Well, it comes to my mind, why we label free thinkers as atheist? Let's start from the definition of atheism. According to dictionary.com, atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. We have a big problem here! What is God in the first place? We have a plethora of different definition of God, depending on religion or philosophy we subscribe in. Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Wotan, Jupiter, Vishnu, The Tao, Amaterasu, Odin, Baal, and the nature itself is only a few of what humanity ever called as 'God'.
Let's look at this way, the reason why free thinkers are often labeled as 'atheist' is because they don't believe in your 'God' isn't it? But what about other people who believed in other 'God'? You label them as unbeliever? I don't see any difference in it. Both group deny your 'God', so shouldn't you label everyone who don't believe in your 'God' as atheist? Since you believed that your 'God' is the only one anyway, should that make everyone who don't believe in your 'God' as atheist?
What is the catch here? From the perspective of other person, the same applies. You are 'atheist' from the perspective of other person who subscribe in other doctrine. So, what is the conclusion here? Everyone is atheist, and the word become meaningless....
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Physics of The Impossible - the review
Author : Michio Kaku
Year Published : 2008
Rating : 4.7
Summary : In this book, Kaku bring us to the world of science fiction. Explaining us how far we are from science fiction. Teleportation, force field, invisibility, beam weapons, hovercraft and time machine are only a small part of the book. The theories behind these amazing technology and the history of the idea behind it. With his lucid writing style, Kaku explained to us the reason behind his optimism that one day these technology are no longer dream of humanity.
My thoughts : I would say that I'm quite satisfied with the book. It answers some of the many question I have been wondering. The writing style make the book could be understood easier with not much big words. The hard part to understand is the Law of Physics behind it. The absurdity of quantum physics. I'm glad that he explain what is string theory (roughly) that he mentioned several times in the book. It really spark interest to find out more about (super)string and quantum theory.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Quotes on religion
"Rather than entertain the possibility of billions of saints, popes, churches, and Jesus Christs in the outer space, it was more convenient for the Church to simply burn him [Giordano Bruno]." ~ Michio Kaku
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense. " ~ Voltaire
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." ~ Albert Einstein
"Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous. " ~ Richard Dawkins
"Religions do make claims about the universe – the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false." ~ Richard Dawkins
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. " ~ Carl Sagan
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense. " ~ Voltaire
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." ~ Albert Einstein
"Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous. " ~ Richard Dawkins
"Religions do make claims about the universe – the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false." ~ Richard Dawkins
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. " ~ Carl Sagan
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Horrors of War
Explosion rumbling as if it's thunderstorm.
Buildings collapsed, forming a rubble jungle.
Humans killing each other.
In the name of justice.
In the name of freedom.
In the name of power.
And in the name of God.
Critters escaping for life.
But none is spared.
Not even a child.
The air is full of the smell of death.
Blood forming a river.
Fire burned the ground.
Many innocent life was lost.
Just because of the command of one man.
Or a press of button.
Plague strikes.
Following the foul smell of death.
Without a the slash of a blade.
Many more died.
From the diseases brought upon war.
Food was scarce.
So does water.
More died,
From starvation and dehydration.
In war,
Parents buried their child.
Who died from the epidemic.
Or killed in battlefield.
Just because of one man.
Who decide to start it,
Such a horrible thing happen.
Why?
Buildings collapsed, forming a rubble jungle.
Humans killing each other.
In the name of justice.
In the name of freedom.
In the name of power.
And in the name of God.
Critters escaping for life.
But none is spared.
Not even a child.
The air is full of the smell of death.
Blood forming a river.
Fire burned the ground.
Many innocent life was lost.
Just because of the command of one man.
Or a press of button.
Plague strikes.
Following the foul smell of death.
Without a the slash of a blade.
Many more died.
From the diseases brought upon war.
Food was scarce.
So does water.
More died,
From starvation and dehydration.
In war,
Parents buried their child.
Who died from the epidemic.
