Malaysian Atheist

The 1000-Year-Old Tradition

2009-09-14T15:57:00.008+08:00

Confucius was a Chinese philosopher in ancient China, whose teachings have deeply influenced the Chinese community for over a millenia. His teachings focused primarily on filial piety and respect for elders and seniors. Until today, Confucius' teachings are evident all over Asia. The Chinese community in Malaysia is no different, especially those who've gone through the Chinese schooling system. Malaysian Chinese have fought for decades to maintain their independent schooling system against integration with the rest of Malaysia's national schools. In these Chinese schools, Confucianism is hard-wired, by default, into the system. As a result, students are automatically indoctrinated with his teachings from a young age.

A lot of Malaysian Chinese tie their cultural identity to Confucianism, so much so, that children are automatically expected to revere their parents undyingly and unquestionably. They believe that parents created the children and so, the children owe them everything. This is markedly different from Christianity where Christians believe that there is only one Father in Heaven and parents are merely conduits for God. In Heaven, you and your biological father become brothers-in-Christ. Confucianism is not a religion, but a way of life, but it's impact on society today is just as profound as that of religion, if not more.

So, what is so wrong with Confucianism? What's wrong with respecting your parents and elders? Nothing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving and respecting your parents. Everyone is encouraged to do that. Moreover, Confucius also taught the Golden Rule, which is universally accepted and should be practised.

What I find unacceptable about Confucianism, though, is that you must put the interests of your elders ahead of your own, with no questions asked. Why should you let your parents/elders make decisions for you if you are capable of thinking on your own? Even if your own thinking is reasonable enough, why does Confucius demand that you obey your parents? Theoretically, if they ever asked you to kill yourself, then according to Confucius, you absolutely must kill yourself! Where did Confucius get the misguided notion that all parents are rational people? Such rigid rules are not without disastrous consequences.

One example I can remember is from Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Outliers' about Korean pilots. In August 6, 1997, Korean Air Flight 801 crashed in Guam, killing 228 people. Prior to this, Korean Air also suffered unusually high rate of crashes. Going through the plane's blackbox, investigators found that the Flight 801 Captain, who was fatigued throughout the flight, had blundered. The First Officer and Flight Engineer were both uncomfortable with their Captain's decision, but because of their Confucianist culture, were not able to strongly voice their objections to him. Instead, they had to remain subservient and politely hinted on potential problems. The result was a tragedy. Confucianism crashes planes!

The truth is, everyone deserves respect regardless of their status/position. The young must respect the elderly and likewise, the elderly must respect the young. We cannot have one-sided rules where someone is always right because of their higher status. The fact is, nobody is perfect. The elderly can be just as flawed and misinformed as the young can. It is imperative that we respect each individual's freedom. Also, one doesn't need to observe such archaic rules in order that one can be identified as a Chinese. It is much more important to be a rational person first, and a Chinese, second.

Technorati tags Confucianism, Malaysia , Chinese

Populii - Speak your mind!

2009-07-21T11:30:00.007+08:00

Hi folks! Here's a new website made by a friend of mine. It's called Populii (http://www.populii.com). In case you're wondering, the name comes from populi, as in, vox populi which is latin for 'voice of the people'. I guess it's quite appropriate since the site is about Malaysian news.

Populii crawls several of Malaysia's English dailies like The Star, New Straits Times, The Edge, Sun, Malay Mail and more. So you get all the news in one place. You could probably do the same thing using an RSS reader, right? But there's more. The news is ordered by popularity, so you can always see what the popular news of the day are. If you're too busy to read all the news, you can just to scan through the Popular page to keep yourself up-to-date. See something interesting, you can click on the title and it'll bring you to the news site for the full news.

And since it's all about voice, you can post comments on any news article you find interesting. Hmmm, sounds too good to be true! You ever sometimes get really worked up when you read some piece of sloppy reporting?? Like the journalist/editor is giving a very biased, pro-government or racist slant and you just want to give him/her a piece of your mind? Yeah, now you can... on Populii.

Oh, and another feature that I like is the Search, especially the Timeline feature. You can key in a phrase, say 'Wimbledon' and do a Timeline search. The results are presented in a timeline and you can see all the reported events in chronological order. Pretty neat.

This site is still very new, so do join me there. http://www.populii.com/user.php?name=meursault06

Technorati tags populii, malaysian news, voices

Malaysian Atheist moves to a New Place

2009-03-04T21:27:00.006+08:00

About a month ago, my girlfriend and I moved to a new place. It's a mid-sized, three-room apartment near the city. Needless to say, we were very thrilled to finally have our own home.

Right before we got the keys to the new place, my girlfriend's Mom told her about the customary practice of throwing rice, tea leaves and salt around the house to ward off evil spirits before moving in. Apparently you are to mix the uncooked rice with tea leaves and salt, and spread them all over the house, especially the corners as that's where the ghosts and spirits love to hide. You need to leave the mess overnight before sweeping. That's the recipe for chasing off evil spirits (while at the same time inviting ants and bugs into the house).

I can't help but wonder how this practice came about. I'm just not convinced that evil spirits are afraid of rice, tea leaves and salt. After all, I don't see people performing exorcisms using rice, tea leaves and salt. What if I'm out of tea leaves? Can I substitute it with coffee powder? How about add a dash of pepper, to make the evil spirits sneeze while they're tumbling out the door?

Could it be just a hoax started by a greedy grocer, eager to sell more rice, tea leaves and salt? Or could it be a joke started by a jealous brother? Anyway, I don't know how it got started, but it sort of reminded me of a story I read before:

A child was watching her mother cook a roast. The mother cut off both ends of the meat and placed it in a big pot for cooking. When the child asked, "Why do you cut off each end?" the mother replied, "I do it because my mother did it that way, so it must make the meat taste better." When the child asked, "Why does it make the meat taste better?" the mother replied, "I don't know, go ask your grandmother." So the child asked the grandmother and she replied, "I do because my mother did it that way, so go ask your great-grandmother." When the child asked the great-grandmother why she cut off each end of the meat, her great-grandmother replied, "Because my pot is too small!"

Often, we find that some of the things we do, we do for no good reason at all, other than because that's how it's always been done. Whether it's cutting the ends of a roast or throwing rice, tea leaves and salt when moving to a new house, or doing the rain dance, this process of non-thinking can eventually lead us to do actions that make no difference whatsoever apart from the false feeling of security. I'd rather not have any ants and bugs around, thank you very much!

Technorati tags superstition, new house , spirits

FSM Meal

2008-07-29T23:22:00.010+08:00

My girlfriend and I cooked up a Pastafarian meal for dinner. It's really simple and delicious. Here's how we did it:

Ingredients:
2 tsp olive oil
2 tomatoes
1 onion
1 clove of garlic
500g spaghetti
8 beef meat balls
1 can whole mushroom
1 tsp margarine (salt reduced)
1 bottle Prego pasta sauce (onion & garlic)
40g Grozette cheese powder

You can substitute the olive oil with regular cooking oil. You can use instant noodles instead of spaghetti. You can add chicken or shrimps if you don't like beef. You can add grated parmesan for a cheesier taste.

Method:
Heat oil and fry the meatballs till they are brown. Cook the onion and garlic for 2-3 minutes over low heat. Add the mushrooms and tomatoes and stirfry for 2 minutes. After that add the pasta sauce and some water. Cover and simmer. Add the cheese and the sauce is done!

Cook the spaghetti in a pot of boiling water for approximately 15 minutes. Drain the spaghetti and place them in a bowl. Add some margarine to prevent spaghetti from becoming sticky.

Serve the spaghetti and meatballs on a plate. Pour the pasta sauce and there you go! Serve with Kickapoo Joy Juice.

Don't forget to give thanks to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. May He bless this meal with His Noodly Appendage. RAmen!

Technorati tags FSM, PriceChat , recipe

Step down-Lah!

2008-03-09T17:29:00.004+08:00

PM Abdullah Badawi needs to resign. The people no longer want you to lead this country. We have had enough of your lies and your flip-flopping. In the past four years, you have done untold damage to the economy, society and the administration of this country. You have failed to deliver on your pledges of transparency and accountability. Under your watch, corruption, crime and cost of living have sky-rocketted. If not for the unfair use of the government-controlled media, public funds, phantom voters, postal votes, vote-buying and etc. by the government machinery throughout this election, Barisan National might not even win a simple majority. It is time to go, Abdullah. If you stay on, you will be a laughing stock amongst the national leaders all over the world... kinda like President Bush who's the President of Africa!

The people have spoken!

2008-03-09T09:19:00.004+08:00

Congratulations my fellow Malaysians! The people have spoken! We've shown that we're not easily fooled by PM Abdullah Badawi's lies and empty promises. With yesterday's massive defeat, Badawi will confirm his status in Malaysia Book of Records as the worst prime minister the country has ever had. We've also shown that we will not accept leaders who have overstayed their welcome, and who instead of serving the people, are subservient to UMNO's wishes.

I for one, look forward to the new state governments of DAP, PAS and PKR. I'm also happy to see almost 40% Parliamentary seats taken by the Opposition. Monkeys are no longer allowed into the august House of Parliament. A lot of work is needed to make things right. We need to free the mass media from government control. Even as the election results were streaming in last night, the media was still in denial mode - not covering the (newsworthy) huge Opposition wins in northern states, but merely reporting on the southern and East Malaysian states where the national front is very strong. Guys, your boss, Information Minister Zam is out! You'd better start serving the people instead of your political masters.

Then there's the local universities. We need to sack all those useless chancellors and lecturers and replace them with qualified, world-class academicians. Also the Police, government agencies and the judiciary will need to see massive reforms. Some will need to be hauled to court, trialed and jailed for corruption and misuse of power.

Underperforming GLCs and business monopolies need to be dismantled and competition need to be encouraged. I expect foreign investors will flee the country in this time of reform and uncertainty. Our country will be undergoing massive albeit necessary change. But I'm confident with this new bunch of leaders we've elected, we will be steered in the right direction and pretty soon, the foreign investors will return to Malaysia.

On the religious front, I hope this means the end of Islamisation of the country. We are a multiracial, multireligious country, and so it is imperative that we tolerate each other's culture and beliefs (and disbeliefs). There is no other way to it. We must practise tolerance if we're going to live with each other peacefully.

Once again, congratulations to all Malaysians. I look forward to this exciting, new beginning.

Technorati tags Malaysia, elections , result

Famous Atheists: Steve Wozniak

2007-09-01T15:24:00.000+08:00

I haven't written about any famous atheists for a while. Not that there aren't any worthy candidates to write about, but I didn't want to write about anyone until I know more about them - their achievements, their philosophy, their attitudes toward life, etc.

So, not too long ago, I finally read Steve Wozniak's autobiography - iWoz. It was an interesting read, but I think if you are not an electronics/computer engineer you'll find some parts difficult to understand.

We all know Woz as Apple's co-founder. He is the guy who single-handedly built the Apple I and II computers, which are the predecessors to all modern personal computers. So we really owe what we have today, to his technical wizardry.

After reading the book, you sense that Woz is really just a simple, fun-loving and honest guy. He's the guy with a big heart. For example, he wrote about how, in the early days, he felt everyone who contributed to Apple's success (even those who're not employees) should be allowed to own shares in the company and so he sold them his own shares really cheap. He also wrote about how he and Steve Jobs continued to become friends before they started Apple, even though he found out Steve cheated him off some money on some designs he did for Steve. Imagine, if Woz had gotten angry and never spoke to Steve again, there would be no Apple, no iMacs, no iPods and no iPhones!

On a personal level, Woz says he's been an atheist all his life. A lot of it has to do with his non-religious upbringing. Woz advocates thinking independently and differently.

Technorati tags iWoz, atheist , Steve Wozniak

Reboot

2007-08-11T16:43:00.000+08:00

Sorry, I haven't posted anything here since end of May. My last post was kinda depressing, people must've thought I killed myself after that. Sorry to disappoint the religious fundies, but I'm still alive. I've just been pretty busy (with work) and expect to remain busy till the end of the year, so I don't think I'll be blogging too much.

Also, the present situation in this country, under the (non-)leadership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is extremely hostile towards dissident blogs. I'm sure many have heard of the arrest of opposition blogger Nathaniel Tan, the police report against Raja Petra and most recently, attempts to charge a Malaysian Chinese student in Taiwan. Clearly in Malaysia, the government doesn't want you to have an opinion. The government doesn't want you to ask questions. The government doesn't want you to think on your own. So, now isn't quite a good time to be expressing my opinions quite so openly, though I will be expressing my opinion at the coming polls!!

In other news, I really feel for the group of South Koreans who were captured by the Talibans. I really, really despise the Talibans. Even before 9/11, I've read and warned people about them. They represent the worst of religion. I don't know what kind of religion can justify murdering a human being and taking people hostage? But the Koreans themselves need to shoulder the blame. No doubt, they had noble intentions to help the Afghans (and spread the gospel, perhaps?) but it is also extremely foolish of them to be walking into the lions' den. Just because, in the Bible, God sent an angel to protect Daniel from the lions, doesn't mean that in real life, an angel will come and stop the Talibans. There are no angels, just as there are not fairies and unicorns. But there are plenty of misguided, militant and unsound religious fundamentalists out there.

So, I'll try my best to blog when I have time or whenever something interesting comes along. Hope you all will drop by from time to time.

Do not despair!

2007-05-30T22:24:00.000+08:00

Have you ever been through one of those days where at the end of it, you wished you hadn't gotten out of bed that morning, because so many bad things happened to you throughout the day? I'm sure we all have had those before. So far, I've been having bad days everyday this week!

On Monday, I dropped my iPod and damaged the screen. Everything else is working fine, but now, half the screen is gone. Then in the evening, some unscrupulous thieves stole some parts off my car. I discovered it Tuesday morning. I didn't think those parts are worth much money but they had to take it anyway. In the evening, I noticed one of the fog lamps on my car is missing too. I'm not sure if someone took them or they fell off. Then during soccer, I busted my left big toe and hurt my right foot. My toe was bleeding under the toenail, and it'll fall off soon while I'd have to quit soccer for a while for my foot to heal. All this while, work was piling up at the office, all mundane and uninteresting work. Meanwhile, the local stock market has been heading south and I'm seeing my portfolio shrink.

