Is Science and Religion antagonistic?

(full write-up soon. for now, these are my points and themes)

Both sides can and have led to evil actions.
sci->social darwinism->Nazi racial policies
relg->only one God and it is my God!->crusades, transnational terrorism

Both sides can be flawed in thier approach.
sci->high barriers to entry (unavoidable but also may fall prey to "group think")->little or no transparency/accountability of objectiveness to public
relg->aliterative texts->interpretative explanations on hindsight Both can be supportive for humanity's benefit.

Science has brought us very far and religion often fuelled the mental drive.

Why is then that Religion looks more like the 'baddy" to some?
Relg ->our first attempt at explaning our world ->science came along and threatened the establishment-> Relg institutions and powerful individuals had position and privileges to protect->thus they naturally suppressed science (would it have been the same if it was the only way round? highly likely but we will never know)

Why is there then a re-emergence of faith and belief?
Sci has reached a 'brink of the edge' ->many fundamental understandings of the past now contradicted/untenable + theories have outstripped technological means to prove them + information revolution (means of acquisition and production/re-production of knowledge is much more accessible -> more voices in the debate)-> re-emergence of faith and belief to fill in the gaps of understanding (never really went away in the first place)

Which is more appropriate?

To argue for a stand which accords no privileged position to any one group over another.
To argue for humility and admit that we are working our way towards the truth.
To argue for equal and maximum rights for all individuals.
To argue for doubt which is the engine of objective inquiry processes for the betterment of us as a species.

OR

To argue for one's own right truth and in turn directly or indirectly deny other's of truth unless they follow suit.
To argue for arrogance of which one knows the proper reading of how everything is already known and has been foretold.
To argue for rights for individual which only one's own religion deems as suitable and in turn will be limited. To argue for certainty of which nothing needs to be tested and cross-checked and which will indirectly hamper reconcilation as a species?

BUDDHISM IS NOT A RELIGION

BUDDHISM IS NOT A RELIGION. It is meant to be self-actualisation through education and aims at humility. Webster's Dictionary, the definition of religion is as follows, "An organized system of beliefs, rites, and celebrations centered on a supernatural being power; belief pursued with devotion."

First, Buddha never preached of himself as a 'supernatural being' with special powers. The Buddha is simply a person who has reached Complete Understanding of the reality of life and the universe. Life refers to ourselves, and universe refers to our living environment. The Buddha taught that all beings possess the same ability within to reach Complete Understanding of themselves and their environment, and free themselves from all sufferings to attain utmost happiness. All beings can become Buddhas, and all beings and the Buddha are equal by nature. The Buddha is not a God, but a teacher, who teaches us the way to restore Wisdom and Understanding by conquering the greed, hatred, and ignorance which blind us at the present moment. The word 'Buddha' is a Sanskrit word, when translated it means, "Wisdom, Awareness/Understanding". Buddhism is His education to us, it is His teaching which shines the way to Buddhahood. 　　

Second, Buddhism is not a religion because 'belief' in the Buddha's teachings is not via blind faith. He constantly taught his followers not to blindly believe what he said, he wanted his followers to try the teachings and prove them for themselves. 　　

Third, Buddhism is not a religion because all the accompanying 'rites and celebrations' that you witness after his death are not necessary. The myths of the miracles that he performed are by laws of physics untenable and unprovable so we need not take any basis in it. The good thing is without these miracles, nothing is compromised since nothing was divine about Buddha and his actions in the first place.

Ghosts which haunt the living are bullies

My rational and legal reasons not to be afraid of Ghosts (if such things do exist) You have a right not to be hassled by anything, living or non-living! Do not allow anything to bully you! The living have rights and these rights should be protected over the rights of ghosts because we are perishable, unlike ghosts.

The dead should not infringe upon our rights given that they are in a privileged position of being less encumbered in many issues such as physical fragility, legal and societal obligations. For example we bought a house, we paid for it in REAL CASH (which means a decision in opportunity cost)! The ghost may haunt it because he/she bought it previously but they have died and thus that legally nullifies their ownership of said property. Why then do they have the cheek or right to bully you out of the enjoyment of your rightfully acquired property?

