O, HOW I TRIED TO TELL THEM!

O, how I tried to tell them,
Using logic and every theorem.
But with ears they couldn't hear, 
Immune to reason far and near.

It doesn't matter how loudly I shout,
Or strain to scream my heart out.
With hearts and minds frozen by fear,
Just stony and indifferent they appear.

So, instead I tried to whisper,
Controlling my boiling temper,
While fighting back my every tear,
For this mission I love so dear.

Can we, at least, speak from the heart?
But there's reluctance on their part.
Their shells impenetrable front and rear,
To any form of verbal arrow or spear.

So, presently, I have fallen silent,
No more the intellectual dissident. 
For it is now exceedingly clear,
That there's no desire for a higher gear!

EXAMINING THIS SPECIAL PERSON CALLED JESUS CHRIST

Most biblical and modern secular scholars as well as historians are in broad agreement that Jesus as a historical figure is not in dispute.  Although debate is still continuing, the various arguments casting doubt on the authenticity of Christ's existence, constituting the so-called Christ myth theory, from Strauss onwards have largely been discredited.

So, the main question that remains is: if Jesus was a real person in history and had allegedly claimed or been worshiped as the Son of God, how should we judge C S Lewis' trilemma?

What is the trilemma?

In brief, the trilemma can be summarized as the "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument. It states that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and this leaves us with only 3 possibilities:

1. Liar: Jesus knew that he was not the Son of God, but yet, he said he was.
2. Lunatic: Jesus said he was the Son of God because he was mistaken. 
3. Lord: Jesus said he was the Son of God because that was the truth.

C S Lewis' original trilemma

C S Lewis used his trilemma to appeal to people who are already believers and who accept the accuracy of the bible to convince them that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, it is not logical to call him merely a great moral teacher.  He stated that the believer is compelled to choose between Jesus being either a liar, a lunatic or the Son of God; and between these 3 options, he argued that since Jesus' behavior was not consistent with being a liar or a lunatic, being the Son of God is the most probable conclusion.

Josh McDowell's use of the trilemma

After believing that he had established the reliability of the Bible, McDowell used the trilemma as an additional logical proof of the Christian religion to compel Christian belief.  

Is the trilemma compelling?

For it to be compelling, it needs to satisfy the 10 conditions below.  My personal judgement on each of these conditions are indicated as
      +  =  probable
      -   =  improbable
      ?   =  needs more evidence
     ??  =  we may never know

1.  Jesus, as an actual person, existed in history. + (there are good historical evidence of Jesus' existence)

2. The bible is a factually reliable document.  It must accurately record the existence of a real person called Jesus Christ, his behavior, his words and his miracles. - (few people believe in the literal truth of the bible any more)

3. Jesus must be found to have unequivocally claimed to be the Son of God. - (there are doubts that Jesus directly claimed that he is the Son of God)

4. Only an insane person can have the false belief that he himself is God. - (a person suffering from schizophrenia may have delusions, but a deluded person may not be insane)

5. Jesus was not insane. ? (psychiatric illnesses can be subtle)

6. A great moral teacher would not lie. - (a lack of personal truthfulness does not preclude the ability to conduct moral instruction)

7. Jesus was, in fact, a great moral teacher. + (no historical evidence pointing to the contrary)

8. Given the circumstances, the Liar, Lunatic and Lord possibilities are the only ones. - (these are obviously false choices as there are unlimited possibilities)

9. The trilemma is not self-contradicted or in itself not a circular argument. - (the trilemma presented 3 false choices precisely because it wanted us to reject the highly unlikely 'Liar' and 'Lunatic" possibilities)

10. Jesus' existence, character, actual words and actions are not a mystery. ?? (we may never know the true character of Jesus)

Conclusion

The trilemma does not stand.

THE TOYOTA GT86

Enough said! Forget about the Porsche and get this car.

"42"

 
 
In the book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, an enormous supercomputer took 7.5 million years to calculate the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.  The puzzling answer was "42"! 

If you ask your friends, your family members, your colleagues or even a passer-by on the street, the answer to this "ultimate question" can be highly variable. Some may say the answer lies in having lots of money, diamonds, Ferraris, Patek Philippes, big bungalows and such.  Some will swear it's to eat, drink and be merry. Some find the answer in God or religion.  The social types will list world peace, democracy, equality and freedom from poverty and hunger as their ultimate answers.  Yet others of a New Age temperament may cite contentment, inner peace and self-fulfilment.