Ok, perhaps I'm allowing my emotions to get the better of me, but that is only human. We are not robots; we can't live on cold logic alone. In such a situation, one can't help but feel that everything just isn't going right. You just don't know what bad thing will hit you next. The irrational part of me fills me with dread but the rational part of me knows that this is just the gambler's fallacy, which is the incorrect belief that certain, independent events are more likely to occur because it has happened recently.

In a way, it does explain why in such situations, so many people turn to religion. When people get hit by a run of bad luck, they feel helpless and really need to believe that somewhere out there, there is a god or a deity who is in control. If you worship the deity or pray to it or give offerings, the deity might end your run of bad luck. It explains why some people are all superstitious - they wear charms and amulets to ward of the bad luck. If we apply Pascal's reasoning:

1. You pray/give offering/wear amulet to improve your luck

If God exists, He hears you: your luck improves.

If God doesn't exist, your loss is nothing.

2. You don't bother to pray/give offering/wear amulet

If God exists, you've pissed Him off for not being penitent: your luck remains the same or worsens.
If God doesn't exist, you lose nothing and might not gain anything.

The only prudent action here would be to pray/give offering/wear amulet or do something to change your luck. So what if you are an atheist? You don't believe in prayer, you don't believe in amulets, you don't believe there is any God out there who can help you. So what CAN you do?

To be honest, I don't have the answer. Whoever said being an atheist is easy? The rational thing to do would be see the events as independent and unrelated. Then, one would need to think positively, talk to someone, write about your worries, or do something pleasurable to take your mind off things. Remember, do not despair.

Technorati tags bad day, gambler's fallacy , motivational

Rich Pastor, Poor Pastor?

2007-05-19T07:35:00.000+08:00

I've heard of young pastor. I've heard of lady pastor. Heck, I've even heard of gay pastor. But rich pastor??? Now, that is something to think about.

Recently, in the US, a church bought its pastor a $3.6 million mansion. Of course, the mansion belongs to the church, not the pastor, but being pastor of a big church, like being CEO of a company, one is accorded many perks including an opulent house, fancy cars, an expense account. Strange isn't it? In the olden days, pastors and church-workers lead a simple lifestyle. The church provides them with food, accommodation, transport and a meager salary. They are content with their simple lives as they serve God to build treasures in heaven. That's why we have the idiom "poor as a church mouse" - because church mice are traditionally poor.

Nowadays, however, church mice are not poor anymore. As the church-going population grows, more and more people give a portion of their income as offering to the church. Seeing that they have a captive market, the church mice also learned to write 'church' books, record 'church' music, make 'church' TV programs. That would generate more money, attract more people to their church, and even more people will offer money to the church and so on. The rewards just keep compounding! These days, the church mice can afford the best cheese, the best cars and the biggest mansions. They say it is God's blessing, but really, it is just simple economics.

The question is, "Is there anything wrong with pastors being rich?" Since they say that they believe everything in the Bible, let's see what the Bible says. In Matthew chapter 19:

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself."
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

So that is what Jesus said. Jesus, mind you. The Son of God, not some lesser prophet from the Old Testament! The lumbering camel will have an easier time passing through the eye of a needle that the rich pastor entering Heaven.

Let's see what the church says. They say that God wants His followers to do well, be healthy and have rewards. So effectively they have abandoned Matthew Chapter 19 in favour of some other obscure verse. If you think about it, they're actually more interested in securing health and wealth in this present life than securing treasures in Heaven, aren't they?

Anyway, their wealth is their private property. It really isn't any of my business. In fact, I'd recommend that young people seeking a career path should seriously consider going into ministry. Remember, in church, you have a captive audience who'll buy anything you sell. And, they'll feel guilty if they didn't give you 10% of their income each month! Theoretically, it doesn't even matter whether you believe in Christ or not. You just have to say the right words, do the right actions, fake it long enough and not get caught. Then you can enjoy all the financial rewards from the church.

My point, though, is that Christians are guilty of picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow and which to ignore. Done this way, you can simply justify anything, including killing another human being. Your religion then becomes, not what God says, but what you say.

Technorati tags wealth and health, religion , eternal life

Illogical faith & Eternal life

2007-05-09T21:46:00.000+08:00

Here's an interesting post from Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) over at Malaysia Today. The article is about Malaysian political parties, but there's an interesting bit that is relevant here:

Malays are both fanatically nationalistic as well as fanatically religious. Umno serves one and PAS the other, so both have a fantastic captive market. While nationalism can be explained, argued and debated using logic, religion does not need any convincing. Religion, as Mahathir said, is based on faith, and faith has nothing to do with logic. “How do you defeat faith?” asked Mahathir. Faith does not require logic so it is most difficult to beat PAS which draws its support from ‘illogical’ faith.

Humankind needs religion. It finds comfort in knowing that the end of life does not mean the end of everything but just the beginning of permanency. Humankind would be very upset if it thought that its time on earth is temporary and once life ends then that would be it. What a total waste of time, especially if you have been good all your life. So, humankind needs an assurance that life here on earth may be temporary, but the next life is permanent. But what happens to you in the next life would all depend on how you lead your life here on earth.

RPK is a fine blogger and I enjoy his writings, but I see some problems with the above reasoning. Firstly, he wrote that people need religion because it is comforting to believe that there is life after death. Well, just because it is comforting doesn't make it TRUE. Richard Dawkins has brought this point up many, many times. A person with cancer may find it comforting if the doctor lied to him about the fact that he has cancer, but that doesn't make it true. The cancer is there whether he acknowledges it or not.

Secondly, RPK says your next life is determined by whether or not you've been good here on earth. I think Christians will disagree with him because they believe they're saved by God's grace, not by their deeds. Anyway, I don't want to go into religious dogma here, but it seems RPK is suggesting that people are good and behave decently in order to gain favour from God. Doesn't that make theists seem like hypocrites? Surely there are much better, earthly reasons for being good and kind to others. Lots of atheists are nice and kind.

Finally, RPK is suggesting that life after death is permanent and that is a good thing. I've always wondered about this and I'd like to ask theists if they are absolutely sure that eternal life is a good thing? I wonder, once in heaven, if you get tired of living eternally, could you choose to end your eternal life? Can you even imagine what it's like to live forever? I truly suspect that in heaven, there will be lots and lots of cases of suicide. That's because eternal life has no meaning!

Logotherapy is a form of psychotherapy, developed by Viktor Frankl, that focuses on a "will to meaning". In a nutshell, logotherapy says that life has meaning under all circumstances (even the most miserable ones) and our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life. Imagine if you know that you will live on forever, how will you find meaning in your life? You will not be able to assign value or meaning to any experiences of love, kindness, despair etc. because you will be experiencing them for all eternity. Pretty soon you'll realise that this gift of eternal life is just as bad as the curse of eternal damnation. Let's hope they have damn good psychiatrists in heaven!

I know, theists will tell me that the concept of heaven is beyond the comprehension of our mortal minds. Well, they just don't want to admit that they're as unsure as I am about what heaven and eternal life would be like. I can't accept their explanation. I say that life is much more meaningful because it is temporary! Richard Feynman's last words were "I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring." We can certainly imply that Richard also meant he'd hate to live twice (or live forever).

"How do you defeat faith?" asked Mahathir. The only way is through reason.

Technorati tags Malaysia, religion , eternal life

Hindu family broken up, wife accused of being a Muslim

2007-04-18T10:58:00.000+08:00

The ugly face of religion has surfaced again in Malaysia. You can get the details at Lim Kit Siang's blog. The family of an Indian Hindu rubber-tapper, Marimuthu s/o Periasamy has been broken up by the Selangor state Islamic Department (JAIS) who says that his wife is a Muslim because she was adopted by an Indian Muslim family when she was young. His wife though, has never practised Islam but practises Hinduism instead. The Islamic department intends to separate the family and place the wife and children in a rehabilitation center.

This is simply outrageous. A rehabilitation center? Do all Hindus have some kind of disease that they need to be cured of? Does it make sense for the state to break a family up and cause trauma and distress just to uphold some outdated and intolerant religious law? Is there religious freedom in Malaysia anymore?

The sad truth is that in Malaysia, Islam has precedence over all other religions. If you are a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, you are free to practise or renounce your religion, but if you or your spouse or your parents have the slightest involvement with Islam, you lose your civil religious rights. Any disputes will be handled by the Islamic court under Islamic laws instead of the civil court.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate the law, but I'm more concerned with issues of ethics. We should not see this as an Islamic issue and therefore it should be governed by a different set of rules. Why should Muslims be treated any differently from other religions? The universal declaration of human rights says that everyone is born free and equal without distinctions of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

If a Hindu and a Christian can live together as husband and wife, why can't a Hindu and a Muslim be allowed to live together? And if a Christian can choose to become a Muslim, why can't a Muslim become a Christian? Why does individual freedom of choice disappear whenever a particular religion is involved? Why should the rules be different simply because you believe in Prophet Muhammad instead of Jesus Christ or Lord Shiva? Also, why does the Islamic Department need to resort to such aggressive tactics? Aren't there less distressful ways to handle this case? Isn't religion supposed to promote peace and harmony, not wreck havoc?

I know many rational, moderate, Malaysian Muslims will sympathize with Mr. Marimuthu's plight and feel that the family should not be broken up over weak allegations of his wife's religion. It just goes against our innate sense of human dignity and rights. The problem is, they are not doing enough to oppose the state religious department. By keeping silent, they are in fact protecting these fundamentalists actions. Quoting Richard Dawkins, "The time has come for people of reason to say: enough is enough."

Technorati tags Malaysia, religious policing, Islam

The Trouble with Atheism

2007-04-12T23:39:00.000+08:00

Not too long ago, I watched an interesting documentary on Google Video called "The Trouble with Atheism" by Ron Liddle. You can catch it here.

This is a UK production and it features some famous and learned men like Prof. Richard Dawkins, Prof. Peter Atkins, Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne and Rev Dr. Alistair McGrath. The presenter, Ron Liddle, isn't trying to argue that atheism is wrong and Christianity is right, but he seems to be advocating fence-sitting. Perhaps he's pro-agnosticism?

The subject of belief and disbelief is always interesting but I find that the documentary failed to present any strong arguments. One of his points is that the world will not be a better place if everyone became atheists. He tried to show how some atheists are arrogant and as intolerable as religious bigots. I think that is unfair because atheism has never claimed that it can and will solve the world's problems. Atheism isn't a faith, rather it is a lack of faith.

A major part of the documentary was used to attack atheism's over-reliance on science. He argued that since science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, it is a matter of personal choice whether to become a believer or a disbeliever. This is very true, but it does imply that before you decide whether or not to believe in God, you first need to read both the scientific and religious texts. So much science. So many religions. How many people actually do that? Most people do just the opposite. They first decide whether they believe or not and then they let their decision determine the books they read. I remember Sam Harris mentioned that over 90% of the members of the National Academy of Science are atheists while 90% of the US population are theists which reinforces my point that majority of people don't know enough science to make an informed decision about their personal belief in God.

Next of course, you can't talk about atheism without mentioning Darwinism. Ron Liddle says atheists are pushing Darwinism too far, when they're using it to explain everything, for example, using memes to explain morality and the survival of religion (He should first read The Selfish Gene). He says that one day in the not too distant future, Darwin's theories will be comprehensively rewritten and accepted by the scientific community as such i.e. a paradigme shift. Honestly, I don't quite get his point here. It really doesn't matter if Darwin's theories get rewritten, as long as they are backed by evidence. You certainly can't say the same about religion. Today, we see so many religious sects and denominations just because some people had divine 'visions'.

Finally, Ron Liddle talked about the history of eugenics and its links to Darwinism. Today, we don't actively engage in eugenic practices because we have ethics. It's true that science doesn't offer us any moral guidance so atheists are looking to derive moral codes based on reason and those moral codes may change with time. Again, I don't quite get his point because I don't see this as a problem with atheism. I don't believe in an absolute moral code. Don't forget that atheism hasn't been around that long, compared to the religions of the world. Despite some hiccups, our moral code does improve gradually. Just look at racism, feminism and gay rights.

So, at the end of the day, fence-sitting is fine... but Ron, fence-sitting won't solve the world's problems either!

Technorati tags The Trouble with Atheism, documentary

Malaysian bloggers to register?

2007-04-08T18:05:00.000+08:00

This is getting ridiculous. I'm sure by now, many have heard that the Malaysian government is thinking of registering bloggers in order to stop them from spreading 'lies' about the government.

As you already know, the TV stations, newspapers and radio are all controlled by the Ministry of Information, so it is no surprise that they are all pro-government and seldom report anything really news-worthy. They will always tell you the economy is doing well, and our leaders are the smartest in the whole world. Many concerned Malaysians, especially the young and middle-aged turn to the Internet for the real news. Already, Malaysian bloggers have uncovered many skeletons in the government's closet such as numerous corruption allegations involving high-profile ministers.

The bumbling government doesn't know how to react. They started by suing two prominent Malaysian bloggers. And now they want to register all bloggers in the country. Personally, I find such actions absolutely disgusting. If blogs indeed tell lies, as the government claims, it wouldn't be difficult for the government to dispel them. Just show Malaysians the evidence and we'll believe you. You cannot hope to silence the people. You cannot hope to get away by sweeping everything under the carpet.

I hope all Malaysians feel as disgusted with this oppression. Let your voice of disapproval be heard in the forth-coming general elections. Don't let the ruling government bully you and strip you of your rights.

Technorati tags Malaysia, government, oppression

Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year

2007-04-04T23:35:00.000+08:00

Congratulations Prof. Richard Dawkins for winning the Readers' Digest Author of the Year at the recent British Book Awards. His book The God Delusion was also nominated for the Borders Book of the Year award.

A Malaysian ghost story

2007-03-23T09:55:00.001+08:00

I was having lunch with some friends the other day, when our conversation inadvertently turned to ghosts. My friends started telling me about their personal encounters with the paranormal. The most interesting one was my friend's own experience at Genting Ria Apartments, over at the Genting hilltop. Supposedly, those apartments are famous for being haunted.