Many would say that Ghosts are other-worldly and they can hurt you but you can't hurt them. Well, think about this logically. They may be able to take your life but look that bully in the eyes and say this, "I will make you PAY!" Because once you are dead, you are on an equal footing as them. Then you can take your sweet revenge on them or better still, the things/ones that they love without any legal consequences. Set a precedence and let all of their kind know that the living will not take things lying down anymore! A

nd if they do haunt the living for psycho-social reasons like being 'lost', then they should get over themselves and sort out their issues. Even the frail living are expected to do so, these spirits should be accorded no special privileges to behave like assholes and take their problems out on others

The evils of religious apologists

Religious apologists consistently look towards the newest scientific discoveries and try to align their aliterative interpretations with such discoveries. When the leading experts thought that the earth was flat, religion gladly supported it with their intepretations. Intellectuals who said otherwise were killed. Then when science proved otherwise, religious apologists rushed to re-interpret their phrases and show that it STILL MADE PERFECT SENSE.

The problem with trying to use science as a factor to prove God's authorship on a book is that if Science changes or discovers that a certain theory is wrong then this would prove that this book can't be from God.

But Science has no problems with being wrong, a wrong theory is just one more door shut in the face of untruth and is in fact beneficial for Science. The biggest issue that I have with religious apologists is that they do what they do in order to convince non-believers that their faith is indeed the correct one. They mislead others and I have a serious problem with that.

Next, this also clearly shows that they are silently convinced that they are correct and others are on the other hand wrong. This silent confidence in their privileged position divides us as a species.

"I'll change the system from the inside."

"I'll change the system from the inside." I have always found this phrase to be a bag of hot air.

Why does this seemingly optimistic phrase often grace the lips of many the but often dod not come into fruition?

1) they tie your interests with theirs (fringe benefits, promotions and bonuses etc)
2) they make you conform with organisational identity (social pressure and rules that dictate the way you dress, walk and talk and before you know it, you are just one of the many)
3) you get tired (they hold you in positions when you have the most energy. And then they release the pressure on you when you have no more to offer and at this late stage when you are left with no more/little options, you stay like a domesticated animal which has lost its wild instincts and is now little adapted to the ways of the jungle)
4) the reality of organisations is that very few actually have the power to change anything. the rest claw at each other for shreds thrown down from the top, get bogged down by the day to day work and hardly get consulted in any genuine way to change anything.

So the next time you hear someone say that, shake your head, smile and pat them on their backs to send them on their crusade.

Big Bang in the Koran?

Here I am, totally objective and neutral and just trying to find out whether the Big Bang was adequately elaborated upon in a particular religious text for intellectual purposes.

And what do I find? Like many times in the past, I find it to be a matter of translation and both sides generating their own interpretations to fuel their own arguments and the right of their own text over the other. Yo...u would think that if the stakes were sooo high (the soul of his children), that the Big Guy would actually give a CLEAR sign to settle any issue and not leave it to his pickering children and an issue of faith (which is a suspension of logic and doesn't help the pursuit of truth in any way).

Verdict? Don't trust institutionalised religion. Throw in your lot with one side and the other accords you with punishment in the hereafter. Follow-up action? Cut past their petty squabbles and just be a good person as best I can without any of their rules from the big guy up there.

Still, it would have been nice if an issue would not be distorted by either side for once.....just once.

My overlord's dream

A concerned citizen should apply the majority of his learning and actions directly to his immediate community and that should be how we value them: not be in a socio-cultural context where many eyes bear down on their grades since a young age and give them the wrong impression that grades count for most if not all they are worth. And that grades are more important than being concerned.

A truly self-directed learner will one day learn to and should be able to question fully and articulate his doubts fully in an intellectual and civil manner without any authoritative repurcussion lest he intrudes upon the freedom of others to do whatever they so please with their person and/or property. We should all agree to disagree and defend each other's rights to do so with our lives.

An active contributer should be nurtured to work in teams from young and not engage in academically-based competitions to outdo each other so as to acquire the best sources of income-generation for the comfort of they and their loves ones. They should be taught and shown that win-win situations can exist and there need not necessarily always be losers in life.

A confident person should not be bred in an elitist culture lest he mistakes status for worth and the right to be arrogant. Confidence is and should always remain as self-sufficiency not arrogance.

In the above 4 paragraphs, I have outlined the fundamental mismatches between what my overlord wishes to accomplish and our drive for excellence. Excellence is of course not a crime. But our current socio-cultural and educational environment gives students the impression that personal excellence is vital, namely academic excellence. Purpose should always remain our focus and excellence,be it technological/medical/economical, are merely our tools in order to reach purpose. what is the purpose of education? EDUCATION is the purpose of education. It is an intellectual expansion of the mind to the human condition. And with such knowledge comes the moral responsibility to take moral action. Education is not a system to produce and recognise individuals who achieve personal excellence.