Or killed in battlefield.
Just because of one man.
Who decide to start it,
Such a horrible thing happen.
Why?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Another delusion
Well, I saw Glenn posting this kind of thing on his blog so I decide to join him in this delusion.
You like your own company; you're a very interesting person. Tracking your own mental processes, knowing what you're thinking and why you do what you do, is important to you. Often, what's going on in your mind is more compelling than what's going on outside. For the most part, those with a high score on the "introspective" trait enjoy reading, taking long walks, learning new things, and other solitary activities.
You are not someone who is constantly looking to be among a group of friends; you never feel bored when you are by yourself.
You appreciate art, beauty, and design; you know that they are not superficial but absolutely crucial to living the good life. You have good taste, and you're proud of it. Those with a high score on the "aesthetic" trait are often employed in literary or artistic professions, enjoy domestic activities — doing things around the house — and are enthusiastic about the arts, reading, and travel.
You don't think it's pretentious to be moved by art and beauty. You're not one of those who believe it doesn't matter what something looks like as long as it does its job.
You're comfortable expressing yourself in words and actions, with no self-censorship. You believe that if someone doesn't like what they see it's not your problem, but theirs. A high score on the "accessible" trait suggests that you have a lot of friends, socialize often, and enjoy rap/hip-hop music.
You don't see the need to keep your thoughts to yourself, or to have a zone of privacy that encompasses only yourself and a small circle of friends and relatives.
You are willing to take the time to find out what's going on with other people, especially if they're in distress. You're a good listener, you don't criticize, and you offer unbiased, respectful, honest advice when it's requested. With a high score on the "understanding" trait, it is likely that you are enthusiastic about charitable work, helping others, and making the world a better place.
You don't feel the need to impose your standards on others or say things that, even though true, cause pain.
You believe things will turn out fine even if they don't go precisely according to plan. As far as you're concerned, it's not the end of the world if a project falls short of perfection.
You don't feel compelled to dot every "i" and cross every "t."
You look before you leap, think before you act, consider what you're about to say before you open your mouth to speak; that's why you rarely have to eat your words.
You usually don't get excited easily or blurt out the first thing that comes to mind without considering the consequences.
You rarely become irritated, generally accept people as they are, take things as they come, and feel relaxed in most situations.
You do not let a minor annoyance escalate to a confrontation. You don't regularly snap at those around you or fly off the handle with little provocation.
You feel that a clean, orderly desk is the sign of a person who doesn't have enough to do. Schedules and "to do" lists feel stifling; you thrive on a sense that anything goes, and know that the world won't end if you don't clean up after finishing a job.
You don't need to know that everything is in its place; it is not empowering to you to feel that the world around you is neat and organized. Mowing down every item on your "to do" list, every day, does not bring you joy.
You are constantly coming up with new ideas. For you, the world as it exists is just a jumping-off place; what's going on inside your mind is often more interesting than what's going on outside.
You don't feel that the road to success is to be a realist and stick to the program; you never stop yourself from coming up with new ideas or telling the world what you're thinking about.
Well, I'd say quite accurate but not 100%. I need testimony of my group of friends.
Introspective
You like your own company; you're a very interesting person. Tracking your own mental processes, knowing what you're thinking and why you do what you do, is important to you. Often, what's going on in your mind is more compelling than what's going on outside. For the most part, those with a high score on the "introspective" trait enjoy reading, taking long walks, learning new things, and other solitary activities.
You are not someone who is constantly looking to be among a group of friends; you never feel bored when you are by yourself.
Aesthetic
You appreciate art, beauty, and design; you know that they are not superficial but absolutely crucial to living the good life. You have good taste, and you're proud of it. Those with a high score on the "aesthetic" trait are often employed in literary or artistic professions, enjoy domestic activities — doing things around the house — and are enthusiastic about the arts, reading, and travel.
You don't think it's pretentious to be moved by art and beauty. You're not one of those who believe it doesn't matter what something looks like as long as it does its job.