Several years ago, he went there with some friends and they stayed at the Ria apartments. That night, he slept alone on the living room couch while his friends took the bedrooms. He then had a strange dream. A Chinese couple was there in the living room with him. They were trying to tell him something but they were speaking frantically in Cantonese. My friend can't speak Cantonese, so he was trying to tell them that he couldn't understand them. That itself is a bit unusual because when you dream, usually everyone in your dream is speaking a language you can understand. The next day, on the way home, his car brakes suddenly stopped working while going downhill. Miraculously, he was able to use the handbrake and steered the car safely to the nearest repair shop. Later when they developed the photos they took, all the photos taken in the apartment turned out funny in that, they had some bright, wavy imprints on them. So, my friend reasoned that the couple in his dream were asking for his help, but since he couldn't help them, they killed his brakes. Spooky...

Now, being an atheist does not mean one automatically does not believe in ghosts and spirits. By definition, atheists do not believe in God or gods but ghosts and spirits hardly qualify as gods. Nevertheless, I'm skeptical by nature, so I didn't quite know what to make of my friends' stories. I also have never experienced anything of this sort personally. Let me first say, though, that I know my friend didn't make up the story. There is absolutely no reason for him to cook up such a tale. Secondly, his is not the only case at the apartments. Many other people have experienced hauntings and disturbances there. From a broader perspective, every culture around the world has its share of ghost stories. Can that many people be wrong?

I suppose if you believe in ghosts, it means that you also believe in the spirit or the soul, and hence, you believe there is life after death. The soul is something that science cannot explain or detect. Life after death too, is a concept foreign to science. If it exists, it would mean that the purpose of life is the actualization of the spirit rather than the Darwinian purpose of propagating genes. If you do not gratify your spirit in life, you remain as a ghost in death. Then you realise there must be a greater being who transcends life and death and then bada bing, bada boom you end up believing in God or gods. So I guess, if one is an atheist, one also ought not to believe in ghosts and spirits.

Well, as for my friend's story, I think it's possible that the three events - the dream, the car and the photos - are totally unrelated. People have dreams all the time, cars break down all the time and photos turn out wrong all the time. Coincidences do happen and when they do, people tend to link the events together. If you ask a bomoh, definitely the bomoh will tell you that it's caused by evil spirits because that is all the bomoh knows. It could well be that those events occured randomly and people're fooled into thinking that they're caused by spirits. Of course, I could be wrong, and they could indeed have been caused by ghosts, but there is just no way of being sure. I can accept that strange things do happen - things that no one can explain. But I know that ghosts and spirits are NOT the only plausible explanation for these strangeness.

Technorati tags ghosts, spirits delusions

You Can't Win An Argument

2007-03-17T18:39:00.000+08:00

I was thumbing through an old book by Dale Carnegie called How to Win Friends & Influence People. It was first published in 1936 with several revisions over the years. This must've been one of the first self-help books ever written. It is simply amazing that after so many years, wars have been fought, technology has advanced, economies have gone boom and bust, yet this book is still as relevant today as it was back in 1936, because human nature hasn't changed one bit.

Anyway, I came across a section that says you can never win an argument. I was instantly reminded of the debates between atheists and theists. Generally, atheists do not constantly engage theists to argue about each other's beliefs, but some, like Sam Harris (I noticed), do participate in a number of such debates. Personally, I think Sam argues very well, always rational, always interesting but how many of his opponents did he manage to convince that there is no god? Even Richard Dawkins - the most famous atheist in the world - only claims to have ever had one convert - his friend, Douglas Adams. Dale Carnegie wrote that, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." You may be right, but as far as changing another's mind is concerned, you will probably be just as futile as if you were wrong.

So, with this little piece of wisdom, it's basically pointless arguing with people about their religion, even if you think they are wrong. I also feel that when talking to theists, there is no need for me to justify my beliefs, unless I'm asked about it. I will just remind theists (if they need reminding) that everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I will also stress that I'm not possessed by demons (I get accused of that sometimes!). As far as this blog is concerned, some of the issues I write about here are not written to ridicule theistic beliefs. That's simply because they're not written for theists. They're written mainly for those in the middle-ground - people who care about the truth, people who're a bit uncertain about the uncertainties of life and who'd like to hear alternative, secular views on things. I do apologize, though, if some might find my writings offensive. Anyway, don't forget to read my mission statement.

Technorati tags Dale Carnegie, arguments

Malaysia takes All-England Men's Doubles Title!

2007-03-11T22:38:00.000+08:00

Congratulations Koo Kien Kiat and Tan Boon Heong for ending Malaysia's 25-year wait for the All-England Badminton men's doubles title. This young pair showed tremendous promise and confidence in smashing their way to the title without dropping a single set.

You've done Malaysia proud. Well done, lads!

Technorati tags badminton, Koo-Tan, men's doubles

Borat!

2007-03-09T22:35:00.000+08:00

In the movie Borat - Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, the title character, Kazakhi reporter Borat Sagdiyev, played by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, travels across America with his producer, Azamat in search of Western culture and Pamela Anderson.

One of the most memorable (and disturbing) scenes in the movie, besides the naked wrestling scene at the hotel, is the scene at the United Pentecostal Church. The scene started off with Borat abandoned by Azamat, penniless and heart-broken. He wandered into a church where there was a church service or a camp going on. People were singing, dancing and worshipping.

The preacher was preaching that he didn't come from a monkey (whoever said he did?). He said he didn't come from a tadpole (Dude, everyone knows that only a frog comes from tadpole). At the height of his message, a weird guy dashed across the floor with hands in the air. Later came the prayer session. The preacher invited people to come up and pray to God. Borat went up and told the congregation of his troubles. The preacher and church members attempted to pray for Borat. They surrounded him, they spoke in tongues, the preacher forced his hand on Borat's temple as if channeling the Holy Spirit into Borat and on cue, Borat went into a fit.
The really disturbing part is, in that scene, the only person acting is Borat! The rest are real. This really happens in pentecostal and charismatic churches everywhere. They speak in tongues, and they display 'manifestations' of the Holy Spirit. They call it holy laughter, holy tears, holy-everything. I, myself have seen these live once or twice before, so I wasn't that shocked to see it in the movie.

I am aware that not all churches agree with such practice. There is some controversy surrounding speaking in tongues, although the pentecostal people will point out that it is stated in the Bible, so speaking in tongues must be allowed and encouraged. It never made much sense to me. Why would God want us to speak unintelligible mumbo jumbo when worshipping him? It seems pretty easy to fake.

Imagine if one day in a church, one person started babbling away and claims that he's been given the gift of tongues. Who's to argue with him? Everyone will think that this guy is favoured by God and his stature in the church will rise. So it seems like there's tremendous incentive for one to display these 'holy gifts'. Pretty soon, everyone will realise how easy it is to 'obtain' this gift and how easy it is to get away with faking it. Soon everyone will be babbling away too. They're all faking it but nobody will admit it.

I've been told that there are those who are gifted with interpreting tongues. Again, I find this dubious, because how do you argue with someone who claims to be able to understand the mumbo jumbo from waggling tongues? Is there a tongues dictionary? I've also been told before, that speaking in tongues is like speaking in a foreign and maybe ancient language. If this were true, then it'll be pretty easy to prove. Just do a recording of your speech and send it to a linguist to tell you if it is a language you just spoke or just plain gibberish.

But I think no one is interested in proofs. People are content believing that they are special and that they are favoured by God. But I know one guy who's not too thrilled to be speaking in tongues. His name is Evan.

Technorati tags Borat, Pentecostal Church, speaking in tongues

It's Not About The Bike - Lance Armstrong

2007-03-07T00:32:00.000+08:00

The story of Lance Armstrong is quite well-known - super-athlete, winner of an unprecedented seven Tour de France titles and cancer survivor. His book, "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life" is a truly inspirational story about his battles against the two tremendous hurdles in his life - testicular cancer and the Tour de France. Lance is an incredibly spirited individual. He is both physically and mentally strong and it is this perseverence that has allowed him to conquer both those hurdles.

Cycling is not a popular sport in this country. I didn't know much about the Tour de France, only that it is the most prestigious and gruelling bike race in the world. So it was interesting to learn about the sport through Lance's book. For example, I didn't know there was so much technology in the sport, from the computer, to the radio and to the bike. I also didn't know that the tour was more like a team sport eventhough the eventual winner is an individual. Each team has its domestiques, climbers and sprinters, each with a different role to play for a specific part of the race.

Cancer, on the other hand, I am more familiar with. Almost everyone (if they're not already cancer sufferers) have lost someone or know of someone who has cancer. It is a major killer in developed and developing countries around the world. Thankfully, modern medicine has progressed so much over the years that more and more people survive the disease. Still, it is no easy feat, as Lance described (think of the trauma, the surgery, the chemo, the uncertainty of relapsing, etc) in the book.

Lance says in the book that he is agnostic and doesn't believe in organized religion. He didn't say he's an atheist outright but he's shown that one can go through the toughest and worst moments in life and come out victorious without believing in God. You need to have good doctors, you need to have your loved ones - family and friends, but most important of all, you need to believe in yourself. You need to be determined as hell to beat it. It doesn't guarantee that you will win, but at least if you go down, you go down fighting.

What impressed me the most, I think, is that Lance says if asked to choose between the Tour de France and cancer, he'd choose cancer survivor because he became a better man as a result of his battle with cancer. Hard to believe but having cancer turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

Technorati tags Lance Armstrong, Tour de France, cancer

William Crawley Meets Richard Dawkins

2007-03-04T12:20:00.000+08:00

This is William Crawley from BBC Northern Ireland interviewing Professor Richard Dawkins. It's 29 minutes long, you can say it's a 29-minute summary of the God Delusion. Do watch it if you have broadband Internet access.

In it, Richard Dawkins gets asked many questions about religion, God, etc., many which we've heard him being asked before and we've heard his answers to them as well. So, you can say it's the same thing over and over again.

One interesting question though, is when Richard gets asked if he's a fundamentalist. As always, Richard's answer is just wonderful. Richard explained that his critics confuse passion with fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are people who believe in a holy book. They are never going to change their minds despite countless contradictory evidence. They simply discard the evidence because it contradicts their holy book.

Technorati tags Richard Dawkins, William Crawley

Happy Chinese New Year!

2007-03-04T02:40:00.000+08:00

Hello folks. Sorry for the hiatus. I miss blogging, I really do. I hope to write as much as possible here. Let me first say Happy Chinese New Year! Gong Xi Fa Cai! It's a bit late, but today is Chap Goh Mei, the 15th and last day of the Chinese New Year (CNY) celebration.

Let's see, what happened recently? Well, just last week, the KL Composite Index (KLCI) fell 5 days in a row and lost over a hundred points, wiping out over RM 100 billion in market cap. This was caused by the drop in China's stock market, triggering a worldwide contagion effect. People are saying the market crashed, it's the 10 year jinx - the 1987 crash, the 1997 crash and now the 2007 crash. Well, I don't know. I don't like to speculate but I don't think this is a crash, it's merely a correction. The stock market has been inching up since December last year and an 8% drop like this one is just a correction that is bound to happen. Plus, this time around, the bull run is backed by generally healthy corporate earnings.

The funniest thing for me though, is that just before the drop, our Prime Minister, Mr. Badawi told the Malaysian public to invest in the stock market and help push it past it's all time high. I do sympathize with those who listened to Mr. Badawi's call, but my question is this: What business does a Prime Minister have in asking the people to buy stocks? As far as I know, no other leader from any other country tells its people to buy into the local stock exchange. To the uninformed public, it is like asking them to gamble away their savings. Imagine your country's leader asking you all to hit the casino so that you can make an extra few bucks!

Mr. Badawi should know the power of free markets. If the country is run properly, the currency and the economy well-managed, then we will see healthy economic growth. When there is healthy growth, people will have confidence in the economy. When people are more confident, they will invest in the economy. There is absolutely no need for the PM to tell people what to do with their money. He should just concentrate on doing his job.

Technorati tags stock market, KLSE, crash

Defamation suit

2007-01-25T20:27:00.000+08:00

Hi everyone. Sorry I have not posted anything for the past 1 month. I've had my share of problems eg. Internet disruption, faulty wireless router, crashed harddisk, but mostly it was because I was busy and lazy. A lot of things have happened since the new year, most notably the defamation suit against two prominent Malaysian bloggers, Jeff Ooi and Rocky Bru by (the government-controlled) New Straits Times Press (NSTP).

I think such cowardly actions by NSTP have raised concern among all Malaysians in the blogsphere. As Lim Kit Siang wrote,

"the suits will have a chilling effect on freedom of bloggers and citizen journalists as litigation is so expensive that its costs will cripple and paralyze the ordinary individual blogger, making no contribution whatsoever to a healthy process to delineate and define the legal rights of bloggers and citizen journalists."

As for this blog, my attempts to raise consciousness with regards to religion and God, can be easily misconstrued by the myopic powers-that-be to be insulting God and Islam. In my previous posts, I've written almost exclusively on the Judeo-Christian God mainly because it is what I'm most familiar with, but also because I was afraid some over-zealous Malaysian Muslim cannot take the heat and created trouble for me. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion isn't banned in Malaysia and is widely available in most bookstores in the country, despite containing sporadic mentions of 'Allah'. It may have taken a bit longer for the books to hit the shelves, but I found them in Borders and MPH. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise anyone in Malaysia if the government banned any non-Islamic book for the slightest mention of 'Allah' or 'Prophet Muhammad'.

I think my posts and my consciousness-raising aren't too different from Richard's so I take it that they are permissible. In any case, let me reiterate that this blog does not aim to insult anyone (depending on one's definition of insult). This blog only seeks to present a different view of the world, one that does not include any omniscient beings. I don't claim to have magical powers and I am not starting my own religious cult. I am merely presenting facts and arguments that are logical, rational, non-biased and consistent. If you disagree with anything I write, feel free to comment on them in a gentlemanly manner so that we can have an informed discussion. But please, do not send me hate-mail, death threats or lawsuits.

Meanwhile, this case will generate quite a bit of interest from the whole blogsphere. We should all lend our support to Jeff and Rocky!

