Sunday, April 29, 2007
The only reason I only slept for 7 hours (or more accurately, 6 h - I spent 1 h thinking) and am wide awake on a lazy, rainy Sunday morning is because of that damn good book - Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion. It's certainly, and I really mean it, one of the best reads of the century, probably because I can't help but keep concurring with his ideas and arguments; I'm an atheist, or perhaps, according to him, I'm a pantheist - the use of the word "god" does not denote my belief in God. Rather, it simply connotates a non-supernatural representative of the creator of the Universe and nature. As in, when I use the word "God", it does not refer to Jesus, the Father, Allah, Yahweh or any form of supernatural, omnipotent, hollow substance.
The thing about reading is that you can rip off fantastic and intellectual ideas from renowned authors (Richard Dawkins is one of the TOP THREE intellects who ever walked the planet) and still get away scotfree or even get credited in other ways. How good a bargain is that?? Anyways, that's not my main point.
Somehow, I feel I'll lose all my friends one day. I think, eventually, we all will be distant due to different faiths and ideologies. Like what Rich. D. said, and I most certainly agree upon, he is deeply intrigued by the over-privileged status of religion in many things we do (Okie, he wrote tt more chim-ly, the book is chim daooo) especially in the US, where political secularity becomes increasingly obscure. This was not the case to the Founding Fathers of USA; they believed in a non-religious handling of issues of politics so as to be equitable to all citizens. India, a nation with many different religions and races, achieved peace and harmony in its society due to the clever use of secularity in governing the country.
Existence of a God is, I think, the least salient issue here. Because, not anytime soon, will it be possible to prove or disprove it. Note that not being able to disprove it does not make it certainly a truth i.e. if there's no evidence suggesting God is non-existent does not always mean it is existent. The author used a way-out e.g.: if I were to convincingly assert that there exist a celestial teapot between Earth and Mars that is too tiny to be spotted by any telescope of satellite, etc., then how many of you would aggressively nod your heads and agree with me? Well, of course, again, who can prove that the teapot is really there or not? So if there's no evidence suggesting the teapot isn't there, are you SURELY confident in what I said - the teapot lies there? The same analogy applies to the belief in existence of God, which your clever minds should not fail you to draw the parallel.
I will not risk sounding blasphemous because I sincerely respect that you have your own beliefs and naturally, I have mine. Just that, I choose to believe in a more probable explanation (no, Big Bang is hardly believable) to creation of Universe and all the rules that govern it. R. Dawkins categorised some unfounded questions into 2: one, (okie I can't recall.. so let me check.. *flip flip* ) Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP); two, Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP).
TAP - a legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, just that we have not reached there yet.
PAP - also a kind of fence-sitting except where the answer is is non-existent; there's simply no way to garner enough evidence to prove or disprove a point because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. E.g. the philosophical chestnut - I see it as red, you may see it as green (tt's what the author says)
He put God in TAP, but most of us and even most intellectuals place it under PAP immediately. To me, I would still put it in PAP; it's simply too hard - and one won't know where to start - to do anything about this.
By the way, the number of Atheists strongly outnumber the number of Theists in the US. The reason why the state is greatly religious and still overpowering is because the Atheists are largely unorganised and are marginalised. Should they form up and stage a revolution, numerically or not, they'll most probably win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On a totally unrelated topic, can I please urge people to not reckon me as a childish person. I don't know why, shouldn't there be a pivotal change in one's life that naturally leads to another growing phase or maybe a gradual change due to age.
Mine's not that subtle, it kinda occurred overnight, but not the night before where I couldn't sleep. It happened like a few days ago where nothing big happened. HAHA.. this is crazy and rather senseless but I can't help but marvel at my own growth, not physically (vertically) but mentally and my thoughts have far surpassed the things I would do or say in say, Sec 2 or 3? Then again, my actions and behaviour might mislead you to think that I'm 12 but deep down, I'm comfortably 18. Like, I've already outgrown my T-shirts I wore when I was 14 (actually not really, my shirts seem to grow with me, I can wear them for like forever!) , shouldn't the mind capacity's expansion and maturity commensurate?
Well, maybe many people I know are implicitly and less likely to show their maturity but I think it's important to show it through the things you do. Do yourself justice by not undermining yourselves and display yourself as a childish freak because no one really gives a damn what's going on in your mind when you try to pull some girl's hair-band off and chase them all about because they hit you on the back and you want to take revenge. It will, I believe, set off an instantaneous turn-off, rolled-eyes, "wah liao, how old liao" impulse in others.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying I'm mature, just more mature than I used to be. I'm also not comparing myself with others, I'm talking about just me as an individual.
