking the truth, one must be able to explore statements independent of whoever says it.

Conclusion
In our effort to discern the truthfulness of arguments, one must be wary not to focus on the ills of the speaker. However, in Christianity we have Jesus saying that he is God. Why not spend time discerning his claim?

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