Technorati tags: defamation suit, Jeff Ooi, Rocky's Bru

Don't mess with the Sea Dragon King

2006-12-22T23:28:00.000+08:00

Let me first say that I'm not trying to ridicule this guy. After all, he didn't hurt anyone with his superstition. He is entitled to his beliefs, but I'd like to just talk about the grip superstitious beliefs still have on people today.

About a week ago, a fisherman near Ipoh caught a weird-looking fish that resembled a dragon. It had a long silvery body with red-tipped dorsal fins. It was of course, an oarfish, a frequent subject of cryptozoology, but to this fisherman and the rest of the village, it was a dragon - a family member of the Chinese Sea Dragon King. Some local rich man also believed it to be a dragon and offered the fisherman RM50,000 (about USD 14,000) for the carcass of the oarfish. The fisherman though, threw the body back into the sea believing that “If you kidnap the (Sea Dragon King’s) son, you are looking for trouble”.
To me, this just doesn't make sense. It is a fish, not a dragon. How can it be dragon? Where are its feet? I thought Chinese dragons have clawed feet? Where's the crocodile-like jaws? Where's the fiery breath? If it were a dragon, wouldn't the fisherman have figured that he'd be world famous, for being the first guy to capture a mythical creature? He would have proven the unprovable - that dragons exist. The world media would've descended upon him. He'd make a fortune for his story, pictures, tv appearances. He wouldn't need to fish anymore. But here he was fearing for his life and foregoing a handsome reward for a rare catch.

I think, traditionally, fishermen are the most superstitious lot, because of the risks they face each time they go out to sea. The weather may be unpredicatable, their haul from the sea may not be abundant, pirates may attack them, their boats may sink and etc. So, traditionally, the fishermen would worship a deity for blessings and protection. But blind faith can often stop people from thinking rationally, such as the case here.

For most of us, brought up in the age of computers, television, Internet and the Discovery Channel, we are more open to the idea that the ocean is so vast and organisms are so diverse that there are possibly many creatures out there yet to be discovered. Charles Darwin himself collected many of the weirdest specimen ever encountered, some of which can be seen at the Darwin Center in London's Natural History Museum. And so, if we were ever fortunate enough to catch a weird-looking thing like an oarfish, the last thing to cross our minds would be that this is the son of the mythical Sea Dragon King. This is simply because we are atheists to dragons, pheonixes, unicorns, krakens, mermaids and griffins. Yet I cannot understand why people cannot see the similarities of believing in dragons and believing in an old man up in the sky. Sounds like pots and kettles to me.

Technorati tags oarfish, dragon, supersition

The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford

2006-12-21T21:34:00.000+08:00

When I first picked up "The Undercover Economist" from the shelves of MPH, I was instantly reminded of another book which I had thoroughly enjoyed some time ago - "Freakonomics". It even says right there on the cover, Steven Levitt (the author of Freakonomics) saying that this book is "required reading".

Ok, so this book has got nothing to do with religion or atheism, but life isn't just about religion or atheism (at least, not mine anyway). What this book is about, though, is THINKING. Thinking like an economist, looking at problems, examining evidence and coming up with solutions to improve the quality of our lives. This is the opposite of faith, which we agree, is the process of non-thinking.

Without going into too much details, this book isn't all that similar to Freakonomics, in the sense that it covers broader topics such as globalization, trade barriers, auctions, market economy and environmental issues. Freakonomics, on the other hand zeroes in on a specific question.

After reading this book, I think the next time I visit my local supermarket, I'll try to be more observant and try to uncover all the little things the supermarket doesn't want me to know. I found this an enjoyable read and recommend it to everyone who's ever be curious about how the world works.

Technorati tags Underconver Economist, Tim+Harford, economics

Methinks It Is Like A Weasel

2006-12-17T17:40:00.000+08:00

In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins gave a simple computer simulation to demonstrate evolution by natural selection. The book was written in 1986 (when computers arent' all that common) so I suppose the computer simulation was a big deal then. Richard chose the phrase 'Methinks it is like a weasel' from Shakespeare and showed that the cumulative power of mutation and natural selection could reproduce the phrase without an intelligent designer. I found a few articles attempting to refute this simulation here and here.

It didn't take me long to produce my own simulation (just for fun). I did mine on Matlab. I did it entirely on my own and so, some of the methods I used and the assumptions I made may differ from other similar simulations. I got the following results after almost 2000 iterations:

Gen. Output
0: KTEKBMJOWEPSVNYVBXMJOBAXIETE
5: KTEGBMJIWYPSVSYVBIM OBAFFETE
10: WHELBMJWEIPSISNVBIM OBMHJSBJ
30: LHSLBNJWEIP ISDLBKD GBUHFSEJ
50: KHTLDNJREIU ISDLHKE A UEFSEJ
80: KGTGINKREIU ISDLBKE A XEFSEL
100: KFTHINKR IU IS LIKE A XEFSEL
200: MFTJINKR IU IS LJKE A XEASEL
400: METKINKS IT IS LIHE A VEASIL
800: METHITKS JT IS NIKJ A WEASEL
1600: METHINKS IT HS LIKB A XEASEL
1900: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A XEAWEL
1928: VETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
1929: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Here's how I did mine. I started with a pair of randomly generated phrases. Each phrase is 28 characters long, each character representing a gene. I bred the pair and produced 10 offspring. The offsprings had an 85% chance of inheriting the gene from the fitter parent, 10% chance of inheriting from the less fit parent and 5% chance of the gene mutating. Then I sorted the offspring according to their fitness. Fitness here is defined as how closely they matched the target phrase. For each gene that matched, the offspring received 1 point and for those that did not match, a penalty of the percentage difference was incurred. I bred the two fittest offspring to produce another 10 offspring. This was repeated until the target was reached.

One of the articles said that the random generation 'is repeated for only the positions where a match did not occur', but the author is mistaken. I never specified in my code for the random generation to stop once the match occured for any one gene. I computed the overall fitness score and allowed each gene to change even if it has already matched the target gene.

I think the articles in 'Answers in Genesis' are both wrong to think that this simulation is meant to prove evolution. No, it doesn't prove evolution. Richard Dawkins never claimed to prove evolution using this simulation. All this exercise does is to show that using SIMPLE rules - using reproduction and random mutation, we are able to produce meaningful objects which at first seemed highly improbable. If I were the designer, I could, in this case, type in the meaningful phrase, but as this simulation demonstarted, even without a designer, the meaningful phrase could be produced. In nature though, there is no target phrase. Evolution is blind. Nature is much more complex in that the measure of fitness has to take into account many more factors which are ever-changing. Nonetheless, the principles are the same and that results in all the wonderful creatures and plants we see in nature.

Technorati tags simulation, evolution, natural selection

The Blasphemy Challenge

2006-12-16T19:40:00.000+08:00

You can now get a free copy of "The God Who Wasn't There" by taking the Blasphemy Challenge.

Monster of the Milky Way

2006-12-11T22:59:00.001+08:00

Our planet and solar system reside in a galaxy called the Milky Way. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter, and Earth is just a tiny dot in this astronomical maelstrom. Our galaxy, is just one of a billion galaxies in this universe and the galaxies are moving apart from one another because the universe is expanding.

In the documentary Monster of the Milky Way by PBS NOVA, scientists are postulating a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way. According to Albert Einstein, space-time is warped by massive objects and it was the curvature of space-time that led to the appearance of gravity. An object that is massive enough, could warp space-time so much that not even light could escape it's gravitational pull. That is what we call a black hole.

Black holes are of course invisible but scientists can see its effect on surrounding stars. That is exactly what they found when observing the orbit of stars circling a single, supermassive object (3 million times more massive than our sun) at the center of the Milky Way. A truly fascinating endeavour indeed!

Against such a backdrop, it is truly irrational to be postulating a God, especially a personal God like the one in the Bible. All the major religions of the world seem too provincial when we look at it from the galactic scale. A God whom we are created in the image of? In a universe that is impossibly massive, why should we be the only intelligent beings out there? Why should our Earth be the only planet that is capable of supporting life? Why would God bother to create so many billion galaxies and so many billion stars in each galaxy, just to place us humans (his ultimate creation) in one small, insignificant corner in the universe?

A God that wants us to believe in Him and abstain from sin? So much matter, so many particles, so many interactions, so many years to create this universe and for it to ultimately come down to a moral issue of sin? We humans really flatter ourselves to think that everything in the universe revolves around us. Indeed hundreds of years ago, we humans thought that Earth was the center of the universe. We thought the sun and all the stars orbitted our planet. With improved technology, scientists noticed that many massive planets have moons orbiting around them, meaning not every object in the cosmos necessarily revolve around our planet. Slowly we discover that it is our planet that is actually orbiting the sun, and our sun is just a star among billions of stars in a galaxy among billions of galaxies. So, the stories of all the world religions do not seem to be proportional to what's really out there.

Technorati tags Milky Way, Black Hole, universe

Intelligent Design

2006-12-07T22:04:00.000+08:00

In 2005, in the case Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, eleven parents in Pennsylvania challenged the school board over the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom. The Dover school board had previously voted to teach intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Intelligent design (ID) is really just a repackaged form of creationism, except, they don't tell you who the creator is. ID purports to use the scientific method to arrive at an alternate explanation for the origins of life on Earth. But ID is NOT science. ID is pseudoscience because its proponents start off with the assumption that there is a divine creator. Real scientists start out assuming nothing is true and then build scientific knowledge as they go along.

One of the supporting arguments for ID is in biology. Biochemist Michael Behe coined the term irreducible complexity to describe the idea that parts observed in natural 'machines' are so inter-dependent that they could not have evolved. That meant that they had to be designed. Behe thought he found the perfect example to describe irreducible complexity in the bacteria flagellum. It seems more likely that Behe stopped digging deeper once he found what he thought supported his idea of a designer. In the trial, biology professor Kenneth Miller presented scientific evidence that challenged Behe's claim that the bacteria flagellum is irreducibly complex.

Another argument for ID comes from mathematics. William Dembski set out to calculate the probability of life on Earth evolving by chance. Dembski concluded that the order and complexity found in nature is beyond the limits of chance. Again, Kenneth Miller argued in the trial that the mathematics is flawed because the calculation is done backwards. Done that way, Dembski's calculations will show that any sequence of events occurring by chance is impossible.

The judge subsequently ruled that teaching intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional. One thing that impressed me about this case is that parents are so involved in their children's education. It's different in this part of the world. In Malaysia when I was in highschool, the science curriculum avoided the topic of the origin of species altogether. I believe it is still the same today. The disadvantage of this is that children get their information from a plethora of sources such as Sunday school, comic books, cartoons and the Discovery Channel. There is no way for the children to differentiate which view is science and which is pseudoscience. This will just confuse the poor children. I still remember a classmate of mine said, back in highschool, that half of us humans had descended from Adam and Eve, while the other half had evolved from monkeys. I wondered, which half did he imagine he came from?

Technorati tags Intelligent design, trial, education

Angels in the Alley

2006-12-05T19:51:00.000+08:00

This story was told in the documentary The God Who Wasn't There:

Late one night, a young woman was walking home on her own. In order to get home, she had to walk past a dark alley. As she was entering the alley, she saw a suspicious-looking man lurking about. Fearing for her safety, she prayed to Jesus for protection and she walked through the alley unharmed. The next day, she found out that a woman had been raped in the same alley the night before, probably just after she had walked through it. She went with the police and helped identify the man lurking in the alley in the line-up. The man confessed and was arrested for raping another woman. Stricken with guilt, the woman asked the man why he did not harm her as she was walking past him last night? The man replied, "How could I, with those two big men walking beside you?" God had heard her prayer and sent angels to protect her!

This is one of those inspirational stories shared by Christians with the message that God hears our prayers. In times of danger, God sends His angels to help us. A truly heart-warming message indeed... at first glance. That's because there is a darker message to this story. After all, a different woman got raped. Was is because she did not pray to God? Did she pray but God chose not to hear her prayers? Did God "allow" her to be raped because it's for her good? Was she not good enough for God's protection? Are all rape victims undeserving of God's love and protection?

I was immediately reminded of something a Christian friend said to me about two years ago. The tsunami had just struck, and the city of Aceh in Indonesia was badly hit. Over a hundred thousand people were killed in Indonesia alone. My friend said that Aceh is a predominantly Muslim province and last time, they used to persecute Christian missionaires there. God is now punishing them for persecuting His children. Naturally, I was quite upset to hear that. Schadenfreude is not an admirable quality. Surely you'll agree with me that, that isn't a very helpful way of seeing things. Do bad things only happen to bad people? Are believers always spared from misfortune? It is most naive to think that way, for, if you are willing to believe in a personal and caring God, then you must also believe in a God that is vengeful, unjust and cruel.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?"
- Epicurus

Technorati tags God, Christianity, glurge

The God Who Wasn't There

2006-12-03T12:10:00.000+08:00

The God Who Wasn't There is an interesting and entertaining documentary by filmmaker and former fundamentalist Christian, Brian Flemming. The film attempts to trace the origins of Jesus Christ and Christianity, and also examines the beliefs of modern-day fundamental Christians.

I found the first part on the historical Jesus more interesting, and that is what I'm going to write about here. What most Christians today know about the life of Jesus comes exclusively from the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Most historians agree that these Gospels where written 50 years or more after Jesus reportedly died and rose to heaven. That's like writing about a person or event that took place in the 1950s. I can't imagine it because I wasn't even around in the 50s. How is it possible that the Gospels contain so much details from the words spoken by Jesus, to the number of disciples who followed him around, to the number of silver pieces paid to Judas to betray Jesus?

It is more likely that these stories were inspired by word-of-mouth tales, greatly distorted and exaggerated. Brian Flemming likens it to urban legends or glurge stories, stories that have started out as fiction but over time, with the addition of details, became told as true stories. Historians also suspect that the Gospels were allegorical in nature since it was consistent with the form of literature at the time. There are also apocryphal texts which were excluded from the Bible (depending on which denomination of Christianity) for various reasons. With all these problems, it seems most unlikely that the Bible is the Word of God that Christians today believe it to be.