The curious thing is that few people will ask themselves what the question was that they were answering. What actually is this "Ultimate Question".  Granted that the answer was "42", Douglas Adams himself wondered what was the question and in his book, a planet-sized computer using organic components was set up to find this elusive "Ultimate Question".  He named this computer "Earth"!

Implicitly, Adams seems to be telling us that earthly life and human existence are all about the search for meaning. It is to make sense of our finite life-span and our short appearance in this whole vastness of space and time. In short, the "ultimate question" is about what's the most important thing in existence. So, after a hundred thousand years, are we closer to uncovering the "ultimate question"?

What's the meaning of life and existence?  How should we live? Is trusting God all we need to do?  Is life a process of perfecting humanity.  Is love the unifying force of the Universe?

Whatever the question, if the answer to it is still "42", it implies that the Universe is an indifferent place with no clear meaning.  If we are string theory physicists, we may conjecture that our Universe is merely Universe No. 42 in a sea of parallel universes, each not aware of the existence of all the others.  In such infinite vastness, it seems silly to even think about such small questions of our life, our own universe and our everything.

Perhaps, all our philosophers, thinkers and spiritualists should drop all delusions of grandeur and return to the position of the existentialist; that of inventing meaning for each of our lives in our own way, however small and insignificant.

THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Science

The process of science starts with an observation.  From this, a hypothesis is made as a general statement about the observation. Experimentation and further observations are made to determine whether the evidence contradict the hypothesis or not.  If not, it stands pending further testing and evidence.  Meanwhile, a logical reason or mechanism is offered to explain why the hypothesis is true.  This is called a theory.  The theory will help mankind to better understand the universe and create useful applications. If minor contradicting evidence is later found, the theory may be modified.  But, if major inconsistencies are found, the theory or the hypothesis. or both, may have to be abandoned.  The longer the theory stands, the closer it is to being an established fact; but it is always subjected to change depending on future evidence.  Scientific facts are defined by their tentative nature.  

Science is guided by two underlying principles: probabilistic induction and falsifiability. Simplistically, probabilistic inductive logic implies that if the same result is repeatedly obtained during experimentation under the same conditions, that result is likely to be a real one.  And, if a scientific hypothesis or theory cannot hitherto been proven wrong; that is, there is a lack of falsification, then it stands. 

Religion

Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are borne from absolute and unalterable ideas. Oftentimes, by the nature of the claims made, religious ideas are not amenable to proof or disproof, but consist of bald and permanent statements. It does not need any evidence to back their claims.  If contradicting evidence arise, they can be ignored.  In fact, it is considered laudable to persist in such beliefs in spite of the lack of supportive evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. Such persistence is sometimes encouraged as a sign of strength in religious faith.  

In religion, the guiding principles are that of faith, to ensure belief and adherence; and obedience, lest one risks entailing some kind of penalty, be it bad Karma or a passage to Hell.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, science is the human quest for truth; religions are various efforts to subdue the fears and anxieties of mortality by submitting to the comfort of ready-made doctrines. 

From the foregoing, science and religion seem to be poles apart and it appears difficult to reconcile their differences.  Attempts to heal this apparent conflict culminated in Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria).  NOMA divides the magisterium of science which occupies the empirical realm of facts and theory; from the magisterium of religion which provides the answers to the questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria are said to never overlap.

Yet, in everyday life, we know that the concerns of science and religion do intersect but often at a less than friendly angle.  The statement: "God does not exist" is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable. As soon as God appears or is proven to exist, that statement will be falsified.  This is the implicit statement of science about God.

Religion's God statement is: "God exists!"  True to form, God's existence cannot be disproved because you cannot prove a negative: that God does not exist.  This statement is therefore not falsifiable and does not qualify as a hypothesis.  

And so, the chasm between science and religion remains.

BRUCE LEE REVISITED - MY TRUE HERO

In celebration of the Year of the Dragon 2012, this documentary movie was released to pay tribute to the dragon himself - Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee is my hero for the following reasons:

1. He did not only want to be just good in his craft, he wanted to be the best; and he was willing to work his pants off to achieve that.

2. He was often the spokesman and fighter for the weak and the downtrodden.

3. He always used his brains first.  He would not fight you unless your provocations left him no choice.  He was also an original philosophical thinker in his own right.

4. If there ever was an innovator, he was the one. He did not believe in fixed fighting styles. He invented his own moves and was willing to learn from others while thinking all the time how his moves could be improved and adapted to actual fight situations.

5. In our present flap over racism and bigotry world-wide, we will do well looking up to him.  Although he was a Chinese in America, he was full of self-confidence and had high esteem for his own culture. Yet, he was open to teaching this martial arts to students of every stripe as long as they were willing to learn.