Accessible
You're comfortable expressing yourself in words and actions, with no self-censorship. You believe that if someone doesn't like what they see it's not your problem, but theirs. A high score on the "accessible" trait suggests that you have a lot of friends, socialize often, and enjoy rap/hip-hop music.
You don't see the need to keep your thoughts to yourself, or to have a zone of privacy that encompasses only yourself and a small circle of friends and relatives.
Understanding
You are willing to take the time to find out what's going on with other people, especially if they're in distress. You're a good listener, you don't criticize, and you offer unbiased, respectful, honest advice when it's requested. With a high score on the "understanding" trait, it is likely that you are enthusiastic about charitable work, helping others, and making the world a better place.
You don't feel the need to impose your standards on others or say things that, even though true, cause pain.
Slapdash
You believe things will turn out fine even if they don't go precisely according to plan. As far as you're concerned, it's not the end of the world if a project falls short of perfection.
You don't feel compelled to dot every "i" and cross every "t."
Prudent
You look before you leap, think before you act, consider what you're about to say before you open your mouth to speak; that's why you rarely have to eat your words.
You usually don't get excited easily or blurt out the first thing that comes to mind without considering the consequences.
Calm
You rarely become irritated, generally accept people as they are, take things as they come, and feel relaxed in most situations.
You do not let a minor annoyance escalate to a confrontation. You don't regularly snap at those around you or fly off the handle with little provocation.
Loose
You feel that a clean, orderly desk is the sign of a person who doesn't have enough to do. Schedules and "to do" lists feel stifling; you thrive on a sense that anything goes, and know that the world won't end if you don't clean up after finishing a job.
You don't need to know that everything is in its place; it is not empowering to you to feel that the world around you is neat and organized. Mowing down every item on your "to do" list, every day, does not bring you joy.
Original
You are constantly coming up with new ideas. For you, the world as it exists is just a jumping-off place; what's going on inside your mind is often more interesting than what's going on outside.
You don't feel that the road to success is to be a realist and stick to the program; you never stop yourself from coming up with new ideas or telling the world what you're thinking about.
Curious
You like to get to the bottom of things. You're not content knowing what someone did; you want to know why they did it.You don't simply take things as they are and move on; you're not content skimming along on the surface; you don't feel you're wasting time by digging for the meaning of things.Well, I'd say quite accurate but not 100%. I need testimony of my group of friends.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
‘Science and religion will always conflict.’ Discuss. (2002)
Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, and most notably Richard Dawkins had been known for their crusade protecting science from religion. Throughout the age, science and religion co-exist together with religion as a source of inspiration for scientist to know more of the nature. It had sparked many inventions however, it seemed that religion will be in conflict with science with many scientific discovery contradicting religious beliefs.
Science and religion is in conflict these days as religion refuse to change and admit the fallacy of their beliefs. Religious institution inclined to adopt the stand of “I'm always right, your theory is nonsense” due to the strong belief that the “holy book” speaks literal truth as it is “direct word of God” without considering the possibility of inaccuracy of the “holy scriptures” as it is written by man who are bound to make mistake, the same with scientific textbooks. The Galileo Affair and rejection of Theory of Evolution by many churches had shown the stubbornness of religion. Religion itself is unable to admit its mistake as it will destroy the foundation of the religion itself. The Theory of Evolution contradicts the creation myth in the Bible (and also the Koran) had been rejected in many countries including USA and Turkey. Theory of evolution suggest that all living beings comes from a common ancestor which adapt and evolve slowly through natural selection. It suggest that birds and mamals comes after reptiles and human and apes share same ancestor, much of what contradicting the 6 days of creation. The theory itself is mocked by several creationist who defend the biblical creation myth, notably Kirk Cameron who suggest that if the theory is true there should be such thing as “crocoduck”. It is hard for religion to accept science that contradicts to their beliefs therefore making it hard for science and religion to co-exist together.