There is also the fact that the story of Jesus as a Saviour has many parallels with other heroic characters that were worshipped long before Jesus lived. We have Dionysus, Osiris, Zoroaster, Krishna and many more. Elements such as the virgin birth, miracles, healing of sicknesses, violent death and resurrection have been used before to tell the stories of these now-mythical characters. Oddly, the Christian response to this is that Satan had created these 'imitations', thousands of years before Jesus appeared (Satan had great foresight), in order to confuse everyone. How convenient.

As a whole, I think this documentary is rather informative and creative in its attempt to mythify the story of Jesus as told by the Gospels. I think Brian Flemming has done a great job of dealing with a serious topic in a non-serious way.

Technorati tags God movie, Christianity, myth

Backman bites back (education in Malaysia)

2006-12-01T22:27:00.000+08:00

Michael Backman is back, with a follow-up to his first article on government wastage in Malaysia. This second article though, in my opinion isn't as good as the first one. In it, he touched briefly on Rafidah Aziz' (the Minister of International Trade and Industry) callous reply, which myself and many other Malaysians have ridiculed. Michael Backman also wrote in this article that the money would be better spent improving the standard of education in Malaysia.

I fully agree with him, that education in Malaysia is in an awful state, and needs to be addressed seriously. But I doubt throwing money at the problem will make any difference at all. Sure, you could always spend money to improve school buildings and learning facilities especially in rural areas, but the main problem I think is the system itself. To get a better picture of this, do read Richard Feynman's experience with education in Brazil, in the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" Education in Malaysia is not very different from how Richard Feynman described Brazilian education: Rote learning, spoon-feeding, memorizing, exams and regurgitation. That is already bad enough, but over here, there's more. Cheating, plagiarism, copying, leaked exams, it's a wonder anyone can learn anything here at all!

As a result of this, for the past few decades, we have seen the gradual decline in the quality of Malaysian universities in global university rankings. Every year, Malaysian universities are churning out tens of thousands of academic zombies, many of whom are totally unhirable. Many of them can't speak proper English, can't write a grammatically correct English sentence and worst of all, do not know how to think critically and independently.

I worry about the future of this country. How will Malaysia compete globally if its workforce is of such poor quality? For me, this must surely be the most important problem to tackle, instead of squabbling over racial and religious rights.

Technorati tags michael backman, malaysia, education

Why Are Atheists So Angry?

2006-11-28T19:22:00.000+08:00

I've been following with interest, the four-day debate between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager on "Why Are Atheists So Angry?". They could've just titled the debate "Atheist vs. Judeo-Christian Theist" because that's what it was essentially. After going through the final exchange, I couldn't help but laugh because each one is quoting the other and then basically saying that they've been misquoted and misunderstood by the other. This happens all the time, in such debates.

I remember Richard Feynman once said, "We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosphers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." How true it is!

As difficult as it is to stay neutral, I think Sam Harris argued pretty well. His points are basically those presented in his book, Letter to a Christian Nation so nothing new there. Dennis Prager on the other hand, presented less facts and more opinions. I do not know who Dennis Prager is (says on the site, he's a radio talk show host) and I don't think I want to, after reading what he wrote.

For example, he wrote:

In fact, with no implication intended regarding you, I have almost never encountered “very smart people” who do not believe in God. The vast majority of atheists I have met had fine brain matter, but if “smart” includes wisdom, intellectual depth, profundity of thought, and moral insight, I have encountered such people almost exclusively among believers in the Judeo-Christian God.

This guy is saying that almost all 'very smart people' (like himself) believe in God. I wonder how smart you need to be, to be a radio talk show host? I'll bet he only calls you smart if you eat the same burger he eats, support the football team he supports, read the same books he reads and believe in the same God he believes in. Who does he think he is, that he can pass judgement on other people's wisdom, moral insight and intellect?

He also wrote:

Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of the sacredness of human life; linear history and therefore the idea of moral and scientific progress; universal standards of good and evil; the abolition of slavery; the scientific method; the development of democracy; equality of the sexes; the greatest experiment in non-ethnicity-based society (America); the greatest music ever composed; and the greatest art ever drawn. As for India, I have traveled there a number of times and lectured there; I have a deep reverence for its people and culture. But India did not give us those contributions. Nor did China and certainly not any of the societies contemporaneous with the ancient Jews who gave us the Torah from which these values emanate.

Now he's insulting the Chinese and the Indians and the Muslims. I don't think this guy has too many friends. Abolition of slavery? The scientific method? Democracy? Equality of sexes? All that because of the Judeo-Christian God? This is utter nonsense. All these things have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian values. Greatest music and art? Again, who does he think he is that he gets to decide which music and art is the greatest?

Then I don't know why he wrote this:

I bet you whatever sum we each can afford that the vast majority of murderers and rapists in this country were not religiously active during the time they committed their violent crimes. I would make a second bet that you won’t take that bet.

Why only violent crimes? What about white-collar crimes? What about Ted Haggard? What about those Roman Catholic priests who preyed on young children?

You know, I started writing this post, as I normally did with any post, but after writing the last few lines, I'm really starting to get angry. Now I know why atheists are so angry. Atheists are so angry because there are theists like Dennis Prager, who spew venomous nonsense in the airwaves and into people's minds.

Technorati tags: sam harris, dennis prager, atheists angry, debate

Jesus Camp

2006-11-26T23:05:00.000+08:00

Last night I watched a horror movie. This one was scarier than all of Wes Craven's movies, all the Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street or Halloween slasher flicks I've seen before. And the amazing thing is that this movie doesn't have any psychotic killers, ghoulish monsters and no blood and gore. What makes this movie scary is that it is REAL and it's called Jesus Camp.

Somewhere out there in middle America, talibanic Christian fundamentalists are creating an army of children to wage war against secular America. Now I understand why Richard Dawkins is so vocal against the religious indoctrination of children. The movie shows some of these children being homeschooled by their parents because public school teaches evolution. They read Chick tracts and believe everything in it, they join protest groups against abortion, they evangelise to strangers and a whole bunch of them attend a Christian camp to be brainwashed into seeing the world as black and whites.

Jesus did say in the Bible that we must have childlike faith and we must let the children come to him, but these fundies are really taking it too far. The children are essentially trapped in their parents' beliefs. They're not allowed to watch Harry Potter, they're told repeatedly that they are the chosen generation and they're not exposed to any other views other than that taught by the church. This is a recipe for disaster, especially when these children grow up and become future leaders. How will they view the secular world? How will they treat Muslims or anyone whose beliefs are different from their own?

It's easy to relate to this in Malaysia because the Muslims here too, tend to take things too far. From moral policing to inspecting ice-cream biscuits to Sisyphean apostacy cases, we know what it's like with people who see the world as absolutes. We have seen for ourselves how harmful religion can be. Of course, not all religious people are loonies, but it is religion that provides breeding ground such absolutism. Fortunately sensible Malaysians of all races and religions (and non-religions) are starting to question these fundamentalist acts. Again I stress that the answer is a balanced education that exposes people to different world views so that absolutism gets replaced with tolerance.

Technorati tags: jesus camp, education, Malaysia

Theistic evolution = neapolitan ice cream?

2006-11-25T22:23:00.000+08:00

Pope Benedict XVI said, "..science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they compliment each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth." In other words, the Roman Catholic Church (as well as mainline Protestant churches plus some Jewish and Islamic denominations) support the view that biological evolution is compatible with their religious understanding of the nature of God. This is opposed to most Evangelical Christians who believe in Bible inerrancy, meaning they take the Creation story literally.

So, there are three major groups in contention here. We have atheists on one side and theists on the other. Within theists there are the literalists on one side and theistic evolutionists (TE) on the other. What will they think of next? A hybrid group that calls itself "theistic evolutionary literalists"??

TE, at first, sounded like an oxymoron. How can one believe in evolution and at the same time believe in a supreme God? Well you can, if you are willing to stretch your imagination a little bit. TEs essentially take the best of both worlds. Just like if your prefer vanilla ice cream but you Mom likes strawberry and your Dad likes chocolate, the best thing to do is to buy neapolitan ice cream!

According to wikipedia, theistic evolution is the synthesis of faith and religious teachings with science, with the view that divine intervention brought about the origin of life. Even if human beings only come about after 4 billion years of evolution, TEs believe that God's invisible hand has guided the process so in a sense, we are God's creations.

I see many problems with this view because it leads to more questions than answers. Why did God wait 4 billion years before creating Man? If we are created in God's image and God loves us above all creatures, wouldn't He have create us first? What has God been doing since the Big Bang all the way up to the formation of Earth? The most common reply is God transcends space and time, and we are not supposed to question His will.

I don't think it is necessary to credit God with our evolution (and the evolution of everything for that matter). Darwin got the idea for evolution by natural selection from the work of economist Thomas Malthus who wrote about human population growth. Since resources (food, shelter, mates) are limited, survival of the fittest is really an economic problem. Economists never credit God with GDP growth, low inflation or low interest rates. Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand in The Wealth of Nations, refering to how individual self-interest inadvertently stimulate the economy as a whole. The same invisible hand is at work in nature, but it isn't God's hand. Evolution happens in spite of God.

The onus really is on the TEs to convince us that God is needed to make evolution work. After that, they need to convince us that that God is the one in the Bible or the Quran, or any one of the millions of Gods we've revered throughout history.

Technorati tags: theistic evolution, neapolitan, thomas malthus, adam smith, invisible hand

The Blind Men and The Elephant

2006-11-23T22:47:00.000+08:00

I've often heard the story of the blind men and the elephant used to describe religion. It goes something like this:

Three blind men found an elephant. None of them had seen an elephant before so they groped about, hoping to understand and describe it. One man got hold of the trunk and says that it is a snake. Another finds the tail and concludes that it is a rope and the third man examined the leg and describes it as a tree.

The moral of this story is that each man, in his blindness is describing the same thing but in a completely different way. If we substitute the elephant with God and the blind men with religion, we may say that all religions are describing the same thing but through different perspectives. The idea is to promote religious harmony since in our 'blindness', each and every view of God is equally valid.

Of course the explanation above presupposes a God. I think a more accurate interpretation of the story is to substitute the elephant with any natural phenomena (the solar eclipse, volcanic eruption, tsunami, burning bush, etc.) instead of God. Then the blind men represent the many prophets/sages/seers out there, trying to understand and explain these phenomena. Each one comes up with a different explanation, but you can't really blame them, since their view is limited to what they can feel and also to the scope of their prior knowledge.

As each blind man returns to their respective village, they will tell their fellow villagers of the experience of coming in contact with an 'elephant' and so, different views are accepted by different villages. So, the different villages with different views of an elephant represent the different religions of the world. Note that some villages are bigger than others, just as some religions have more followers than others. Some blind men are more imaginative than others. They write books and songs about the 'elephant', they even predict when they'll see the next 'elephant'. But that doesn't change reality, because in reality, all the blind men are wrong. The elephant is neither a snake, nor a rope nor a tree.

Imagine a fourth blind man, Geordi, comes along. But unlike the first three, Geordi wears a Star Trek VISOR. The VISOR interfaces directly to the brain and allows him to see the elephant.

He thus sees that all three blind men are wrong. Geordi even offers his VISOR to each of the blind men to try out. But when the blind men saw the elephant, they were aghast. They began to question Geordi's VISOR. Is the VISOR flawed? Has it been tempered with? How come the elephant looks nothing like the elephant they've each imagined all this while?

With this new image of the elephant, though, each blind man returned to their respective village and redefined their idea of an elephant. The first man said, "Yes, it is still snake-like, as we previously thought, but this snake has a VERY big tail!" The second man said, "Yes, it is still a rope, as we previously thought, but this rope has a VERY big knot tied to one end!" The third man said, "Yes, not only is it a tree, as we previously thought, it is actually a forest of FOUR trees with snakes and ropes hanging from the foliage!"

I think my point is pretty clear. The Star Trek VISOR represents all the advancements in science and technology, that has dramatically altered our perceptions of all the 'elephants' of the world. Yet even through these lenses, some 'blind men' are able to repackage the image to one that is consistent with their earlier beliefs.

Technorati tags: blind men, elephant, religion, science

Is Hang Tuah Chinese? (Part 2)

2006-11-20T23:07:00.000+08:00

Interesting story. Almost as interesting as The Da Vinci Code. For those who do not know, Hang Tuah is a legendary Malay warrior who lived and served during the Malacca sultanate over 500 years ago (something like William Wallace or King Arthur).

When I first read the email, I immediately saw something wrong with it because around that time I had just finished reading the excellent book entitled "Genome" by Matt Ridley. From my understanding, it wasn't possible to determine an individual's race, much less his religion through DNA testing. Just think about it, the large amount of variation within populations and the fact that one quarter of the world's population is Chinese, makes it impossible to confidently identify a person's race using DNA. So, the evidence presented in the email is most definitely false.

You may be excused for not realising that first point, but a second flaw in the story should've been obvious and would've sounded alarm bells. The email implied that the Malaysian government changed the History syllabus to hide the truth. That further implied that the Malaysian government accepted the findings of the "team of experts". Any Malaysian would know that THAT is SURE sign of a hoax!

Since when does the Malaysian government listen to expert findings? The government only listens to those who tell them what they want to hear. If the experts say anything that is not pleasing to the government's ears, its usual reaction is denial and then ridiculing the findings. Just look at the recent findings by the Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute on bumiputera equity ownership. The Malaysian government pressured ASLI to retract the report while endorsing its own botched figure for political gain. Anyway, back to the email... Government acceptance of the 'expert' findings that Hang Tuah is a Chinese Muslim is most uncharacteristic of the Malaysian government, and so, this entire email is most certainly a hoax. ;)

Technorati tags: Hang Tuah, Malaysia, email hoax

Is Hang Tuah Chinese? (Part 1)

2006-11-20T21:11:00.001+08:00

I found another forwarded e-mail in my mailbox, from a few months back and thought it'd be interesting to put it here. It is about Hang Tuah and Malay history. Here it is, written in typical Malaysian English:

REASON WHY IN SEJARAH OF MALAYSIA SINCE YEAR 1999 Study about HANG TUAH is MISSING ?????

