In my last post I discussed the difference between belief, trust and faith, but before I go on, I would like to dive deeper into the subject.

We now know that belief encompasses anything that we accept as true – yet it doesn’t follow that before we arrive at a certain belief system we accept it without any evidence. As I have already said, not all beliefs are categorized as “faith”.

To illustrate this, maybe you guys have any idea on those people who are into NWO or “New World Order”. Conspiracy theorists believe on things like secret societies, that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen, or that the moon landing never happened, but they believe such things not on faith but on what they believe as evidences. They have “reason” to believe. Their “evidences” are: big, contemporary newsworthy events which may suit their “theory”; some so-called “anomalies; and of course big organizations. But whatever wacky ideas that come to their mind, it is still “evidence”.

Evidence is anything that increases the estimate of the probability of the truthfulness of the proposition.

I believe that the Sun is going to rise in the East and will set in the West tomorrow and that there is an “invisible” thing we called wind. Is that faith?

Nah…Knowing these things rely on evidence. We use data to predict an outcome of something – like the rising or setting of the Sun for example. Unless something beyond natural event happened tomorrow, we expect the Sun to rise in the East and set in the West based on and limited by repeatable, objective experience.

Pastor Vince: That’s right, you cannot see it. But you can see other things being moved by it. You can see the clouds being pushed by it, etc… But the question is, can you see the wind? Molecules??? You felt the matter, but not the molecules my friend.

In the issue of the wind for example, we can feel it but we can’t see it. But again, that is not faith. The reason that we can “feel” the wind is a proof that it exists. When we talk about feeling in an empirical context, we don’t assume its existence because we have the “conviction” it exists…nope, we’re not talking about being euphoric.

We don’t see air because the molecules that make up air (nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, argon) just don’t happen to absorb light in the wavelengths our eyes can see.

Oh and molecules don’t exist?
Actually you can see a molecule. Since molecules move too fast and our eye can only see around 100 frames per second, if you saw a molecule it would be just a blur, maybe a sphere. But thanks to specialized microscopes, we can even see atoms. Also there is this device called scanning tunneling microscope (STM) that can be used to see a molecule (neat stuff eh?).

There are other evidences of the existence on molecules. Just pick up your physics and chemistry text book (do you have a copy Pastor Vince?).

If you hit a crystal with a beam of rays, the rays diffract into patterns which can be used to tell exactly where the atoms in the crystal are located. This technique, which was proposed by Sir William Bragg in the late 1800′s, only works if matter is made of atoms.

Botanist Robert Brown noticed that tiny objects like pollen grains shook and moved erratically when viewed under a microscope. Nearly seventy years later, Albert Einstein explained this “Brownian motion” as the result of bombardment by molecules. Einstein found his main clue to the size of molecules: how far the suspended particles move should depend on the number of molecules it takes to make one “mole”. Each time a fluid molecule bounced into a suspended particle, the particle would be moved a little, so after many bounces the particle might wind up in a quite different place. Einstein found that, if one mole equals so many molecules, the suspended particles would wander, on average, so far in one minute. If a mole only equals one fourth as many molecules so that each fluid molecule is four times as massive, the fluid molecules would hit hard enough for the suspended particles to wander, overall, twice as far in one minute.

Avogadro’s number is the number of molecules in one mole of any compound. There are dozens of different experimental methods for measuring Avogadro’s number. All give the same result. The fact that Avogadro’s number seems to be independent of any particular method implies that it actually has meaning- and so is strong circumstantial evidence that molecules actually exist.

Pastor Vince seems to forget, because of science, we can now see the wind.

Pascal’s Bad Bet

Pastor Vince: As for me, I would rather believe in God. For if I die and then there is no God, I will lose nothing. But if I believe that there is no God, then when I die I found out that there is God, then I lose everything.

Let’s talk about Pascal’s Wager.
Now, isn’t it funny that Christian evangelists like Pastor Vince always use Pascal’s Wager? Doesn’t he know Pascal’s wager was intended for Roman Catholic use? (Come on…give me something original.)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) lived in a time when religious belief in Europe was simple; whether you’re a Roman Catholic or a non-believer. There were only two choices. In today’s Christianity for example, the wager can’t be that useful…let me explain.

How many dogma and doctrines does Christianity have today? Some Christians believe in the trinity while others don’t. Some believe in a human Christ, Biblical inerrancy, additional gospels (from the Gnostics)…whatever! Now what if Roman Catholicism turns out to be right and Born-Again Christianity is wrong. What will happen? What if “Sorianistas” are right or the Iglesia Ni Cristo is right? This is becoming a very bad bet.
Speaking of which, I’m just wondering…why would an omni-being punish those who don’t believe its existence? Does non-belief suck the very life-force of this “God being”? Does lack of worship weaken this “God”? It is really quite odd for a perfect, omni-being to require a need of worshippers and believers.

It seems this so-called “God” will wither and dry-out if people stop believing in its existence. So! It appears this God needs me that I need Him.

Enjoy it till it lasts

Pastor Vince: Do you think your life is wasted when you enjoy something doing it? Do you believe that your life is wasted for trying to prove that there is no God? I am pretty sure that you will answer that your life is not wasted for you have already judged my life that I already have wasted it.

But then again, going back to my question. Do you think your life is wasted when you enjoy the things you are doing and that it is with a purpose?