Religion despise the very nature of science that question religious teaching, branding many scientific research as blasphemy, contributing to the impossibility of religion and science to exist together. Genetic engineering had been condemned as “man playing god” due to the very nature of the research could lead to birth of a new species. However, it should also be noted that selective breeding and cultivation could also lead to new species artificially. Animal was not domesticated until human learn that like them, animals could also breed. The farm animal we have now is the product of selective breeding done by the hands of humans who breed them for food. As these animals lose their need to hunt, they lose their survival skill that is needed in the wild which obviously lead to creation of new species. Genetic engineering only do it in different way at much faster rate. Galileo's Helio-centrism which widely accepted today, is against several verses in the bible which suggest that the earth is the centre of universe. Because of his strong stance in protecting his theory, the Catholic Church of that time charged Galileo with house arrest for heresy. Hence, science and religion could not mix as religion adopt aggressive stance against science.
Science despise the supernatural nature of religion, many modern day scientist cite it as illogical. From the perspective of science, religion could only serve as pseudo-science, nothing to do with knowledge, just a mere superstition beliefs serving to explain what science will never be able to explain such as origin of universe or afterlife. Richard Dawkins had once compares religion with myth, and state that there is no difference between them. Scientist had questioned the accuracy of “holy scriptures” several times, not only on the issue of “Origin of Species” but also on the age of the earth and the universe, the existence of God, extra-terrestrial beings, the power of prayer and miracles. Scientist rejects the idea of using supernatural intervention as an answer to unexplainable events as it does not give an answer of how it actually happens. Thus, religion and science could not mix as scientist dismiss the reliability of the “holy scriptures” due to superstitious nature of religion.
Even though it seems that mixing religion and science comparable to mixing water with oil, there is still a way for them to exist together. A wise man once said “build a bridge not a wall”, there are groups trying to mix both both religion and science. Another way to avoid conflict between both side is to took them separately.
Several liberal churches, notably The Progressive Christians in America have tried to mix science in their religious teaching. The liberal wing of Christianity accepts science as fact and the “holy scripture” as moral guidelines not as source of information as they believed that the bible is subjected to prejudice and its scientific accuracy is questionable as it is written by man who are bound to make mistake and it was written when the world only knew a small percentage of scientific knowledge that is known by modern man. Science on the other hand continue to evolve, continue to be reexamined. However, there is not many of this kind of religious institution in the world, there is only a small percentage of this kind of religious institution and this kind of religious institution is often condemned by others. Most simply reject scientific finding that oppose the “holy scripture” and labeling them as blasphemy.
Several scholars had agreed that religion and science should be taken separately to avoid conflict. They have to be treated as two separate magisteria a view commonly known as NOMA. Science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Spiritual realm for religion and the physical realm for science. Several scientist and theologists agreed to this view that science and religion should be taken separately as there is no way for science to prove or disprove religion and there is no way for religion to give logical explanation on natural happenings. Even though several religious leaders, mainly Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II accepted this view, religion often poke into the magisteria of science. The recurring debate in America on Theory of Evolution and 6 days of creation is a fine example that it is difficult for both side to respect the limit of one another. Francis Collins once cited that there is no way to separate religion and science as both are partially overlapping each other. There is no distinct line between both magisteria making it difficult to classify some issue, whether they should be handled by religion or science.
Ok, that's all. I'll try different approach next time.
Science and religion is in conflict these days as religion refuse to change and admit the fallacy of their beliefs. Religious institution inclined to adopt the stand of “I'm always right, your theory is nonsense” due to the strong belief that the “holy book” speaks literal truth as it is “direct word of God” without considering the possibility of inaccuracy of the “holy scriptures” as it is written by man who are bound to make mistake, the same with scientific textbooks. The Galileo Affair and rejection of Theory of Evolution by many churches had shown the stubbornness of religion. Religion itself is unable to admit its mistake as it will destroy the foundation of the religion itself. The Theory of Evolution contradicts the creation myth in the Bible (and also the Koran) had been rejected in many countries including USA and Turkey. Theory of evolution suggest that all living beings comes from a common ancestor which adapt and evolve slowly through natural selection. It suggest that birds and mamals comes after reptiles and human and apes share same ancestor, much of what contradicting the 6 days of creation. The theory itself is mocked by several creationist who defend the biblical creation myth, notably Kirk Cameron who suggest that if the theory is true there should be such thing as “crocoduck”. It is hard for religion to accept science that contradicts to their beliefs therefore making it hard for science and religion to co-exist together.
