March 25, 2008
It's pretty hard keeping my blog regularly updated as my third year assignments are piling up. Even if this is one hypothesis now, it would not be disproven in time to come.. probably a year or so. I remembered back in those days when I had some freedom to do whatever I like; whenever I desire, according to my senses. Now, I have to adapt to my schedules and fight for some little space for some quick leisure activities.
I wish I had more time. Not just for my studies; nor relationships; nor hobbies... but more time for everything. I wish I could have more than 24 hours a day.. perhaps 72 hours would be great for one day alone. I would then use 24 hours to sleep, 12 hours to play, and the rest to do my studies - all just in one day. And if I were to be working, it would be 9 hours for work, 15 hours to sleep, and the rest for recreations, sex, or hobbies.
Of course, I really wish to be living in a fantasy land. A Utopian dream ain't that bad, especially when I got sick and tired of the real life. The last template I used for my previous blog was a reflection of how I actually felt. It was a reflection of a deep desire and longing for a Utopian lifestyle, and that was how I came up with themes like 'dreams' and 'a world of ice' et cetera. Although others commented on my creativity which I utilised in building up the template of my blog (which I pretty much appreciate that), it would not be so without my emotions and the thoughts I invested into expressing my deepest (sometimes darkest) feelings inside of me. Still, I could not let go of the Utopian dream which I hold, because of it's usefulness in lifting me up, and getting me out of reality... at least for a while.
Speaking about Utopia, it is quite similar to being captivated (or more like deluded) in spiritualness instead of reality. Such spiritual experience is something which I think most of us need in order to find a place to rest. Our resting place are, however, subjected to our perception of the universe around each and everyone of us. Thus, there can be no similar perception of what a Utopian experience, nor a spiritual experience, and not even a God-related experience is. The contradiction of having a mass gathering of similar world-view is a disastrous activity, and a lousy idea. Unless there are common understanding and mutual support of individual perception of a particular world-view, despite of certain disagreements relating to that view irregardless of its weight or quantity, the very notion of having a gathering of shared world-view remains preposterously redundant.
Hence, our private view of the world, of our experience, and of our imagination, can only come to a common consensus within ourselves. If one is a normal individual, that would most likely happen. Nonetheless, our private thoughts and experiences could be shared only if we want them to be shared. To criticise a private thought or experience is not equivalent to violating the person's right of privacy because the right to privacy is not the same as thoughts or experiences that are private or personal. Therefore, to criticise a theory or religion, there must be factual evidence and logical reasoning. So far, I've met few individuals with religious background who are, though moderate in their stand on Science and Religion, rational and opened in their discussion with topics on beliefs. However, my take (though I shall not discuss much in this entry) is that religion cannot give a solid evident proof about the existence of God. Neither Science nor Religion has the precise answer to God's existence. If this is so, there is no other reason to conclude that the bible or any other scriptural texts could possibly explain this God-like phenomena.
Thus, I shall conclude that the "God" we are worshiping is the God of our perception. Our perception of morality; our perception of the laws of man; our perception of truth. It doesn't matter whose side you are on, because if there is one thing you place your faith in, that object is a God to you. But it would be preposterous to say that the God one is placing his or her faith in is a God which is false, or irrelevant, or improper, then there ought to be more facts in order to support this particular argument. But how much fact is considered adequate in order to explain away such accusation? I hate to say this but, in such circumstance, nothing is satisfactory enough to bring down one's faith in a particular God.
The notion of evangelism has been given a bad name for centuries. The whole idea of reaching out to others has always been a great flaw in my opinion. The big question is - why do we have to tell others what God has done to us, instead of showing them about compassion, about love, about generosity, and about having self-confidence? Indeed, one might think that God or whoever that is invisible or imaginary has done great things in his or her life, but the main point of making a difference is not by telling the world how good God is. Rather, it would be a better idea for the world (only for individuals) to be shown love, respect, compassion, and generosity. Regarding the use of religious doctrines to exercise compassion and to bring about positive change in the society is for the mature and rational group of individuals. This is certainly not for children, not for fanatics, and certainly not for the ignorants.
To bring a church up with people regardless of their maturity or level of knowledge is a disaster. For having a place of agreement (even though there is power), is a place where most conflicts never end. It is so contradictory in this sense and I think that it would be better if the Church hasn't exist in the first place. Free thought should be exercised together with its old friend, logic. It is true that one should be rational and yet at the same time, compassionate. But my take on this is that rationality, morality, compassion, generosity, and love need not be motivated by religious doctrines. In short, if a person thinks he or she can be compassionate, which is part of him or her, by simply subscribing to a moral philosophy, then it is true that his or her faith is in that philosophy. All the same, it does not mean that moral philosophy is his or her religion, for it's not even his or her deepest belief, only a mere subscription to a particular suggestion.
I would like to add that nobody is capable of subscribing completely to a particular philosophy (and that includes a specific belief). And I would like to propose that inflexibility of the self would lead to a life worth dying. If one is inflexible regarding his or her belief, it would be terrible to imagine what might become of him or her should anything adverse were to occur abruptly. If I believe that the earth is the center of the universe and stick to my own belief no matter what, I am definitely in for a terrible news should anyone prove that the earth is round, and that it rotates around the sun. Apparently, someone did. And what would become of me if I am inflexible with my belief? I would die of misery and bitterness.
The beauty of Science is in its uncertainty and unpredictability, which is the reason for attracting inquisitive yet intellectual minds. The humility of Science shows that there are indeed many things and many questions that man has yet to discover for ourselves, as we live in this universe full of things which are still unknown to us. The best thing about Science is that it always keeps us going. It never ceases to fill us all with questions and then our attempts to disprove our hypotheses. It is not traditional, but always progressive. We may not know
it now, but we would know
it sooner or later, but it is better than never. Of course, a billion times better than giving up and leaving them all to false hopes, forever lost in the realms of the unknown.
The challenge that religions should take up is the attempt to show ample evidence with regard to what their doctrines claim. It is therefore not completely our responsibility (as Scientists) to be all the time questioning the reliability of religious scriptures, but it is also partially the religious who need to come out and not just provide evidence, but to question their beliefs as well.
The reason why Science ignores the paranormal and spiritual is due to its ambiguity and untestability. That is the limit of Science. And it is the limit of our human knowledge. However, if Science is limited in knowledge unless proven true, and Religion is limited because of the lack of evidence, then there must be a way to discover the existence of God or the origin of human race. Since so far there are tons of evidence for the fact of evolution, and that AIDS virus too evolve into something deadly is also true, then shouldn't we adopt the fact that evolution is the reason for our existence? It doesn't make religion false, but that evidence is the proof of fact. However, if some of you think that Science and Religion can co-exist, then show me how evolution can be an explanation for Adam and Eve, as well as how evolution can be an explanation for how a walking and talking snake loses its legs and voice. There is one thing I predict that if a snake knows how to talk, its brain would have the cognitive ability to do so. None of that has been found. Instead, monkeys are shown to be more intelligent than the snake in terms of their cognitive abilities, which are a lot similar to human beings.
Once again, if Religion can co-exist with Science, then what is the Science behind Religion? This is the question I would like to ask and to seek an answer for.
But for now, Religion has got nothing to do with the state, with education, and more so, with Science.