So according to Pastor Vince, if a person enjoys something, that won’t waste his life. Hmmmm…eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die eh?

Let me tell you a story of a person who enjoyed his youthful life going to sleazy bars and “beer houses” to have fun. Sure, don’t tell me he’s not enjoying every minute of it. Drinking all night long to drown his problems and his mundane existence with whiskey and beer.

Now that he’s 75 years old…what happened? What did he achieve?

The same reason can be heard on kids who waste their time “enjoying” leisure with their friends instead of going to school…(Have you heard the Nonoy Zuniga song “Sa Panaginip Lang”?)

Pastor Vince: Well, as a Christian myself, I don’t think that it is a waste of life to believe in God, just as you believe that there is no GOd. I enjoy exercising my faith with a purpose and with the hope of second life while you enjoy searching and reasoning that there is no GOd with the hope that there is no second life. What life have been wasted then? I simply believe that I have made a better preparation of what it is to come or “if there will be no second life at all.” It’s not a waste of life my friend.

Drug addiction also has the same effect. You enjoy being a “junkie”. You enjoy all the euphoria while speed-balling or injecting or snuffing Methamphetamine on your system. Something like belief in a so-called “promise of an after-life in heaven” can do. So, to say that it is not a waste of time to prepare for an after-life with God is the same excuse a blotter user would say when he’s “high”.

The past few weeks have been rather hectic for me lately, and it’s admittedly a bit tough trying to keep the News posts updated.

In any case, be sure to visit the News Thread at the forums!

======================

God and the Pope under Attack (Part 1) (via PDI) Link

Irony: HIV-resistant antibodies found in gay man (via Wall Street Journal) Link

Britain to pay 20 million quid for Papal visit (The Independent) Link

B-movie goodness: The Sharktopus trailer (via The Hollywood Reporter) Link

Parents and sex education (via PDI) Link

Vatican: Women priests = Child rape = Logic FAIL (via guardian.co.uk) Link

Same-sex marriage passes in Argentina (via Joe.My.God) Link

Senate allows one more Space Shuttle flight (via Popular Science) Link

Scientists develop Malaria-free mosquito (via Popular Science) Link

Get your copy now: The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense (via Crispian Jago) Link

Dear CB,

I regret not being able to see you when you last came home to visit. It’s been almost a decade since you left the country and we had somehow lost touch, and surely I could have spared a few minutes – a few hours, even – to meet with an old friend.

But the reason I didn’t see you had nothing to do with time. I did not come to see you because I figured the topic of Faith would most likely be brought about in our conversation, and I didn’t want to lie to you even as I didn’t want to tell you that I no longer have it.

I remember several years ago there was this Q & A being circulated via email. One of the questions was, “What is most important to you?” As I had expected, you answered “Jesus”. Back then I still considered myself a very spiritual albeit not a very religious person, but I wrote down “Truth”.

I realize I’ve been a truth seeker ever since my childhood days. I remember feeling uncomfortable in Sunday school when the teacher told us that Jesus chose the dumb people for his disciples because the bright ones had too many questions. Whether that was biblically accurate or not is beside the point; she was implying that one should simply follow and not think. But I realized that no matter how I tried, I simply could not not think. And there I was struck by the irony of why our God-given intelligence would be the very thing to hinder us from getting closer to Him. I could not understand why the same God who gave us reason would prohibit us from using it.

Still, I managed to stay on the path and maintain a personal relationship with the Lord throughout my adolescence and early adulthood. You might have noticed, however, that I was the liberal type of Christian who always tried to find a rationale for our beliefs instead of just taking them by blind faith.

One of the things I tried to ponder was the presence of evil and pain in a world supposedly created and cared for by the loving and powerful God. I even opened that up to you and you were able to conveniently answer it with the explanation that we are not omniscient, hence, we cannot fathom God’s purpose in His infinite wisdom.

That explanation kept me going for a few more years, but the Problem of Evil had been an eternal bug up my theist ass. I lived with cognitive dissonance as I struggled to rationalize gratuitous – unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjustified – suffering as part of God’s divine plan. And I do not mean only human suffering; even before our species walked the earth (and long before Adam and Eve supposedly committed Original Sin), countless animals had already suffered and died, some more excruciatingly than the others, like the caterpillar whose body was being leisurely eaten alive from the inside by a growing wasp larva that would soon emerge from the caterpillar’s empty shell as an adult wasp ready to mate and lay an egg on another unlucky caterpillar, and the cycle continues as the egg hatches into a larva that digs into the caterpillar’s flesh. Now unless there is a Caterpillar Heaven where all their sufferings will be recompensed, it just didn’t make sense to me to suppose that there was actually a loving Creator.

We were both lucky to be born to middle-class families in a civilized society, so gratitude comes naturally to us for all of “God’s blessings, goodness, and mercy”. But we had no idea what it would be like to live in Afghanistan, North Korea, or Africa. Gratuitous suffering exists elsewhere, and we were not constantly aware of them as we focused on our “blessings” like passing an exam when there were children who never had a decent meal or access to medical care. Our pastors have come up with sophisticated theodicies like man’s “free will” and divine punishment, but when I reminded myself that this was supposed to be a loving and all-powerful God we were talking about, I realized that the apologists were running out of excuses for God’s indifference and/or incompetence.