Religion despise the very nature of science that question religious teaching, branding many scientific research as blasphemy, contributing to the impossibility of religion and science to exist together. Genetic engineering had been condemned as “man playing god” due to the very nature of the research could lead to birth of a new species. However, it should also be noted that selective breeding and cultivation could also lead to new species artificially. Animal was not domesticated until human learn that like them, animals could also breed. The farm animal we have now is the product of selective breeding done by the hands of humans who breed them for food. As these animals lose their need to hunt, they lose their survival skill that is needed in the wild which obviously lead to creation of new species. Genetic engineering only do it in different way at much faster rate. Galileo's Helio-centrism which widely accepted today, is against several verses in the bible which suggest that the earth is the centre of universe. Because of his strong stance in protecting his theory, the Catholic Church of that time charged Galileo with house arrest for heresy. Hence, science and religion could not mix as religion adopt aggressive stance against science.
Science despise the supernatural nature of religion, many modern day scientist cite it as illogical. From the perspective of science, religion could only serve as pseudo-science, nothing to do with knowledge, just a mere superstition beliefs serving to explain what science will never be able to explain such as origin of universe or afterlife. Richard Dawkins had once compares religion with myth, and state that there is no difference between them. Scientist had questioned the accuracy of “holy scriptures” several times, not only on the issue of “Origin of Species” but also on the age of the earth and the universe, the existence of God, extra-terrestrial beings, the power of prayer and miracles. Scientist rejects the idea of using supernatural intervention as an answer to unexplainable events as it does not give an answer of how it actually happens. Thus, religion and science could not mix as scientist dismiss the reliability of the “holy scriptures” due to superstitious nature of religion.
Even though it seems that mixing religion and science comparable to mixing water with oil, there is still a way for them to exist together. A wise man once said “build a bridge not a wall”, there are groups trying to mix both both religion and science. Another way to avoid conflict between both side is to took them separately.
Several liberal churches, notably The Progressive Christians in America have tried to mix science in their religious teaching. The liberal wing of Christianity accepts science as fact and the “holy scripture” as moral guidelines not as source of information as they believed that the bible is subjected to prejudice and its scientific accuracy is questionable as it is written by man who are bound to make mistake and it was written when the world only knew a small percentage of scientific knowledge that is known by modern man. Science on the other hand continue to evolve, continue to be reexamined. However, there is not many of this kind of religious institution in the world, there is only a small percentage of this kind of religious institution and this kind of religious institution is often condemned by others. Most simply reject scientific finding that oppose the “holy scripture” and labeling them as blasphemy.
Several scholars had agreed that religion and science should be taken separately to avoid conflict. They have to be treated as two separate magisteria a view commonly known as NOMA. Science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Spiritual realm for religion and the physical realm for science. Several scientist and theologists agreed to this view that science and religion should be taken separately as there is no way for science to prove or disprove religion and there is no way for religion to give logical explanation on natural happenings. Even though several religious leaders, mainly Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II accepted this view, religion often poke into the magisteria of science. The recurring debate in America on Theory of Evolution and 6 days of creation is a fine example that it is difficult for both side to respect the limit of one another. Francis Collins once cited that there is no way to separate religion and science as both are partially overlapping each other. There is no distinct line between both magisteria making it difficult to classify some issue, whether they should be handled by religion or science.
Ok, that's all. I'll try different approach next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)