I'm not a facade of maturity or condescension when you see that I don't laugh at your silly jokes; I just find it less amusing than you do. ¶ 8:45 AM
The thing about reading is that you can rip off fantastic and intellectual ideas from renowned authors (Richard Dawkins is one of the TOP THREE intellects who ever walked the planet) and still get away scotfree or even get credited in other ways. How good a bargain is that?? Anyways, that's not my main point.
Somehow, I feel I'll lose all my friends one day. I think, eventually, we all will be distant due to different faiths and ideologies. Like what Rich. D. said, and I most certainly agree upon, he is deeply intrigued by the over-privileged status of religion in many things we do (Okie, he wrote tt more chim-ly, the book is chim daooo) especially in the US, where political secularity becomes increasingly obscure. This was not the case to the Founding Fathers of USA; they believed in a non-religious handling of issues of politics so as to be equitable to all citizens. India, a nation with many different religions and races, achieved peace and harmony in its society due to the clever use of secularity in governing the country.
Existence of a God is, I think, the least salient issue here. Because, not anytime soon, will it be possible to prove or disprove it. Note that not being able to disprove it does not make it certainly a truth i.e. if there's no evidence suggesting God is non-existent does not always mean it is existent. The author used a way-out e.g.: if I were to convincingly assert that there exist a celestial teapot between Earth and Mars that is too tiny to be spotted by any telescope of satellite, etc., then how many of you would aggressively nod your heads and agree with me? Well, of course, again, who can prove that the teapot is really there or not? So if there's no evidence suggesting the teapot isn't there, are you SURELY confident in what I said - the teapot lies there? The same analogy applies to the belief in existence of God, which your clever minds should not fail you to draw the parallel.
I will not risk sounding blasphemous because I sincerely respect that you have your own beliefs and naturally, I have mine. Just that, I choose to believe in a more probable explanation (no, Big Bang is hardly believable) to creation of Universe and all the rules that govern it. R. Dawkins categorised some unfounded questions into 2: one, (okie I can't recall.. so let me check.. *flip flip* ) Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP); two, Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP).
TAP - a legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, just that we have not reached there yet.
PAP - also a kind of fence-sitting except where the answer is is non-existent; there's simply no way to garner enough evidence to prove or disprove a point because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. E.g. the philosophical chestnut - I see it as red, you may see it as green (tt's what the author says)
He put God in TAP, but most of us and even most intellectuals place it under PAP immediately. To me, I would still put it in PAP; it's simply too hard - and one won't know where to start - to do anything about this.
By the way, the number of Atheists strongly outnumber the number of Theists in the US. The reason why the state is greatly religious and still overpowering is because the Atheists are largely unorganised and are marginalised. Should they form up and stage a revolution, numerically or not, they'll most probably win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On a totally unrelated topic, can I please urge people to not reckon me as a childish person. I don't know why, shouldn't there be a pivotal change in one's life that naturally leads to another growing phase or maybe a gradual change due to age.
Mine's not that subtle, it kinda occurred overnight, but not the night before where I couldn't sleep. It happened like a few days ago where nothing big happened. HAHA.. this is crazy and rather senseless but I can't help but marvel at my own growth, not physically (vertically) but mentally and my thoughts have far surpassed the things I would do or say in say, Sec 2 or 3? Then again, my actions and behaviour might mislead you to think that I'm 12 but deep down, I'm comfortably 18. Like, I've already outgrown my T-shirts I wore when I was 14 (actually not really, my shirts seem to grow with me, I can wear them for like forever!) , shouldn't the mind capacity's expansion and maturity commensurate?
Well, maybe many people I know are implicitly and less likely to show their maturity but I think it's important to show it through the things you do. Do yourself justice by not undermining yourselves and display yourself as a childish freak because no one really gives a damn what's going on in your mind when you try to pull some girl's hair-band off and chase them all about because they hit you on the back and you want to take revenge. It will, I believe, set off an instantaneous turn-off, rolled-eyes, "wah liao, how old liao" impulse in others.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying I'm mature, just more mature than I used to be. I'm also not comparing myself with others, I'm talking about just me as an individual.
I'm not a facade of maturity or condescension when you see that I don't laugh at your silly jokes; I just find it less amusing than you do. ¶ 8:45 AM