OBAMA VS ROMNEY DEBATE 3

This was a largely disappointing 3rd round of presidential debate.  It did not look like 2 candidates trying their best to leave a lasting impression before the actual voting.  There were no sparks, no real edge to their arguments and even less commitment.  It appeared that both were trying to play it safe. But, it told us what we already know - Obama is by far the better speaker and has the advantage of on-the-job experience for the last 4 years.  The only thing working against him is the not-so-rosy economic data.

Romney, on the other hand, appeared unsure and lacking in fresh ideas regarding foreign policy.  His lack of confidence and experience showed up when he seemed to trip up at the beginning of each sentence.  He was only in his element when he strayed into talking about his economic plans and his business acumen.

So, the verdict of this presidential election hinges on the mood of the electorate, whether a change in direction in the economic policies is desired and whether they are ready to bet on a relative newcomer or stay the course and continue with their faith in Obama.

OBAMA VS ROMNEY 2012 - a Singaporean's opinion

 

First Presidential Debate

 An aggressive Romney focused on the poor economic performance in the US over the last four years.  A strangely inhibited Obama failed to convincingly discredit Romney's plans.

 

Vice-Presidential Debate

Biden's arrogance was a turn-off in contrast to Ryan's creditably cool, calm and respectful demeanor.

 

Second Presidential Debate

Many analysts gave this round to Obama.  But, Romney's clear listing of Obama's poor economic record, strong stand on China's unfair trade practices, successful attack on Obama's anti-oil, coal, and gas policies and his explanation of how a tax cut and a balanced budget can co-exist if the economy expands; are all good substantial arguments.  On the other hand, Obama sounds rather nasty and quarrelsome; and nobody remembers what he really said about his plans for the next 4 years  The incumbent's reiterating of Romney's "47%" off-the-record gaffe, his successful brow-beating of Romney into backing down on the Benghazi issue, and the moderator's poorly disguised favoritism towards the president suggest that the Obama camp now appears to be a little desperate.  If the President had won this second debate, it is more down to style and experience than anything else.

How this presidential campaign is unfolding comes as a big surprise to me.  I would never have imagined that wooden Romney is now having the upper hand over slick Obama and he seems destined to score an upset victory come November!

A REVOLUTIONARY FOOD TRAY RETURN PLAN

Despite much effort in the past, the unique problem of unreturned food trays in food centers remains unresolved in Singapore.

It's time for a fresh approach. I'm proposing a counter-intuitive solution. Instead of persuading reluctant people to return their trays after their meals, we should do just the opposite.  That is, we should tell people NOT to return their trays after eating!

This novel system works this way:  A diner eats his meal with all his food in a tray. He finishes his food, leaves his tray on the table and walks away.

When a second diner comes along and wishes to sit at the same table, he has to clear that tray away lest he has nowhere to put his food later. In so doing, he also reserves the table for himself. A cleaner, now re-designated  a tray manager,  puts a numbered reservation sign on the table for him. 

After returning the tray to a tray-return station, the second diner then proceeds to get his food and returns to eat at his table. When he finishes his food, he can just walk away. 

The process then repeats itself.  In effect, every diner will return one tray during the meal experience, though the tray returned is not his own. A diner has the option of refusing to clear the tray on approaching a table, but he will have to pay a $2 tip on the spot to the tray manager who will gladly do it for him with a wide smile! 

This system has several advantages.  

First, one way or another, all food trays will be cleared eventually since every diner will clear away one tray. There is no need to broadcast reminders through speakers as clearing trays become a systemic obligation. 

Second, the problem of a tight labour market for cleaners can be overcome as fewer cleaners or tray managers need to be deployed. The incorporation of tips in the system may also motivate more people to join the cleaning industry.  

Third, clearing the trays for others gives people an uplifting feeling of pride that they are performing a useful service for others and for society at large.

Fourth, the immediate reward of an official table reservation in exchange for cooperation provides a positive psychological reinforcement to habitualize the practice.  By the way, this also solves the other perennial problem of people reserving tables with packets of tissue.

And last, over time, people will gradually learn the golden rule of caring for others in the same way that they expect others to care for them. Such an educative effect of 'love thy neighbor' may slowly spread by contagion to other areas of our lives.

This is an opportunity to trigger a general reawakening of our collective civic consciousness. Let us adopt this food tray initiative and start a social revolution!

IF YOU EVER FEEL DOWN, LET THESE FAVORITE SONGS OF MINE CHEER YOU UP!

20 big ones from the wonderful 70s and 80s.