"The Truth Revealed (with evidence)"
In June 1998, the government of Malaysia had hired a team of experts to compliment the history studies that we undertaken in our secondary school. The objective of the research is simply:

1. To find prove and evident that show the Malays are the origins of Malaysia and they are the first race and religion that lands their foot in Malaysia.

2. To further strengthen their claims, first they need to find the grave yard of the Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekiu and etc..to show the existant of their pioneer.

3. The Batu bersurat in Terengganu, reveals that the islamic religion has landed in malaysia for a hundred years ago which further strengthen their claims!

That is why, we are taught with sejarah (history of malaysia)!!!! BEWARE & OPEN YOUR EYES!!! go ask your brother, sister, niece, newphew and etc. etc, since the year 1999 (if i'm not mistaken) or year 2000, do they study about HANG TUAH anymore????????

Why is that popular subject GONE????? Missing in action??????? or Evidence reveals something different that causes the government to stop the syllabus and HIDE the TRUTH????????

Here are the Evidences of the findings by the team of scientists, archaeologist, historian and other technical staff from the United State, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Yemen & Russia.

The evidence are:
1) They finally found the grave yard of Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat and etc..., their skeleton had been analise and samples of DNA had been taken with the results show:

Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, hang Lekiu and mates, they are not Malay!!!!!! They are CHINESE! (islamic)from china!!! and why are they here in Malacca????? Because they are in a misison to protect the UNGRATEFUL MALAY from the potential attack of SIAM (Thailand)!!!

So Hang tuah is not malay hero!!! they are the protector of the useless and ungrateful Parameswara (who is from INDONESIA) landed in Malacca and claim the land belongs to him!!!
The hang tuah bunch of people are all from china, they are being assign to malacca because parameswara request the Ching Dynasty Emporer for protection!!!

This is why the Hang Tuah series of history is MISSING from the SEJARAH!!!!

2nd. Evidence:
The researchers hired by the government found the oldest tomb stone(grave yard) in Kelantan in year 2000. Suprisingly the tomb stone are at least 900 years old!!!! older than the so-called batu bersurat and the best thing is, it belong to the Chinese. Being landed first in Malacca doesn't mean malay is the first in Malaysia cos during that time, the road is too long for them to
see the other side of the coast!!!! where the chinese has landed far more earlier.

Read Part 2!

Technorati tags: Hang Tuah, Malay history, email

Famous Atheists: Richard Feynman

2006-11-19T14:35:00.000+08:00

Here's another man I greatly admire. But to tell you the truth, until about a year ago, I had no idea who Richard Feynman (pronounced Fine-man) was. Sure, I've heard of him before in my uni days in some physics textbook, but that didn't give me any clue as to who the man was. It wasn't until I read the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" that I've come to know this extraordinary man. I strongly recommend the book along with "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"; they're both collections of highly entertaining stories as told by Feynman himself, about his adventures as a curious character.

For those who don't know, Richard Feynman is a Nobel Prize winning physicist. He worked on the field of quantum electrodynamics (something which I don't understand). He also worked on the Manhattan Project that developed the first atomic bomb, and was part of the commission that investigated the Challenger disaster in 1986. It certainly doesn't do him justice to sum up his achievements in a few sentences. Here's what it says on Wikipedia:

Known for his insatiable curiosity, wit, brilliant mind and playful temperament, he is equally famous for his many adventures. As well as being an inspirational lecturer, bongo player, notorious practical joker, and decipherer of Maya hieroglyphs, Richard Feynman was regarded as an eccentric and a free spirit. He liked to pursue multiple independent paths, such as biology, art, percussion, and lockpicking.

And here's a famous quote about Richard Feynman, by Polish mathematician, Mark Kac:

"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre."

Richard Feynman had been an atheist since a young age. Frankly, I do not see how a curious character like him would ever be satisfied with the answers provided by any religion. He once said, "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." Feynman died of cancer in 1988, but his work, his words and his extraordinary life continue to inspire millions.

Technorati tags: richard feynman, famous atheist

It's not Malaysia "boleh", it's Malaysia "bodoh"

2006-11-19T11:23:00.000+08:00

By now, many Malaysians would've read Michael Backman's well-written article, "While Malaysia fiddles, it's opportunities are running dry" on Australia's The Age. Isn't it funny that whenever a mat salleh talks or writes about our country, our leaders and our media go up in arms about it? Perhaps it's because they are self-conscious and care a great deal about what foreigners think about Malaysia. But if that is the case, then all these recent talk about Malay rights and Malay agenda at the UMNO General Assembly are just going to make things worse. And, in this instance, the media seems to focus more on the use of the phrase "Malaysia bodoh" in that article, instead of the general message of government wastage. Today, on The Star, we have the Minister of International Trade and Industry, Rafidah Aziz saying:

“What do we care? Obviously, this person doesn’t know Malaysia. He is an outsider and he can say what he likes. I don’t really care about what others say – as long as it is not a Malaysian saying it.”

Perhaps Rafidah Aziz should've attended Parliament sittings more regularly because the Opposition party has been saying the same things for many, many years. In fact, the silent majority of Malaysians have always been grousing over these same issues. Michael Backman himself noted that 95% of responses to his article from Malaysians, in and out of Malaysia, have been positive. It is time our leaders wake up to reality.

One important point to note: Malaysia will become a net oil importer by 2011 and our oil will run out in 19 years. Natural gas, I think, will run out in 40 years. Petronas will still be making its hefty profits importing and exporting oil, but the price increase will be passed all the way down to us, ordinary Malaysians. That is why, as it is, we cannot afford any more wastage.

Technorati tags michael backman, malaysia bodoh

God vs. Science: Time cover story

2006-11-18T10:44:00.000+08:00

This week's (13 Nov 2006) US edition of Time magazine featured the "God vs. science" debate as its cover story. In recent months, atheism has been garnering plenty of media attention, due to the release of Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion". Richard Dawkins is currently on a tour of North America to promote his book.

Hence, it's only fitting that the Time article feature a debate between Richard Dawkins himself and Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and author of the book, "The Language of God". Dr. Collins is a Christian and believes that science is compatible with his faith.

Here are a few interesting excerpts from the debate:

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?

From here, we may infer that Dr. Collins does not believe in intelligent design (ID). He believes in evolution by natural selection as the natural process that leads to the creation of complex organisms. Dr. Collins also does not disagree with Richard Dawkins (and with almost all scientists, for that matter), that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. Meaning, he too doesn't believe in young Earth creationism - an idea that so many evangelical Christians subscribe to. But Dr. Collins believes that God created the laws of nature and twiddled the knobs of the universal constants that made life possible. He also believes that our human evolution has been guided by God's invisible hand, according to His will.

COLLINS: This is an interesting choice. Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can't observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam's razor--Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.

DAWKINS: I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.

Here is a good point by Richard Dawkins. Religious people often ask, "How is life/intelligence possible without a designer? It is just too improbable. The only explanation is God." It's true that many scientific theories are incomprehensible and difficult for our minds to imagine, but if the alternative is a divine being; one that is complex, intelligent, outside of nature and space-time, able to read minds and hear prayers, then you are postulating something far more complicated and improbable.

COLLINS: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.

Again, Dr. Collins says here that the Genesis account of creation cannot be taken literally. I think this point is important for many Protestants and evangelicals to take note of, since it comes from a reputable Christian scientist. But if you can't take Genesis literally, what about the rest of the Bible? Can a person still read the Bible and form his/her own interpretations or do you need the church to tell you how to interpret the Bible? But isn't this why the Protestant movement came about in the first place, because they believe that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church obscured the teachings of the Bible?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

Another good point by Richard Dawkins. The reason Dr. Collins believes in Yahweh is mainly cultural. Had he been born into a Muslim family or a Buddhist family, he very likely will not be the Christian he is today.

Technorati tags: Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, God vs science, Time magazine

Scientists unveil Neanderthal DNA

2006-11-16T21:36:00.000+08:00

Scientists in Germany have successfully extracted DNA of the Neanderthal man from a 38,000-year-old fossil found in Croatia. They expect to fully map the Neanderthal genome within the next two years.

This endeavour will help reveal many aspects of our own human genome as the Neanderthal DNA is at least 99.5% identical to that of homo sapiens (humans). Neanderthals are a separate species from humans, where we share a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago.

By comparison, chimpanzees, which are our closest living relative share 99.2% of our genes. By studying the remaining 0.8% sets of genes which are different, scientists will be able to identify specific genes that make us uniquely human.

Now, people who do not understand evolution, think that evolution says we, humans come from monkeys. That is inaccurate because evolution actually says that we and the great apes share a common ancestor. A long time ago, we had a common ancestor which split into two separate evolutionary paths. One path eventually led to the evolution of apes, while the other led to hominids like Neanderthals and humans. This split occurred about 5-7 million years ago.

One interesting thing is that humans and Neanderthals did coexist at one time. The Neanderthals had occupied Europe and West Asia. There is, however some debate about whether or not humans and Neanderthals had inter-bred. Subsequently, humans replaced all archaic hominids around the world and the Neanderthals went extinct.

But if you look around you today, you'll find that there still are Neanderthals roaming about, and sometimes banding together.

Technorati tags Neanderthal, genome, DNA, evolution

Holy Cross on Wall's Moo Ice Cream biscuit

2006-11-13T20:21:00.000+08:00

The Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association (PPIM) have issued a complaint against Unilever (M) Holdings Sdn. Bhd. the maker of Wall's Ice Cream, concerning its Moo Ice-Cream biscuits. PPIM claims that there are symbols of the Holy cross on the biscuits and these are offensive to the general Muslim population in Malaysia. Unilever replied on their website that the design on the biscuit is a '+' sign to represent the goodness of calcium, since the ice cream is called Calcium Plus!
Sigh, more religious policing in this country, and another case of religious pareidolia. It's just ridiculous that in Malaysia, we have people going around inspecting every single consumer good out there, looking for offensive religious symbols. Not even a piece of biscuit can escape their scrutiny. Just think, why would a company like Unilever deliberately put Holy crosses on their products? What can they possibly achieve by putting Christian symbols on their products? Will it result in more sales? Will a Muslim or a Hindu suddenly want to convert to Christianity after consuming the biscuits? Will they become physically sick after consuming a biscuit with symbols that aren't compatible with their beliefs? Surely, simple, rational reasoning will tell you that the symbol on those biscuits have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I mean, if you look hard enough, your mind will see religious symbols just about everywhere. Pareidolia is the perception of a pattern where none is intended. You'll find it on a piece of toast, a cinnamon bun, on a tree, on a rock, in smoke, etc. I got fed up after reading about it, so I hopped over to Lim Kit Siang's blog.

Guess what I found?

More religious symbols!

Technorati tags Malaysia, Wall's Moo Ice Cream, religious symbols, pareidolia

Atheist Professor vs. Christian Student 2: The Sequel

2006-11-11T18:00:00.000+08:00

Previously on Atheist professor vs. Christian student...

.
.
.

Student: So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sur. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

Now, the class continues...

(As the student was about the sit down, while the Professor slumped in his chair, another student got up ...)

Meursault: Whoa... wait just a second. I have something to say.

Student: I've just finished bashing the Professor and it's nearly lunch time, what more you have to say?

Meursault: Earlier, you said that cold is the absence of heat.

Student: Yeah, so?

Meursault: But before that you said there is no such thing as cold. So are you saying there is no such thing as the absence of heat?

Student: Wha-?

Meursault: You also said darkness is the absence of light and you said you cannot make darkness darker. Buf if you permit less light to enter a room, aren't you increasing the absence of light? If you're increasing the absence of light, aren't you increasing darkness? Therefore, aren't you making darkness darker?

Student: Well...

Meursault: You see, cold or hot, bright or dark, are just conventions people use to describe a situation. It's like asking someone "How old are you?" instead of asking "How much of the absence of youth have you endured?"

(The classroom breaks into laughter)

Meursault: Your word play carries no meaning at all.

Student: Yeah? What about good and evil?

Meursault: Again, good and evil are just conventions. If immorality is the absence of morality, you can just as correctly say that morality is the absence of immorality. Does that mean there is no such thing as morality?

Student: It's ridiculous to say that there is no morality!

Meursault: Exactly! Similarly, if evil is the absence of good, then good can also be defined as the absence of evil. Does it mean that there is no such thing as good?

Student: No way!

Meursault: So, just because you've accepted one convention, doesn't mean the opposite convention is wrong.

Student: But look at what's happening around us! Murders, rape, and stealing all because of the absence of God's moral code.

Meursault: Morality doesn't come from God. Some religious people have committed murders in the name of God. Just look at the events of 9/11. Likewise, non-religious people have also committed murders, but it is wrong to assume that without God, all humans are immoral.

Student: And why not? We're all sinners aren't we?

Meursault: We, humans, have an innate moral sense. In fact, even animals, such as chimps display moral ethics, though not as sophisticated as what we humans are capable of. We are all social creatures and we have arrived at a moral consensus that is widely agreed upon and continuously evolving.

Student: It is evolving?

Meursault: Yes! The moral zeitgeist evolves. During Jesus' time, slavery was acceptable and women were accorded a lower status, but today, things are different. Similarly, racism is no longer acceptable in many parts of the world, today.

Student: Speaking of evolution, even the Professor has never observed it with his own eyes. Have you?

Meursault: I haven't, but we know now that evolution is observable. Various studies on bacteria and fruit fly have documented the slow, evolutionary change within a single species.

Student: But evolution is just a theory. It's not proven.

Meursault: Gravity is just a theory too. Relativity? Also a theory because no one can move at the speed of light. The atom? Just a theory, no one has ever seen it. Yet, based on insurmountable evidence, these theories are accepted with a high degree of certainty. Evolution too is supported by overwhelming evidence such as mutation, vestigial organs, embryology, fossil evidence, morphology and DNA evidence.

Student: How does this relate to God?

Meursault: Well, evolution does not prove that God doesn't exist, but it certainly redefines the role of a 'god' in this world. We now know that we don't need God to create new species, evolution by natural selection can take care of that. We also need to rethink our concept of Creation.

Student: Aren't there people who believe in evolution but also believe in God?

Meursault: Yes there are and I'm still learning about that. But you realise that this discussion is far from over?