False idols

Good morning school leaders and fellow human beings. When I was a teen, my idol was Kurt Cobain, lead singer of the grunge band Nirvana and symbol of rebellion against the establishment. But now looking back, I realised that my idolatry was ill-founded. Sure, he was a talented musician but what did he do with his talent? Nothing. Write many popular songs, abuse drugs and blow his brains out with a gun..in that order and people still mourn for his passing in ill-founded confusion.

Many of us are confused. We confuse many “big” things such as prestigious education, talent, personal success, recognition and admiration of others and money as the markers of who we should look up to as an idol. Many of you may wrongfully point to the various gyrating and cosmetically-enhanced K pop stars as idols. So who should we look to as role models?

Ignore the glitz and glamor and do some research and you will find many deserving individuals among us. We all have heard of Mother Teresa. But did you know that Singapore had our very own mother Teresa? And unlike the former who was morally dubious in various ways (read Christopher Hitchens. The missionary position, Mother Theresa: In theory and practice), our own Teresa Hsu Chih walked the walk without excessively talking the talk or allow herself to be poached for publicity purposes by celebrities. She came from an underprivileged family and worked as a cleaner for many years and self-studied to pass her senior cambridge education. She later quit her work while in HK to volunteer as a caregiver for the injured during WW2. She later was in Paraguay, Malaysia and then SG where she helped to set up and run many centres to care for the aged and sickly. Indeed, she selfishly gave of herself in too many ways for me to squeeze into this short speech. Lastly, she passed away on December of last year, peacefully at home and was cremated on the same day without any rites, honoration event or announcement to the public, as by her last instructions. Now that’s what I call a role model. Thank you.

Academic excellence

Why are we so upset and surprised when our kids show examples of poor moral action and selfish behaviour?

Our education system is focused on excellence as a product. Thus we reap what we sow. Academic excellence is a personal endeavour that seeks to accomplish personal gain in spite of competition. There must be a winner and there must be a loser and it is game. Even non-academic areas like CCAs ...are about achievements. If it won't garner an award, let's not have it. Whatever happened to fun, passion and exploration? All clamor and claw to be winners and this naturally breeds selfish behavior.

And let's be honest. We as educators too have been socially programmed to look at students through such lenses. Ever caught yourself saying or thinking,"Hiaz. He is not a good student (meaning to say that he doesn't do well in academics) but he is an okay boy. He doesn't mean anyone any harm." Should it not be the other way round: he is a good boy in heart and mind but just not that academically-inclined.

Give it up. Stop telling our kids that their goal as students is to score good grades. Instead, why not tell our kids that their goal as students is to learn how to do good for others. Every step that they take in learning any knowledge or endeavor (in whatever field that they are interested in) is for the end product of helping others; not being rich and successful in the future. There is no competition; there are no losers but only winners as we all strive to better each other's existence.

Hypocrisy

From 2009 onwards, I decided two things: to boycott Teachers' day and never to have any class greet me for compulsory reasons. Today, I will write mainly about the farce that is TEACHER'S DAY.

No other profession declares a day for themselves, traps a captive audience with compulsory attendence in an event to celebrate themselves and build a culture that indirectly compels that captive audience to lavish them with gifts of appreciation.

What about caretakers' day (people who take care of our dying in the hospices and elderly in nursing homes)?

What about paramedics', doctors' and nurses' day (people who save us, help fix us back to health and comfort us when we are ill and injured?)

These two groups of people truly are in NOBLE professions who deal with death and suffering and fight to keep us alive and healthy.

Dear teachers, if your profession is as noble as it claims to be, then do not celebrate yourself in such a manner. Do not expect or force students to greet you before every lesson to show respect. Earn the respect and receive willing greetings from students as friends and not as an authority figure. A sincere greet beats a whole class of false greetings anyday. Just keep doing your job everyday with silent personal conviction like the two groups of everyday heroes above. You will still never be quite as noble in terms of the challenges they face daily but at least you won't hypocritical either.

Ants and agriculture (from Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's tale"))

Ants independently invented the town. Their nests are complicated with enormous populations. They also engage in agriculture and crop fungi to stip the formation of spore-bearing bodies. The fungi themselves are dependent on the ants for their propagation. They have apparently evolved to flourish only in the domesticated environment of an ants' net which makes it a true example of domesticaion by an agricultural species other than our own.

WHEELS?! (from Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's tale")

The wheel may even have been the first locomotor device ever evolved, given that for most of its first 2 billion ears, life consisted of nothing but bacteria. Rhizobium for example swims using thread like spiral propellers which is attached to a shaft that rotates freely ad indefinitely in a hole that runs through the cell wall. This is a true axle, a freely rotating hub and is driven by a tiny moelecular moter which uses the same biophysical principles as a muscle.