And so I clung back to the assurance that God has a “grand design” which is just beyond our finite minds’ ken. But then I wondered, how do we know that God indeed has a beautiful plan for His most beloved creation? Unfortunately, I only had the Bible to tell me so, the Holy Book we revered as the true Word of God. However, the Bible contains many major contradictions and divinely-commissioned atrocities that I either had to skip those verses or suspend my reason in order to continue believing its divine origin. But my biggest problem with the Bible was its lack of authenticity considering its stories were accounts of humans passed from generation to generation without the use of a printing press, and that it was only the Bible that proclaimed itself as the “Word of God”.

When I realized this, every belief I held sacred suddenly became fair game – including my belief in the divinity of Jesus. It also dawned on me how absurd is the notion of God’s ultimate “sacrifice” for the salvation of mankind: God created man imperfectly so God now plans to punish man severely and eternally because of the fatal imperfection that God caused in the first place, but because of God’s “love” for man, God bore an only Son, who was actually God Himself, to be offered as a sacrifice – to Himself – in order to satisfy God’s craving for blood and so that man does not have to suffer God’s eternal wrath as long as he believes in the Son. And even the “sacrifice” is not a sacrifice at all considering it was only about thirty years as a man and less than three days as a “dead” man that an eternal Being had to endure. That’s not even a cent to the world’s richest man, and yet Christians consider it to be the greatest gift.

Now you might shudder at my utter blasphemy and invoke Pascal’s Wager to make me reconsider believing, but all I can say is that the teachings of Christianity contradict those of the two other major religions, Judaism and Islam, and if either of them turns out to be the “true religion” then all Christians will burn in hell for believing and blasphemously proclaiming that Jesus was not just a prophet but God Himself.

And what does it mean to “believe” anyway? Is it something one can force upon himself even if every part of his rational mind screams incredulity? I don’t think so. Belief is not a personal choice; rather, it is the product of knowledge and understanding, both of which are not personal choices either.

And then I was left with the ultimate question: Where did everything come from? For quite some time after I left Christianity I considered myself a deist, believing in a Creator who simply caused the cosmos into existence but never intervened afterwards, allowing the universe to evolve according to the natural laws embodied in it. While I still do not discount the possibility of such Creator to exist or have existed, I am now equally open to possibilities that the universe – or at least the initial singularity from which it expanded – has either existed eternally in some form or another or came from nothing as an accident in nature via quantum fluctuations, negating the need for a creator. But more importantly, I highly doubt that a Being powerful enough to be able to create an entire universe would be that petty or insecure to give a damn if I believed in Him/Her/It.

While I consider myself a skeptic, I do not wish to be called an atheist mainly because of the stigma and misconceptions associated with the word, but for all practical purposes I might as well be an atheist because I no longer believe in an intervening god – loving or otherwise. While it cannot be proven without a doubt that such god does not exist, reason dictates that the Abrahamic God’s existence is very highly unlikely, and so I live my life on the assumption that this life is all there is and that the future of our world and the welfare as well as the suffering of our fellow humans – and of the ‘lower’ animals, or at least the ones we domesticate – rest mostly in our hands.

And so, CB, while you might be aghast with my revelation, I simply cannot bear to live in pretense just to avoid disappointing you. I can no longer force myself to suspend reason for the sake of my faith. As Daniel Dennet said, ‎”There is no future in a sacred myth. Why not? Because of our curiosity. Whatever we hold precious, we cannot protect it from our curiosity, because being who we are, one of the things we deem precious is the truth.”

But if you really believe that God is the Truth, please pray that He will reveal Himself to me in an unmistakable manner and prove me wrong before it’s too late. With all His power and mercy, surely He will make a way.

(Continued from Part I)

Chaotic Universe

More recent findings in astronomy, for instance, substantiate Hume’s assumptions of a chaotic universe rather than an orderly one. Astronomers contend that the universe used to be crowded and disorderly; stars were more massive as they die rapidly and detonate after millions of years. These explosions result to newer and heavier elements, spawning new stars, less massive, but multiplying amidst chaos. Stephen Hawking, in his book “A Brief History of Time”, explains that the universe is congested and limited in extent, with no beginning or end (1988). However, many of us assume that the orbits of stars and planetary bodies take defined movements which have been ‘properly spaced’ so as moving matters in space may glide in ‘safety.’

Conversely, for many billions of years, planetary objects have been traveling in changing paths and orbits, consequently colliding and crashing onto each other. The ‘order’ we perceive now as we gaze at the stars is just a result of planetary bodies which toppled obstructive matters off their paths. Surprisingly, these orbits were random, as astronomers assert that the elliptical course is the most dangerous of all paths. Most collisions in the universe result from aberrations in shape, path or movement.

The Dangers of an Ellipse

If design were intelligent as god applied it to his ‘creation’ of the universe, a circular orbit is safer for a celestial body to move across space. “If all the orbits were nearly circular,” scientist Rolling T. Chamberlain affirms “only a few of the separate bodies moving in them would come into collision with one another” but because the orbits take an elliptical shape, conflicting much in contour and dimensions, particles in space have high prospect of colliding against each other (2001). Stars do not just return to their original positions in space due to the infinite movements of heavenly bodies as the stars and other matters disperse into interstellar space. This results to the thinning out of the universe in which stable orbits do not subsist. Likewise, Hume reiterated that the universe has no a semblance at all on complex human made machines as artifacts are designed for a purpose. On the contrary, the universe has an unclear function (Poidevin 1996). While on the surface the universe may seem to suggest order, it is difficult to surmise its apparent function. The famous biologist J.B.S. Haldane once replied to a reporter who queried what his research on genetics suggested about the deity. Haldane replied that “He must have an inordinate fondness for beetles,” referring to the numerous species of these insects existing for no perceptible function other than for the purpose of reproduction.