Student: Yeah I suppose you're right. It is something to think about.

Meursault: Yup, that's why we're all here in university. We're here to learn! PROFESSOR!!!

(The Professor jumped out of his chair, surprised. He seemed to have dozed off during the later part of the discussion.)

Prof: Yes?

Meursault: I feel, we must question your ability to teach this class.

Prof (stuttering) : But... but... I... got my degree and doctorate from Universiti Malaya! It's the most prestigious university in Malaysia! It's even ranked in the top 100 universities in the world!

Meursault: Sorry Professor, but in 2006, University Malaya was ranked 192 in the THES World Rankings. The standard there has been gradually dropping for the past decade. And from the earlier discussion, you don't seem very knowledgeable and don't strike us as much of a thinker.

Prof (sounding dejected) : I... I.... oh alright. You caught me. I'm really not an atheist. I just like to bully people. I'm not even a real professor. I only passed my degree because I cheated on my exams. I downloaded my doctoral thesis and passed it up as my own. The university awarded me a PhD for inadequate work... who was I to refuse? The government is over-zealous in handing out advanced degrees to make up the numbers, so I just take-lah! I am sorrie.... I will resign and let someone else take over this class.

(And with that, everyone left for lunch...)

THE END

(THE EVENT, CHARACTERS AND INSTITUTION DEPICTED IN THIS BLOG ARE FICTITIOUS. ANY SIMILARITY TO ACTUAL PERSONS OR TO ACTUAL EVENTS OR INSTITUTIONS ARE PURELY COINCIDENTAL.)

Technorati Tags: atheist professor christian student

Atheist Professor vs. Christian Student

2006-11-11T12:55:00.000+08:00

I was organizing my mailbox and came across this forwarded email about an atheist professor vs. a christian student. This email has been going around for many years, I'm sure many have read it. I thought it'd be interesting to post it here:

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new Christian students to stand and.....

Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?

Student : Yes, sir.

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student : Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student : Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student :Yes.

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student : No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student : From...God...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student :Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student : No , sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student : No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light , bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Professor, is there such a thing as immorality?"

Prof: Of course, there is...

Student : Again, I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such a thing as injustice? No, injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?"

(The Christian student pauses. He speaks very slowly.)

Student : "ISN'T EVIL THE ABSENCE OF GOOD?" If there is evil in the world, Professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if He exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us that it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good (the result of the love of God) over evil (the result of independence or the absence of the love of God). There is nothing greater than love. God is love and God is good. If He is good, then the innate act of His goodness would be to give man the opportunity to experience the greatest thing that exists - love. But love cannot be forced on someone or else it is not love. There must be a choice involved. God loved us enough to allow us to make the choice. Evil is the result of the choice of independence from God.

Prof : As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.

Student : I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going. Tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from the same ancestor as a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his h ead with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out int o laughter.)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

Technorati tags atheist professor, christian student, myths

Alistair McGrath

2006-11-08T23:38:00.000+08:00

Thanks to a few readers who pointed me to Alistair McGrath as the Christian answer to Richard Dawkins. I wonder if there is an Islam answer, a Buddhist answer or a Hindu answer out there?

Alistair McGrath is an Oxford professor, scientist and theologian, was an atheist but is now a Christian, as opposed to Dawkins, who's also an Oxford professor, also a scientist but was raised a Christian and is now an atheist. Isn't it funny that somewhere out there, there is always someone whose situation is opposite to yours? For example, if the discussion is between Christianity and Islam, the Christian can always point to someone who was a Muslim but converted to Christianity, while the other side can also point to someone who was a Christion but became a Muslim. Despite this diversity, the important thing is that we've all got to live together so it is important to hear and respect other people's views.

One of the points I remember, after listening to McGrath is that he highlighted the atrocities of the Soviet government towards religous people in the name of atheism. Similarly, in this region, we've heard of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where they exterminated many intellectuals as well as religious people because the regime abolished all religion. McGrath is correct in his observation that it is a tendency for people to sometimes lose the plot or turn mad, irrespective of the cause - either religious or not. We even see it in stock market bubbles, the Dutch tulip mania and etc as evidence of the madness of crowds. This, I think, is part of an even more interesting subject which is a study of crowds and social networks. For further reading, try James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds and Duncan Watts' Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age.

McGrath, of course, criticized Dawkins' bipolar stance on science and religion. He says that is not the case, as there are many in-betweens. But then he tells of a man in the audience at the end of one of his talks, who having heard McGrath, says that he no longer know what to believe. Clearly, that man's thinking is bipolar (if Dawkins is wrong, then McGrath must be right) yet McGrath never explained to him that this is not the case. Atheists do not agree 100% with Dawkins, and we don't need to. My stance for example, is probably 80% Dawkins and 40% McGrath. Their views are not mutually exclusive.

McGrath also claimed that he was interviewed for Dawkins' documentary, the Root of All Evil, but was edited out. I think this is just a dirty low blow. I mean, what is McGrath trying to imply here? During the canonization of the Bible, the church applied some measure for including some books and excluding others in the Bible. In either cases, they're just gathering and publishing supporting views. I think this statement is totally unnecessary.

There was a point about the resurgence of religion in the 90s especially in America, implying that this had something to do with God's will. Hence, the Christians there believe that God has a plan for America (such as defending Israel). Is that really the case? I think it is the separation of church and state in America (their first amendment) that has led to this resurgence, mainly in the red states. This is unlike Europe where there isn't a separation. This separation has really led American churches to be creative and to work harder to attract members. This has led to them introducing livelier music, for example, to attract youths. This article from Businessweek talks about churches borrowing tactics from the business world like conducting market surveys, offer free counseling, do niche marketing and packaging self-help programs to make sure members keep coming back. As a result, they end up with mega-churches.

So, in short, McGrath raised some good points, but that doesn't mean he has dismissed Dawkins' arguments altogether. It's unfortunate that Dawkins chose to stick his neck out by taking one end of the spectrum. He's bound to draw the most criticisms from the religious lot. Still, I encourage everyone to read both sides and form your own opinions about the subject. Don't just read other people's reviews and opinions, because I know how religious people are reluctant to criticise their own kind. But remember, it is important to hear and respect everyone's views.

Technorati tags: Alistair McGrath, Malaysia, atheism, Christianity, Richard Dawkins, God Delusion,

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

2006-11-07T21:38:00.000+08:00

I read Letter to a Christian Nation last night. It isn't a very thick book, so I was able to finish it rather quickly. As the title suggests, this book is directed at the Christians in America, as a response to all the hostile letters he received from people who call themselves 'Christians', following his first book, "The End of Faith". Even so, I think his arguments are applicable to all religions in all nations. As you can imagine, the author doesn't try to be nice anymore in this book. He doesn't beat around the bush but gets straight to the point.

He begins by quoting Scripture and questioning the extremisms of the Old Testament as well as the capricious nature of the New Testament. Again, I feel this is futile, because Christians are not going to accept Bible interpretations from a non-Christian. I'm pretty sure some preacher out there would've already come up with a good spin for those pernicious quotes. But I do like Harris' definition of atheism:

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

For the remainder of the book, Harris brought up some good points regarding the clash of science and religion. He argued on various issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, condom use in underdeveloped countries and sex education. He pointed out that the Christian stand on these issues, although biblical, will very likely bring about more harm than good in the long run.

Lastly, Harris mentioned that Scandinavian countries are among the least religious societies in the world but also the healthiest in terms of life expectancy, literacy, income per capita, educational attainment, gender equality, homocide rate and infant mortality. They are also the most charitable in terms of percentage of wealth devoted to social welfare programs and foreign aid. We in Malaysia, though, are still struggling to get there. It is going to be difficult because religion is so deeply ingrained in our national ideology - the Rukunegara. But, I believe, as societies become more and more advanced, and people get more and more educated, they will see less and less need for religion. This natural progression from paganism to polytheism to monotheism to atheism appears to be a logical evolution of human society.

Technorati tags: Sam+Harris Christian+Nation atheism+Malaysia

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

2006-11-06T22:28:00.000+08:00

I've just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I think I've used Dawkins' name too much in the past few posts. He is like the Elvis of atheism.

I think it's a good book, a very interesting read, not mainly because I'm biased, but because it puts forth a thorough and solid case for why God most certainly does not exist. The book begins by defining the God he'll be talking about for the rest of the book, which is the supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient God of the major monotheistic religions. Dawkins then argues against the 'evidence' for the existence of God, followed by arguments for the non-existence of God. His arguments work for all supernatural gods, not just the one in the Bible. Next he talks about morality and how morality does not come from religion.

There is also a section on the Old and New Testaments which I think some Christians will find rather harsh. I thought this part isn't all that necessary, because people can always say that a professor of biology is not qualified to cross-examine biblical origins and theology. Dawkins then explains why he feels religion, even in moderation is dangerous.

The last bit is his personal views on religious education for children. This isn't something I've thought about before, since I'm not yet a parent, but I do agree with his view that children are simply too young to understand all the issues at hand. They would've accepted the religious view of their parents without having considered other religious and non-religious views out there. That is wrong in principle, even though parents only have the best of intentions for their children.

There are too many topics for discussion to fit everything in one post. I shall try, in future posts, to bring up some of these topics wherever suitable. Meanwhile, I'd recommend this book to everyone and hope to get everyone's opinions.

Technorati tags: richard dawkins, god delusion

Testing the Efficacy of Prayer

2006-11-05T22:51:00.000+08:00

This study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer was cited in The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins which I am currently reading. I thought it'd be a scientific answer to the question - "Why Pray?" - but the outcome suggests otherwise.

This is how they conducted it. 1802 cardiac bypass patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: One group received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; the second group did not receive intercessory prayer after also being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and the third group received intercessory prayer after being informed that they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days and the primary outcome was the presence of any complication within 30 days of bypass surgery. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

The first two groups test for the effectiveness of intercessory prayers while the third group tests for the psychosomatic effects of knowing one is prayed for. The results for the first two groups are virtually indistinguishable while the third group, for some reason (performance anxiety?), showed higher incidences of complications.

Of course, many groups have ridiculed such a study, saying that we cannot test God. They'll say God works in mysterious ways. We can never test Him this way. Sorry, but this explanation is just unsatisfactory. Suppose that a group of religous people prayed for a sick friend and the friend miraculously got well. People will be too quick to attribute the healing to God answering their prayers. This is an example of what psychologists call confirmation bias, because the 'miraculous' healing could possibly have nothing to do with whether or not the person was being prayed for by friends, as the study above indicates. Out of sheer probability, the person would've been healed regardless of the prayers. That possibility has never been considered, but the group immediately says that it is due to God. In essence, they've all been fooled by randomness.

Technorati tags: prayer test, intercessory, psychosomatic, confirmation bias

Evangelical Gay Sex Scandal

2006-11-04T21:36:00.000+08:00

There was a really good BBC documentary by Prof. Richard Dawkins on the subject of religion, called "Root of All Evil". More on Richard Dawkins and his work in the future, but one part of the program featured an evangelical church over in Colorado Springs, USA. Senior Pastor Ted Haggard is the pastor of the 14,000-strong New Life Church. He is also the president of the National Association of Evangelicals which is very influential in the US. In the program, Richard Dawkins interviewed Ted Haggard regarding blind faith over reason and the talk soon detracted to the subject of evolution where Haggard made some incorrect points about evolution. When rebuked by Richard Dawkins, Ted Haggard became agitated and said something about scientists being arrogant because they think they're intellectually superior. Later after the filming, Ted Haggard became aggressive and chased Dawkins and his crew out of the church compound.

Well, the same Ted Haggard is all over the news today because of a gay sex scandal. A male escort in Denver claimed that Haggard has been paying him for sex for three years. Although denying it at first, Haggard is now claiming that he did get a massage but not gay sex. He also admitted to buying meth but didn't use them. That's like saying he hired a hooker, but didn't sleep with her or like buying a copy of Playboy but only for the articles. You just know that it's rubbish. I kinda felt, after watching the program that something's not quite right with this guy. Turns out he might be the worst hypocrite of all. Of course he is still innocent till proven otherwise, but this is a major blow to the evangelical movement.

Religious movements have often been rocked by such scandals. Remember Roman Catholic priests? Televangelist Jimmy Swaggart? In Malaysia too, we've often heard about Buddhist monks raping devotees and Muslim clerics sexually abusing young children. There is a pattern of similarity here. For me, this just shows that no one religion is true, hence no one God is the true god. Whichever religion you look at, there are those bad apples, as there are those pious ones and all of them think they are worshipping the true God. Whichever holy book you read, you are subject to the same 'temptations' as all humans are. Some are able to overcome the temptations while others fall. No one religion is greater than another. They're all man-made and they're all the same.

Technorati tags: ted haggard, richard dawkins, root of all evil, gay sex scandal

Famous Atheists: Warren Buffett

2006-10-31T00:12:00.000+08:00

This is a bit of a surprise for me. I'm quite familiar with Warren Buffett, having read The Warren Buffett Way and The Warren Buffett Portfolio, and many other books and articles about him. I'm quite familiar with his investing style, having applied it in my own portfolio with some success. That is all finance, but I've never really wondered what Warren's take is on religion, so I decided to google it up and found this. Says there, Warren is also an atheist!

For those who don't know, Warren Buffett is the legendary chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and with a personal net worth of over $40 billion, has been the 2nd richest man in the world for the past decade or so. His company owns Coca Cola, Gillette, Geico, American Express, See's Candy and many other wonderful businesses. Recently, he's made headlines when he announced that he would donate the bulk of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, making it the single biggest gift in philantrophic history.

Despite not knowing any religion, Warren has lived a fulfilling life. He's always said that he is extremely lucky to be born at the right place and the right time and to be doing what he loves doing most: investing. According to him, he's 'wired to allocate capital'. Throughout his life, by applying his simple yet profound wisdom in investing, he's famously turned a $100 investment into what it is today. Yet by all accounts, Warren lives a simple life. He lives in a modest home in Omaha, Nebraska, drives his own car, enjoys simple meals and drinks Coke. The only difference, according to him is that he travels in a private jet. Clearly Warren is not slave to his wealth unlike so many rich men who are in fact, poorer than him.

