uplifting

brilliant.

evolutionary psychology or evolutionary spandrel?

religion yet again

why am i writing this post? i am writing this post because of the fact that i've received several comments over the course of my relationship with my significant other. friends ask how is it possible that i have a christian girlfriend and not have conflict. apparently, some people disapprove of her relationship with a non-christian (an infidel) and have expressed their disappointment at her choice. i scoff at those kind of people. christians, who are supposed to be magnanimous, are actually guilty of forming hasty first impressions. didnt god teach them the evils of judging a book by its cover? i wonder. these people have not even gotten to know me better first before passing judgement. when they heard i was a non-christian they straightaway disapproved. funny how religion has this effect of segregating people.

if love is supposed to transcend all boundaries, then jansen ko says that religion is the little worm that is trying to gnaw at the perfection that is unconditional love.

i prefer not to take a combative stance when discussing religion. believers tell me that i should open my mind. they have seriously no idea how much i am receptive to ideas and appreciate intellectual debate. it is they who should open their minds. it is really laughable to have people coming to preach to me when they themselves do not know the origins of the christian faith. it's really amazing to see the look of incredulity on their faces when i tell them of the dark pasts of their religions. history has much to teach us, but humankind have this tendency not to learn from the lessons.

christianity became more popular during the roman empire. with its particularly great appeal to some of the poor, christianity was well positioned to reflect social grievances in an empire increasingly marked by inequality. slaves, dispossessed farmers and impoverished city dwellers found hope in a religion that promised rewards after death. christianity also answered cultural and spiritual needs - especially but not exclusively among the poor - left untended by mainstream roman religion and culture. roman values had stressed political goals and ethics suitable for life in this world. they did not join peoples of the empire in more spiritual loyalties, and they did not offer many emotionally satisfying rituals. as the empire consolidated, reducing direct political participation, a number of mystery religions spread from the Middle East and Egypt, religions that offered emotionally charged rituals. worship of gods such as Mithra or Isis, derived from earlier Mesopotamian or Egyptian beliefs, attracted some Roman soldiers and others with rites of sacrifice and a strong sense of religious community. christianity, though far more than a mystery religion, had some of these qualities and won converts on this basis as well. christianity, in sum, gained ground in part because of features of Roman political and cultural life.

adherents of the new religion clashed with Roman authorities, to be sure. christians, who put their duties to God first, would not honor the emperor as a divinity and might seem to reject the authority of the state in other spheres. several early emperors, including the mad Nero, persecuted Christians, killing some and driving their worship underground. persecution was not constant, however, which helps explain why the religion continued to spread. it resumed only in the 4th century, when several emperors sought to use religious conformity and new claims to divinity as a way of cementing loyalties to a declining state (recall my earlier post on how politicians view religion as being useful to subdue the masses). roman beliefs, including periodic tolerance, helped shape a Christian view that the state had a legitimately separate if subordinate sphere; Western Christians would often cite Christ as saying "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

and i cant help but feel like the bible is a very well written story book. reasons were offered for how come the christian faith is spilt into several different sects. it goes like this: men were united and wanted to build the tower of babylon to reach the heavens. the tower was to be dedicated to the glory of men, with the motive of making a name for the builders. god didnt want this to happen, so he purposely spilt them up and sent them to different corners of the world. god confounded language, spilting people into different cultures so men can spend all eternity quibbling amongst themselves and not be united. so maybe here we have a 2009 version of the tower of babylon -the financial crisis happening. to freeze up credit and stop the flow of funds towards the construction of the tallest building in the world in dubai.
and how the woman is created out of the man's stomach so she'll always be servient to him. laughable indeed. when you realise the true reason is the discrimination against women in early western/eastern societies. womankind have really shone in the past century because of the increasing acceptance of gender roles. if you have watched national geographic recently, you will learn that in certain african societies (which of course flourished in their isolated world), women are tolerated, even treasured.

there are christians who do evil. there are also non-christians who do good. so is being a christian that necessary in shaping the moral fibre of a person? if god is so powerful, then why did he purposely create us with flaws? i question the story logic of having an omnipotent and omnipresent god, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his/her own mistakes. it is human to err i agree. but crediting all the wrong-doings in the world to the handiwork of satan sounds too convenient an excuse to to be true. ohh the 2004 boxing day tsunami killed thousands of people. blame satan. north korea test fired rocket. blame satan. jansen ko wrote this blasphemous blog post. blame satan. can you see where this leads?

i also feel that some christians go to church more for the friendships that they've forged over the years rather than a solemn soul-searching session. to hear that churches take attendance and monitor your relationships with whoever you choose to go out with really send chills down my spine. i didnt think that you needed to have your attendance taken while trying to find god.

if you want to ask your pastor to come and talk to me, then naturally the scales are tipped over at his side. him, having many years of accumulated knowledge and the experience of preaching and converting believers, would definitely trump me over any argument. just ask him to approach any agnostic nobel prize winning laureates or top scientists and intellectuals and have him debate with his peers instead. i'm sure he would walk away with a greater sense of satisfaction if he can convert them, rather than a pawn like me.

in richard dawkin's 'the god delusion', there is this very interesting theory. the teacup-orbiting-around-earth theory. if you postulate that there is a teacup orbiting around earth, then it is up to you to prove it to me that it is really happening. you cannot just make the statement and hold it to be true until someone disproves it. if you make the statement and then you will have to prove it. similarly, if you make the statement that there is god, then you prove it to me. proof, in the form of experiences of being touched by god, does not count. only empirical data stands true to the test of time. by the way, here's one piece of empirical evidence for you. chris sharma, probably the strongest rockclimber in the world, is a zen buddhist. so if you want to become a top climber, then probably you could take your chances with zen buddhism.

ever heard of the pascal's wager? it is a tongue-in-cheek way of betting on faith. basically it goes like this.
1. if you do not believe in god, then if god exists, then you're screwed. if god exists, then good for you, you go to heaven.
2. if you believe in god, then if god exists, then good for you, you go to heaven, if he doesnt exists, then no harm done either - you'll just die. so overall, a sane and rational person will place his bets with the dominant strategy of believing in god regardless. but jansen ko cannot do this. to grow up into a man, jansen ko must make his stand.