Defying Anthropomorphism

Hume also showed us that it is apparently easy to compare things found in our world and yet, we have nothing to compare our universe to as it is the only one we know that infinitely exists. Thus, it defies logic to compare a whole to a part of a whole and vice versa. We may perceive a god present in the universe at all times, but this comparison does not provide scientific value. It is remote that theology and other social sciences can actually benefit from it. Hume emphasized that the analogy between the minds of humans and the mind of an omniscient being is ‘anthropomorphic.’ Nature in general is mindless rather than ‘intelligent.’ It is credulous to interpret the mind of god using the human mind as an equivalent.

As the product of an anthropomorphic philosophy always results to a close look at the finite god, Hume demonstrates through his propositions that if the argument from design is seriously considered, most of us will come to the conclusion that the god who controls the universe entirely differs from the concept of the god/gods of organized religions. As there has been a dearth of valid arguments on how all- knowing and perfect the designer is, we have to assume his abilities and traits manifested in the universe he designed and created. Bertrand Russell, one of greatest thinkers of the previous century, summarized these attributes and capabilities in a more telling fashion, ‘If I had millions of years of time and infinite power and had come up with the universe as we know it, I should be ashamed of myself.”

WORKS CITED

Chamberlain, Rolling T. (2001) “The Origin and Early Stages of the Earth,” in The Nature of the World and of Man, p. 37.

Gaskin,J.A.C. (1779). Dialogues concerning Natural Religion in: Dialogues and Natural History of Religion, ed. (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Page references are to this edition.

Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.

Hume, D. (1739-40) A Treatise of Human Nature: being An Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects in two volumes

Norton, D. F. (1993). Introduction to Hume’s thought. In Norton, D. F. (ed.), (1993). The Cambridge Companion to Hume, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-32

Poidevin, Robin Le. (1996). Arguing for Atheism, (New York: Routledge,), p. 85.

Sober, Elliot. (2003). “The Design Argument” p. 27-54 in (Manson 2003).

Swinburne, Richard. (1991). The Existence of God (NY: Clarendon)

That the universe is designed by an ‘intelligent creator’ as it exhibits balance and order has prevailed for centuries as the ‘most robust argument’ in defense of theism in the philosophical realm of old. Even in the present century, theists recurrently invoke the classic Design Argument as proof of god’s existence. This argument was torn down, however, when David Hume put forward his criticism of the Argument of Design – a treatise that sparked further acerbic debates for many centuries on the subject of god’s existence (Gaskin 1993). Although many attempted to dispute his arguments, the sagacity and decisiveness of Hume’s critique, until today, are difficult to challenge.

Cleanthes vs. Philo and God’s ‘Work of Art’

The “Critique of the Design Argument” is presented in Hume’s book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in which he puts forth a discourse between fictional characters, Cleanthes and Philo. The discourse begins when Cleanthes brings Philo’s attention to the world around them, asserting that the world is but one great machine, with its tiniest parts attuned to each other and with accuracy worthy of admiration and contemplation (Gaskin 1993). Cleanthes further adds that the creator’s ‘larger faculties’, parallels the minds of men as they manifest wisdom and intelligence and thus, it is only logical that an intelligent ‘maker’ shaped them (Swinburne 1991). This argument, Cleanthes believes, ‘proves the existence of a Deity’.

Using the house and the universe as analogy, Philo asserts that the universe does not show any relationship to a house as this is a flawed logic. The universe is a manifestation of nature while the house is man-made as he emphasizes the complexities we fail to clarify in the works of nature. Philo contends that men’s capability to understand ‘infinite’ relations is inadequate and it is “impossible for us to tell, from our limited views, whether this system contains any great faults” or merits any justifiable adulation when “compared to other possible, and even real systems” (Hume 1739).

Through Philo’s character, Hume contends that order and purpose are perceived only when they are the consequences of design. However, we see some kind of order all the time manifested in seemingly unconscious occurrences like vegetation and generation. Thus, design constitutes only a tiny fragment of our perception with regards to ‘purpose’ and order. Assuming that the design argument is feasible, Hume argues that it is not enough to surmise or prove the existence of a deity from the conclusions gleaned from our knowledge of the universe’s configuration which bears a distant resemblance to human design – cursory and sometimes unintelligent – a world which Hume states is “the only and the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance” (Hume 1739).

Hume believes that god’s intellectual or mental order and faculties need to be understood in order for the design argument to be decisive and reach a logical finality. Otherwise, we could not create a parallel explanation of order, or actually define it, leaving the notion too arcane and inscrutable. Hume also argued that if an orderly and balanced natural world necessitates a special maker or designer, then God’s mind as it is well ordered, likewise requires a creator. Thus, this maker would similarly need another maker, and so on. The comparison with nature and the various things found in it, Hume adds, is ineffectual as things present in the universe are set apart from human material items as they exhibit considerable disparity (Hume 1739).