What I admire most about Warren is his wisdom. His advice in business and in life are often so simple and logical yet few are able to follow them. I learned through him that you basically need to know your principles in life, and stick to them no matter what. As long as you have a good reason for doing what you're doing or believing what you believe it, it basically doesn't matter what anyone else says. In terms of what those principles are for me personally, a lot of them also come from him. Warren Buffett is truly someone whom I aspire to be like, not so much in terms of net worth, but as a person. He is a truly unique individual who has touched the lives of millions. Millions more in Africa and India who will benefit from his generosity, will be positively affected but they'll probably not know who he is since he refused to become a trustee of Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation. This shows that he is sincere in his gift to humanity.

Honestly, I'm not that surprised to learn that Warren is an atheist. I cannot imagine him being anything else but an atheist. But I know fundamentalist Christians will say that Warren will not enter heaven because he does not believe in Jesus Christ. I'd say, if I were a Christian and I have a ticket to heaven, I'd willingly give it to him.

Technorati tags: warren buffett, atheist, famous atheist

Khalwat raid

2006-10-29T14:10:00.000+08:00

The latest hoo-hah involves the Kedah Islamic Affairs Department when they conducted a khalwat raid on an elderly American couple in Langkawi. They were woken up at 2 am by enforcement officers accusing them of khalwat or being in close proximity with a member of the opposite sex who isn't one's spouse. They were asked to produce their marriage certificate and their passports. The stupidest thing is that they've been married over 40 years and they are not even Muslims!

This is an inexcusable blunder, but the real issue here is that we still have such moral policing in this country. Granted this is practised differently by each state and where I come from, we've never heard of such raids. But in certain parts of the country, these raids have been carried out actively. The Syariah law allows officers to enter houses without warrant, permission, based on mere suspicion. In other words, one is guilty until proven innocent.

If we look at it from a religious perspective, such policing is good, because it prevents people from committing sin. This practice upholds God's law, God's law which is universal and absolute. But as always the case, things are never that simple. The term khalwat itself is subjective. When interpreting close proximity, how close is close anyway? 1 meter? 2 meters? What if the man is giving the woman a ride home in his car? What if the man is walking the woman to her car to ensure her safety? What if they're just having dinner or watching a movie together? Seems like all of these activities will be considered khalwat. You see, our world is not absolute. Everything is relative and in upholding an absolute law in a relative world, the applicability of the law in effect, becomes each man's interpretation, which in effect, becomes man-made laws! Worse still, each man's interpretation has different degrees of applicability. It just doesn't work!

You see, sinning (going against God's law as interpreted for men, by men) always begins in the mind. But unless we have a machine that can read people's minds, we cannot tell with certainty, who is sinning and who isn't. As they always say, only God knows. Two men may be doing the same act but with different intentions. One may have good intentions while the other may have evil intentions, but just by observing the act, we cannot tell which is which. By outlawing the act altogether, we are also preventing the person acting with good intentions. When a man is prevented by law to do good, that really defeats the purpose of having laws in the first place.

Of course, the other effect of this policing is that no one is permitted to go out on a date! You got to resort to writing letters, using the telephone or chatting online to ensure that you're safe from these khalwat raids. Unless, perhaps, if you are gay.

Technorati tags: khalwat raid, islamic laws, moral policing

Poor Dr. M

2006-10-28T15:04:00.000+08:00

Today's online edition of The Star newspaper published an open letter from Tun Dr. Mahathir. The letter is addressed to all citizens of Malaysia explaining why he is criticising the present PM Abdullah Badawi.

It is unfortunate that in this country, criticising the present leadership is always frowned upon. It is not just the Cabinet Ministers and UMNO members who are against this criticism by Mahathir, but ordinary Malaysians too (as least those I've spoken to) say that Dr. M shouldn't be doing this.

I think this value is uniquely Malaysian. We revere our leaders to the point that we often think they can do no wrong. It doesn't help that all the local newspapers and TV stations ever report is that our present government is doing wonderful things for the country, and everything is rosy, we're on our way to becoming a developed nation by 2020. This must be some sinister plot by those in power to brain-wash the average Malaysian into voting for the government in the next general elections.

Now, eventhough I do not agree with all of Dr. M's ideas for the future of this country, I believe he should be allowed to freely criticize the present leadership. In fact, all Malaysians should be allowed to criticise their leaders. As more and more of us get better educated, we become more opinionated on issues that affect our country. No longer should we agree with everything the government says and no longer should we accept half-assed replies from the government on various issues raised. Everyone should be allowed to think freely, and speak openly. We cannot become a developed country if our people's minds are not completely free. Therefore I think we should not question Dr. M's right to criticize, but instead, consider the points he's trying to convey. In other words, look at the message, not the messenger.

Personally I think it's a shame, the way the present leaders treat our beloved Dr. M. The moment he stepped down from power, he's lost support from his fellow ministers. Mr. Badawi's present political patronage buys unabated loyalty from these goons. One by one, they're queuing up to protect Badawi from Dr. M's criticims. It doesn't get more obvious than that.

Technorati tags: malaysian politics, dr mahathir

What the... ?

2006-10-24T17:05:00.000+08:00

I find it funny how naive our PM, Mr. Badawi is. According to Tun Dr. M, in his meeting with Mr. Badawi over the weekend, the PM is totally oblivious of any wrongdoings by his son and son-in-law with regards to national interests. Mr. Badawi told Dr. M that he will ask his son and son-in-law to report to him about any wrongdoings by them.

Is it just me or is that last statement totally off? Here's what will probably happen:

Badawi: Kamal, Khairy...

Kamal & Khairy: Yes, Dad?

Badawi: I've got something to ask you guys. Did you guys commit any wrongdoings as claimed by Dr. M?

Kamal & Khairy: Er... Um...

Badawi: Cos I'm hearing from him that you guys are involved in this and that.

Kamal & Khairy: Er... Um...

Badawi: And I've promised Dr. M to question you guys about it. So?

Kamal: No, Dad, I've not commited any wrongdoings whatsoever.

Khairy: Neither have I, Dad. Clean as a whistle!

Badawi: Ok. Good boys! I shall let Dr. M know that you guys have not committed any wrongdoings. Case closed!

I can't believe such a naive man is in-charge of running the country. I mean, what's the use of having judges, lawyers and the courtroom if you can get a man to admit his wrongdoings just by asking him? I think this guy is worse than George W. If we were in the US, Mr. Badawi will really get it from the likes of Jay Leno, John Steward & Conan O'Brien.

Technorati tags: malaysian politics, abdullah badawi

The Lure of Religion

2006-10-24T01:34:00.000+08:00

As a non-Muslim Malaysian growing up and educated in Malaysia, it is almost impossible to isolate oneself totally from religious groups. Somehow or another, they will find a way to get to you. Most vulnerable I think, are the college and university students. Evangelical churches which is the most aggressive religious group, have set up Christian fellowships in almost all colleges and universities in Malaysia. Some institutions even have more than one fellowship because they're set up by different churches. These fellowships often operate underground, because religious societies are banned from all institutions of higher learning. Through these fellowships, they'd organize meetings, activities and etc. and if you're acquainted to any of them, you'd surely get invited to their meetings/events where they will share the 'good news' with you. Then they'd continue to follow up on your interest and then if all goes according to plan, they'll pop the question: "Are you ready to receive Jesus into your life?"

For many, uni life means leaving home for the first time. At this age, young people are highly impressionable. They begin to ask existential questions ("what is my purpose in life?"), and they no longer can depend on their parents for answers. They are lonely, they want to meet new people, make new friends. And so, these fellowships appear to meet all the needs of these young people.

The evangelical movement came largely from the US. They are different from traditional churches (Catholic or Protestant) in the sense that they are more lively in their praise and worship and often display 'manifestations' of the Holy Spirit. They are usually characterised by explosive growth partly because they do a lot of evangelising and comprise of an unusually large youth group. Since our society is so heavily influenced by Western pop culture, these churches are very appealing to young people. It would certainly appear 'cool' to these young people to embrace this American culture. I'd say the peer pressure to 'join' is unbearable. Furthermore, if a youth comes from a traditionally Buddhist or Taoist or Hindu family, embracing Christianity would signify their independence because they're taking a step different from the one their parents took. That explains why many have joined and many have accepted Christ at this stage in their lives.

Now, I'm not trying to condemn the evangelical movement. I'm not judging them, nor do I question their motives. However, I feel there is a lack of a balancing 'force' to counter this movement. The problem really is because our education system does such a lousy job at educating our youths that this balancing 'force' is pretty weak at this level. Instead of getting students to learn new ideas and learn to think critically, our universities are spoon-feeding them with tutorial solutions and exam tips. Students study their subjects but do not learn anything! If the faculties are of any standard at all, the students' minds would be open to new ideas. Why should they accept the simplistic ideas preached to them by their religious peers when there is so much more knowledge in this world for their curious minds to discover? If they'd understood the theories of evolution, mutation, genetics, probabilities, the scientific method, and various other world views, would they still stick to religion? They might, but at least they'd start to ask questions and start to THINK!

To conclude, I believe there should be balance to the dissemination of religious ideas at the tertiary level. The most effective way to counter it is to have a dynamic education system where students learn to THINK. On the issue of independence, I also believe atheism is progress resulting from improved education. For (many?) atheists, this is also a different step from the religious one our parents took.

Technorati tags: malaysia, education, religion, youth

Public Perception

2006-10-21T00:35:00.000+08:00

In this country (and I suspect in many parts of the world as well), when you tell a complete stranger you're an atheist, you will likely evoke a certain response from the other person. He/she will be thinking, "This guy is an unrepentent sinner." He/she might think, "This guy is spiritually lost. He has no directions in life, he has no morals. I should set a good example and try to talk to him about my religion." So, without you having to utter another word, the other person's impression of you is already formed because of the word 'atheist'.

Unfortunately for us atheists, the very word 'atheist' carries a negative connotation. You can't really blame anyone, because people understand that atheists are people who do not believe in God. People who believe in God, believe that they are on the side of all that is good. And so, those who oppose their belief in God must also stand for all that is evil! After all, all those crooks, murderers and rapists in prison are also faithless people who have commited terrible crimes. People who call themselves atheists are therefore also morally corrupted individuals.

Although this is how many people think subconsciously, it is most unfair and incorrect. Perhaps instead of the term 'atheist', we should come up with a more politically correct term because there is a distinction between us atheists and the godless criminals in prison. The difference is that we have arrived at our disbelief after thorough consideration of various religious ideas and careful application of rational thought on the evidence for and against religion. It is not because we are ignorant of what religion preaches. In fact, I'd say that we know more about religious doctrines than most religious people. It is just that we've rejected blind faith, in favour of rational and independent thinking. Also, we have carefully analysed the implications of accepting religious ideas and vehemently rejected them in favour of the alternate philosophy of substantiated ideas namely science. Maybe we should call ourselves 'science-tists', although that might severely limit our identification to only those who are well-versed in scientific thinking.

So, while it's true that many religious and non-religious people out there are ignorant about their beliefs, true atheists are not. Most people know vaguely what they believe in, but not atheists. True atheists know precisely what they subscribe to and what they absolutely do not.

On the issue of morality, I believe human morality does not depend solely on one's religious belief. After all, you will find good and bad people regardless of their religious beliefs. In fact, I think it is much more than that. I think it is more like a non-cooperative game (think A Beautiful Mind) where there is more incentive for us to be good than to be evil. In the book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt wrote about the bagel experiment where roughly 90% of office workers choose to be honest and pay for their bagels eventhough they might get away without paying. It would be ridiculous to suggest that people who paid are all religous people while those who did not pay are atheists. So I think a person's moral conviction is present regardless of his/her religious beliefs or disbeliefs.

Technorati tags: malaysian atheist, atheism in malaysia

The First Step

2006-10-19T11:09:00.000+08:00

According to Wikipedia, 60.4% of Malaysians are officially Muslims, 19.2% Buddhists, 9.1% Christians and 6.3% Hindus, 2.6% Confucianism, Taoism. That leaves 2.4% of Malaysians for other faiths such as animism, Sikhism and Baha'i. What about atheists?

Atheism is not a religion, but if you are an atheist, you clearly do not belong in any of the groups stated above. Let's assume that of the 2.4% of Malaysians who belong to other faiths, 10% of them are avowed atheists. So with a population of 26 million people, we should have about 62,400 atheists in Malaysia. That figure may be higher because some people who profess to belong to a religious group, are fundamentally atheists, as in, they do not really believe what they ought to believe yet chose to be identified with the group for various reasons. But let's just take this figure of 62,400 atheists. Who are they? Which parts of they country do they live in? What are their jobs? What is their educational background? Are they happy with their lives? Are there any prominent Malaysians who are avowed atheists? What's their story?

Clearly, not very much is known about atheists in Malaysia. The obvious reason is that atheism is simply disbelief in God or gods and religion. It is not a faith, atheists do not congregate every week, atheists do not plan to take over the world, atheists do not challenge other peoples' beliefs and lastly atheists do not know other atheists. As far as I know, there isn't a single society or group in Malaysia whose common interest is the disbelief in God and religion.

For that reason, this blog hopes to serve as a meeting point for all atheists and atheistic thoughts in Malaysia. We hope this will bring together all the interesting, like-minded people who share a common disbelief. This blog is non-political and non-discriminatory. There are no political motives, we're not trying to incite religious or racial hatred among Malaysians. We're not trying to convert anyone to atheism (as I said earlier, atheism is NOT a religion) because I believe you can only become a disbeliever on your own, after careful deliberation. Maybe there are some books you need to read, some videos you need to watch, some tapes you need to listen to, some people you need to talk to or some religious camps you need to attend before you arrive at your conclusion. Point is, your (dis)belief system is a personal journey and that journey is on-going for as long as you live.

This blog will also examine and comment on various issues of interest from a non-religious point of view. We hope to employ logical, reasonable and non-biased analysis on the issues and certainly welcome input from everyone, especially non-atheists. We are always open to intellectual discussions and we hope our views will be heard by everyone (i.e. uncensored). Hopefully this is the beginning of an enjoyable ride!

Technorati tags: malaysian atheist, atheism in malaysia