The Degradation of the Creator

Cleanthes further argues that ‘the works of nature bear a great analogy to the work of art (Sober 2003) insisting that the resemblance which exists between this world and human products is quite significant. Hence, god is somehow ostensible in human intelligence. Hume argues that this leads to a degradation of the creator. He suggests that we know nothing about the nature or the attributes of god as everything about the deity is unknown and there exists only a distant analogy among the diverse operations of nature. These comparisons do not suggest that the basis of the emergence of the universe is the mind or human intelligence. The aforementioned analogies, according to Hume are so feeble and distant that god’s nature cannot be explained nor understood (Poidevin 1996).

An Argument against All Odds

For a many decades, Hume’s treatise has been challenged using modified arguments from the intelligent design proposition. Scholars in the field of religion and philosophy have concocted innovative extensions borne out of the design proposition. These counter-arguments however, fell apart as Hume’s critique stands robust amidst attacks from different schools of philosophical thought.

Hume’s arguments persist until today as his objections to the prevailing idea that an orderly universe exists are strengthened and supported by science. Although knowledge of the universe during Hume’s time is not as advanced as of late, Hume exhibited deeper understanding of the universe we live in.

To be continued…

We’ve all heard of the parables that the Church or just about any Bible preacher likes to preach. There is one called the “Parable of the Lost Sheep.” Christianity is supposed to be the sheep and the Church is its shepherd. Let’s call shepherds for what they really are: ‘rulers’ – for a shepherd rules over the sheep like the Church rules over its flock in the name of Jesus Christ. Naturally, the Church doesn’t want its sheep to go astray or else it would lose its position of power. One way they stay in power is by not letting their subjects forget them. That’s why they always remind you, the ordinary person, about God’s Promises.

When you first hear of this, that “God is your shepherd” and you are His sheep, it seems like an idea that you’d like to hold on to. The church makes it sound so attractive, especially to someone who is still dependent on others, making them feel that no harm will come to them thereby giving a feeling of security. But is being just a sheep good enough for a person who is free and alive? And, can this ‘shepherd’ really protect you from all the pain and suffering in the world? Is that really what you want? Let me tell you, neither the Church nor God thinks you’re special, to them you’re just another sheep in the crowd. Catholic priests would want nothing better than for you to be the perfect sheep, helpless and without any will of your own, who does everything they say and does nothing but graze in the fields and eat grass.

Let’s talk about herding. How do modern shepherds herd their sheep? They use a herding dog to bark the sheep into their fences. The Catholic Church does the same thing, only their dog can be a lot of things. It can be the threat of going to hell, societal pressure, or it can be actual political influence. Barking is a way of scaring sheep into place without the need of physically forcing them because, like sheep, people like to go in different directions. You only need one dog/one priest to manage a whole flock of sheep or churchgoers. In time the sheep will be trained and will follow without the need to be barked at. Christians now have an internalized herding dog, the all-knowing God speaking to them or something I can also think of as the person’s conscience. Either of the two will begin to bark if they start to go astray. This dog is no ordinary dog; it knows their secrets, their thoughts and every detail of every action in their lives.

Once we realize that this dog is only in our minds. They can’t herd us into a corner anymore and we will be free to relax and go in the direction we choose to go in this life.

I’ll end with these questions. Why will you allow some God to read your thoughts/prayers or record your whole life experience only to hold you accountable about it in the afterlife? How can God actually monitor your every move? Where do we get a conscience? Do you actually need a conscience to do good acts?

Embrace me

In silence and solitude

You and I,

One.

I am caught in this flux, this constancy

Of things — impermanent

Transcendent, always

Moving, and ? What. Yes, maybe.

Catching, this silence of the mind

Always moving yet

Prying open,

A glimpse into the unknown.

I fly, I dream in this vague luminance.

Where only the —

Only the,

Only.

Is seen.

In, pure light — radiant darkness

As death and nothingness succumb

To the Eternal

Beauty? There is none, nothing more

In silence and solitude

You and I,

None.

So you find yourself in a movie theater watching the third installment of the Twilight series and find yourself totally entranced by the deeply moving love triangle between the story’s perennially co-dependent heroine, the brooding matinee-idol vampire that glitters, and the equally moody werewolf who just can’t keep his shirt on.

Caught up in the layers-upon-layers of deeply philosophical underpinnings of the story, you can’t help but ponder upon life’s most sublime existential questions like what is love? what is true happiness? Am I Team-Edward or Team-Jacob?

Ahhh, the eternal questions to life’s greatest mysteries….

So you wonder where all these thoughts come from… what is it about vampires that capture the rapt attention of people everywhere to the point of irrational devotion?

Hmmm… fictional undead dude that rose from the dead with super-powers beyond that of mortal men… where have I heard that before…

Oh riiiiight… him….

Need more proof that they’re actually quite similar? Then here’s the :

Top 10 List Why Jesus and Vampires are Alike

1. Loosely based on historical figures
2. The tale gets passed on from generation to generation, each time adding a twist to the original tale until it becomes larger than life.
3. Very popular in pop-culture. Every year or so, there’s bound to be another re-hashed movie or best-seller about him. Ranges from the teeny-bopper, “cool” versions popular with younger crowd to the bloodier, more R-rated versions. (and it can’t get any more bloodier than Mel Gibson’s version).  Anne Rice even wrote a book about him/them.
4. Came back from the grave as an immortal undead with super-powers
5. Only reveals his true nature to a select few, preferably those he’s already gotten under his thrall
6. Can’t enter uninvited into your house (or heart)
7. Allergic to crosses, prefers not to be impaled with or into woody stuff but in the official storyline gets staked anyway.
8. Likes to be called “prince”, though one prefers the moniker of “prince of peace”, the other likes the title “prince of darkness”.
9. Keeps flying critters as pets which usually come out on special occasions or when specifically summoned. One like doves, the other prefers bats.
10. Has his own rabid fan-base. Don’t mess with his fans, they can appear to be all nice and normal, but say one bad thing about their master and they bare their fangsssss…

- O -

Need more food for thought? Even vampire lore in general, when you think about it, sounds awfully close to Christian beliefs, so here’s the follow-up list :

Top 10 List Why Vampire Lore is like Christianity

Lore states that you too can have eternal life. When you die, the master has the power to bring you back to life

Your salvation is dependent on you consuming the blood of your benefactor in a special ritual

You are not automatically born as one, you have to be converted into one via special rites

There is a strict code of obedience to one’s sire

Minions like to mind control more hapless victims by using their brainwashing powers

Usually has warring sub-factions which recruits humans to use as pawns or cannon-fodder

Hates other supernatural beings (like witches, warlocks, werewolves)

Despite claims to having a lot of supernatural abilities, nothing really ever gets scientifically proven or recorded.

They only reveal themselves to the public when an apocalyptic battle is about to occur, otherwise they only leave traces of unproven tales and rumors in history.

The “good” guys are usually required to practice total and complete abstinence. The “bad” guys are often portrayed as bestial brutes who can’t suppress their instinctive urges, there doesn’t seem to be a middle ground either way.

- O -

But there are alternatives to Stephanie Meyer’s bunch of mormon-inspired “vegan” vampires in the small screen. The closest approximation would be the other teeny-bopper favorite The Vampire Diaries. Though it still falls into Cliche No.10 of  “good vampire totally abstaining from human blood and the bad vampire sucking everyone in sight” (aka. the PG-13 cutesy metaphor for pre-marital sex), its one redeeming value is that the heroine Elena Gilbert is no wimpy Bella Swan (who in Book 1, upon seeing how rich Edward was, thought of quitting school altogether and living with Edward in a state of co-dependent bliss… obviously, growing up to be a self-successful, independent and liberated woman was never part of Bella’s long term goals).

- O -

But another rung up the vampire band-wagon is HBO’s True Blood (now on its 3rd season!). Based on Charlaine Harris’ series of novels set in the south, the spunky heroine Sookie Stackhouse played by X-Men’s Anna Paquin is a force to be reckoned with. Even though she’s no Buffy, she holds her own against the things that go bump in the night.  This is one gritty series that isn’t afraid to dip into controversy.

It deals with diverse, socially-relevant issues like interracial relationships, bigotry, xenophobia, and the like. And unlike the usual vampire stories, the twist here is that instead of  protecting people from the monsters, religious people are the ones doing the oppressing. Some see this as an allegory of religious persecution against gay people. There are several hints in the show which mirror this sad reality with clever twists like  “God Hates Fangs” (God Hates Fags) and “Coming out of the coffin” (coming out of the closet).

In this world, they have found a viable blood substitute – True Blood, which is the namesake of the show. Vampires have no need to prey on humans and are now trying to get accepted into mainstream society.  But people still fear what is different and stoking the flames of paranoia and hatred are the religious zealots who are using scriptures to justify the eradication of all vampires… good or bad.

In a pivotal episode, the protagonists seek an audience with the Queen of the vampires who let them in on a little secret…

“They’re still waiting for the god who’ll come…”

“Does he ever come?”

“Of course not…  gods only exist in the minds of men, like money and morality”

- O -

Author’s addendum: Whoops, forgot to acknowledge the help of everyone who pitched in ideas to complete the Top 10 lists, many thanks to Den, Johnster, Mack, and Mr. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, hehe… though you guys are all dyed-in-the-wool, church-going Catholics, you never fail to surprise me on how far your sparkling wit can actually break into actual heretical humor… see you all guys in Hell, hehe

It is an unwritten rule in Filipino Freethinkers that those who participate in the discussions must use reason and avoid citing dogma. And except for the occasional troll, I think this rule has been quite effective. While non sequitur arguments are still employed from time to time, I believe what matters is the attempt at using reason especially for those who, until just recently, have for so long taken for granted the factuality of certain traditional beliefs.

Proud as I am of our small but growing online community, I must emphasize that while we freethinkers practically revere Reason, sometimes what we are actually doing is rationalizing, so I guess it is important to define terms lest we confuse similar but non-synonymous words with one another:

Reason involves conscious explanation.

Reasoning as a process takes proposed explanations, considers them, contrasting them, or fitting them together in order to determine which beliefs or actions or attitudes are best.

Here the definition seems to cover both reason and rationalization, with the latter being defined as:

In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses) is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.

But if we look at the word rationality, we find something specific and determinate:

In philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to analyze the data gathered through systematically gathered observations.

And here the difference between rationality and rationalization becomes clear. In rationalization, the belief which was “originally arrived at through a different mental process” comes first and then rational arguments are later formed to support this belief. But as for rationality, the data comes first and analysis comes second before reaching a conclusion – if it even comes to that. And here I am reminded of a brief introduction to skepticism:

Skepticism is a method, not a position.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can ‘provisionally’ conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis or the origins of language, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

I think most members will agree that freethought is more related to skepticism than atheism or agnosticism. Along with skepticism, freethought is a method, a way of thinking and forming beliefs; atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, are more like the “positions” at which the freethinker or skeptic arrives.

But to people whose present beliefs are still those formed long before they were capable of rational thought, it is amazing to see how they try to rationalize now in the absence of solid evidence. They start off with a position based on religious doctrine and try to use rational arguments to back up such position. This is very hard to do considering they are performing the scientific method backwards, and I cannot help but admire the ingenuity of those who were able to keep their claims from being falsified outright. Of course, they could not prove their claims, but for one who has no real evidence, a technical stalemate is already a great achievement.

We freethinkers do not claim to be highly intelligent especially in philosophical discourse; we just learned to set aside our biases and let the observable facts speak for themselves. It takes a lot of brainpower to effectively rationalize something as confounding as the presence of gratuitous evil in the same universe where a loving and all-powerful deity supposedly exists; it only takes intellectual honesty and the continuous attempt towards unbiased rationality to become skeptical about such contradictory co-existence which can certainly cause cognitive dissonance in stubborn minds.

RSVP on Facebook

1. Noynoy and Theocracy: Less secularism after Gloria?
2. Christianizing Islam: Do you agree with Ayaan’s strategy?
3. Child Indoctrination: Is it ethical to teach children religion?
4. Theist or atheist, what would make you change your mind about god?
5. Technology for parents to predetermine their child’s gender/gender identity — a good idea?
6. Short story workshop

* Newbies are welcome.
* Discuss anything with fellow freethinkers.
* Look for the FF sign (or the group of smart, sexy people).
* There is no required age, religion, philosophy, or IQ level.
* Discussions are informal yet intelligent (most of the time).
* You don’t have to talk; you can just sit in and listen.
* You don’t have to buy anything from Starbucks.

Before I start, I would like to thank the Christians who visit the Filipino Freethinkers website and grace its pages with their…er…”reasonable” comments.

To make it more interesting, I would like to share a little of my mind…a personal analysis perhaps on Pastor Vince Orlaer’s comments on religion, faith, atheism and his defense on the Bible and Christianity.

Religion

Yes it NEVER requires religion; but that religious faith produces religion.
Religion is the way you practice your faith.
It’s like “You can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving.”
Therefore, “You can practice your religion without faith, but you cannot practice faith without practicing religion.”

Uh…I think religion is not only the way to practice your faith but religion is synonymous with faith. The word religion can be interchanged with faith. That’s why we call it Buddhist faith, Hindi faith, Jewish faith, Islamic faith and Christian faith.

Now, defining religion can really be nose-bleed since there are many ideas, interpretations and “what-nots” about it. But we can at least narrow it down to something coherent.

Christianity is not all about religion. Religion will in no way get you to heaven. It may be an instrument in understanding the underlying principles of true Christianity, but it’s not enough to get to heaven. Our relationship to Christ is what matters.

Narrowing what is common to all religions will displace the myth that Christianity is not one of them. Most books will agree with me that different faiths have the following concepts in common:
(1.) Belief in some kind of a supernatural being (sometimes called gods, devas, etc.)
(2.) Rituals
(3.) A moral code given by supernatural means (or a Supernatural being).
(4.) Prayers
(5.) A belief in a certain world view that gives an individual a so-called purpose or meaning.

Come on! All these concepts are present in Christianity, aren’t they? Fundamentalists/Evangelical Christians may deny it but it won’t make the facts go away – whether it’s true Christianity or not.

Belief and Faith

It seems Pastor Orlaer got a little confused between “belief” and “faith”. OK let’s clear the mess that he just made.

First, let’s do some defining:
A belief is how you accept something as true. Easy, huh? So based on this simple definition we can say that faith is also a kind of belief. But not all beliefs are the same as faith.

But hey! My pocket dictionary says that both faith and belief are synonymous with the word “trust”!
Hay my papaya! That’s the problem with pocket dictionaries.

As I have said, not all beliefs are categorized as faith. Why? Because not all beliefs are without, or against, reason.

Why? What is faith?

Faith believes without proof or evidence.

Now that we already know the difference between the two, we can now look at Pastor Orlaer’s statements.

Religious faith is just one form. But you yourself exercise faith like sitting on a chair. You sit on a chair because you believe that the chair can comfort you. You drive a car because you believe it can bring you somewhere.

Faith, Trust, Belief/Believe …. all these are synonymous terms, my friend. How can you say you trust yet you do not have faith that you can definitely sit down on the chair? Hope you are getting my point. You sit because you trust that the chair is stable. And because you trust, you have faith that it can carry you. Trust and Faith (the real meaning) cannot be separated from each other.

Sitting on a chair or driving a car doesn’t require faith. First, we all know that chairs and cars exist. Second, we also know what chairs and cars are for.

Trust is not blind belief. You trust something or someone because you see particular characteristics on that something that will win your confidence. That’s what advertisements are for.

Trust is something you come to after a long process of give-and-take. Trustworthiness is confirmed by observation. It’s a learned process while faith is something that doesn’t require knowledge. Faith is about something that has not yet come to pass and its actuality has no evidence. It depends on the unknowable, the incomprehensible and the claim that it is beyond reason and logic. Therefore, trust and faith can be separated.

Until next time…

Brothers and sisters…hear the words that were revealed to me just now.

“If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well.”
That should provide you with more than enough time to reach for your dagger and show him the color of his entrails.

As our Almighty GodFather once said:
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

Have no fear, brothers and sisters…if a heathen asks for a fight then so be it.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”
Let the wisdom granted to us by our one and only Holy One…with his all powerful Trinity of course,
be the beginning of our enemies’ fear and make the heathens understand that we are right.
Always right.

To love is to hate. Anything, anyone who dares defile your love deserves death.
They dare defile our love for the words…the true words that are our guide…infallible words since they have stood the test of time…
we all know that the words in our Book are true:
or what remains of it since we all know infallible Popes before me have righteously edited it… guided by divine voices of course…

“Do to no one what you yourself dislike.”
“Do to others as you want them to do to you.”

Guided by voices, I now reveal to you, brothers and sisters, a diamond rule:

Do to others before they do unto you.

Note: This was written by Kenneth Keng.

I could go into the history of the Episcopal Church of the Philippines, detail its origins and trace its growth throughout the years since it was introduced in the American occupation. I could also scratch at the intermidable morass of interdemoninational politics (including all out open warfare, depending how far back one decides to go) that like as not have helped to define Protestantism and it’s Anglican/Episcopal denomination throughout its existence. Instead I will endeavour to as much as possible leave aside what would amount to paraphrasing Wikipedia articles and instead outline my church and its beliefs by hewing close to my own personal experiences and impressions of it.

The easiest religious body to contrast the Episcopal (in England, the Anglican) church with would be the Catholic church, for reasons of history and form. The Anglican Communion would be the body that Henry VIII ordered split from mainline Catholicism in his reign, birthing a new separate entity that most importantly for Henry did not answer to the Papacy. Depending on who you ask this was either a great victory for religious freedom against the tyranny of Rome or just another monarch following in Emperor Constantine’s footsteps, taking in a pet religion of his own to further secure his power base.

The end result however is a church that celebrates Mass and holds the Sacraments in the same manner as the Catholic church would. To a casual attendee of our Sunday services the form would be mostly familiar, except for the ‘ye olde English’ used in the prayers and the lack of elaborate decoration or ornamentation in the church itself. The priests dress the same, and communion is given after readings, prayers and a hopefully short homily; the liturgical calendar is followed so the year goes through its seasons of Lent and Advent and Easter and Christmas.

That priest however might be a man or a woman, and/or openly gay. These issues were more or less worked out in the latter half of the 20th century, and as it stands today the Archbishop of the American Episcopal Church is a marine biologist by the name of Katharine Schori. She herself has just recently caught equal parts admiration and derision (while causing a number of small schisms) for anointing the church’s first openly gay and partnered male Bishop, Gene Robinson.

A much older and long established tradition is the right of any of our priests to marry and raise children; this is in fact encouraged to avoid certain problems that might arise from sexual repression. As the Episcopal/Anglican Communion had at its inception rejected papal authority, the archbishops are the highest authorities within their national dioceses, most of which are independent of one another. The Archbishop of Canterbury stands as the closest thing we might have to a pope, but all acknowledge his role as that of an honored figurehead and not much more.

In terms of church governance even Archbishops answer to a power structure that devolves authority down onto congregations at every turn. Each church once established elects their own Vestry board which sits with the presiding priest and runs the day to day operations of the church as well as discusses stances on social issues; while archbishops and bishops are raised from the ranks of priests, they govern church matters always in conjunction with and are held accountable to members of the congregations in boards of various levels. Having attended some of these big church conferences, called diocesan conventions, I can tell you that they are raucous, messy and slow, but for the most part the decisions that come out of them are made with transparency and the input of elected representatives from every individual church involved.

Given the independence of the dioceses, the Episcopal Church of the Philippines, while considered radically liberal by the local Catholic church, is considered relatively conservative by Episcopalians from other parts of the world. While everyone is expected to accept practicing homosexuals as full members of the congregation without any ‘hate the sin but not the sinner’ hedging, most older priests would still have reservations if asked to consecrate a marriage between same-sex partners. While they remain a minority, female priests, addressed as ‘padi’, are accorded full authority and respect by church members and are considered nothing unusual. In the Philippines, an Episcopalian priest, male or female, who is married with children is considered the norm. Divorce, while extremely regrettable and always considered a last resort for the sake of the children, is also acceptable by the church.

The Episcopal church also acknowledges the supremacy of the scientific method and empirical evidence in matters corporeal, with many senior church leaders themselves coming from scientific backgrounds. Therefore there are, for example, no perceived conflicts with natural history and the teaching of evolution. The Bible is by no means to be taken literally.

As the ills of overpopulation are readily apparent given the evidence, family planning and articifial contraception is fully embraced by the Episcopal Church in the Philippines; our own church in fact ran a family planning clinic until complaints from the Catholic church down the street led to its closure.

Perhaps ironically for a church created from a political act, the modern Episcopal church espouses the separation of church and state, with secular governance held as the only realistically viable form in a multicultural, multireligious nation.

This open approach is reflected in the makeup of the average Episcopal church. There might be, in one congregation, people with views on either side of the sociopolitical spectrum- while I might be pretty liberal, my mother and most of the older members are definitively not. What I like is that we are encouraged to air these differences, discuss them openly over coffee and donuts then somewhere between it all sit quietly and celebrate mass together.