To those who actually haven’t googled the term, Wikipedia defines freethought as:

“a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.”

In the FF forum and Facebook page, every once in a while someone oblivious to the standard definition butts in with the assumption that freethinking means setting the mind completely free – unrestrained even by reason, logic or reality. More commonly, people have assumed that freethought is synonymous to atheism.

It is important to note that the free in freethinking only means freedom from dogma imposed by “authority” but not from the rules of logic and the cold test of science. In fact, freethinking is actually a very strict discipline that keeps the mind on its toes, preventing it from jumping into convenient conclusions. Once an argument commits a single logical fallacy, all its conclusions are automatically void; long-held scientific theories are discarded like yesterday’s paper once contradicting evidence is found. (Scientific theory differs from the layman’s definition of theory in the sense that the latter is actually just a hypothesis.)

As such, freethought is a journey where one takes the road paved with science, logic and reason; atheism, agnosticism, deism, and even philosophical theism are just the destinations, none of them final. This may come as a surprise, but while the majority of the vocal Filipino Freethinkers are atheists, we do have some members who acknowledge the possibility and even the probability of God to a certain degree but are well aware that all they have are circumstantial evidence and logical arguments, not proof. There are no fundies in Filipino Freethinkers or even strong theists (#1 in Dawkins’ spectrum) who claim not just to believe, but to know that there is a God. Remarkably, there are also no strong atheists (#7 in Dawkins’ spectrum) in Filipino Freethinkers, or at least none have declared being so at the forums. More importantly, our beliefs (or non-belief) matter less than how we arrived at such beliefs (or non-belief). So you’ll never hear the words “because the Bible says so” from a freethinking theist or “because Richard Dawkins says so” from a freethinking atheist.

So what does it mean to be a freethinker? I guess it means being a truthseeker, relentlessly holding on to reason amid powerful forces telling society that blind faith is preferred. The Filipino Freethinkers are sometimes accused of being angry at religion. Well I can’t say that we aren’t, because religion, being very influential, pervading education and politics, has become the embodiment of ignorance and the eternal cause of poverty, overpopulation, and the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases while the churches continue to rake in the offerings. And yet they have the guts to say that we are the bad guys.

But how can freethinkers be the bad guys? We never ask people to give up anything - not their money, not their reason, not their freewill, not even their beliefs. Freethought is not telling anyone to believe in a certain freethought doctrine or creed; it is merely asking that we open our eyes and use our minds, to see for ourselves what is right, what is good, and what is true. How bad can that be?

When observing the complex beauty of the natural world and the diversity of plants and animals and how each species’ characteristics seem perfectly tailored for a particular lifestyle, it is not difficult to jump into conclusion that everything was designed.

I was staring at a small clover garden, admiring the structured leaf formation and how it uniformly blanketed the patch of ground when I realized that underneath the miniature canopy of clover crowns must be a thriving community of insects and other tiny creatures. And beneath the ground dozens of earthworms must be burrowing and ingesting dead matter and minute soil particles, aerating the earth and secreting humus and minerals needed by the clover plant to grow. At this point it makes sense to imagine that this nice little ecosystem must have been orchestrated by an intelligent and loving being.

However, also living underground are thousands of ants, and ants feed on earthworms. Anybody who has seen a live earthworm being attacked by red ants knows that it is a slow and very painful death, the worm writhing and rolling and curling in a feeble attempt to escape the tormenting mandibles that tear all over its soft flesh, each bite leaving behind a burning toxin. It must be one of the most excruciating deaths an animal can experience (although perhaps not as agonizingly slow as that of a caterpillar whose body is being leisurely devoured from the inside by a growing wasp larva). Even if one believes that earthworms have souls that will be eternally rewarded in Earthworm Heaven for all their sufferings under the earth, it is absurd to conceive of an intelligent designer.

A lot of people especially those living comfortably in civilized societies are not aware of this life and death struggle among the lower animals.  Most have not even considered that the burgers they’re munching came from a once-living cow whose throat was slit with a very sharp industrial blade, causing it to stumble and thrash around as its air sacs get filled with its own blood, flooding its lungs and simulating a slow drowning effect that would last several minutes until the cow finally expires. Or that the drumstick they’re nibbling came from a chicken who endured its entire short life in cramped captivity, injected with chemicals to speed up growth for early slaughter.

When you’re on top of the food chain (and blissfully oblivious to the great inconvenience you are causing those below), it is easy to be overwhelmed by a feeling of gratefulness, and there even seems to be an almost instinctive need to seek an object of gratitude. But imagine if we happened to be the cow or the chicken, or the earthworm for that matter. I wonder if gratefulness would come as naturally.

If there was an intelligent designer, animals wouldn’t have to feed on one another. Every creature would be responsible for its own photosynthesis and capable of absorbing moisture and minerals from the air. Predation and parasitism would be totally unnecessary. All animals would also be able to fly, swim, run and burrow, freely frolicking across the bounds of the earth, fully enjoying the planet’s blessings.

And maybe this is why a lot of people believe (or would like to believe) that we have a soul. Perhaps unconsciously we think of the spirit as the perfect form of existence, totally free and having no need for transport, shelter, clothing, air, water, or food. And no need for food means no need for other animals to die just so we can live. The earth would be a true paradise where no creature has to walk through the valley of the shadow of death. If there was an intelligent designer, existence wouldn’t be as cruel, and the struggle for life wouldn’t be as bloodthirsty.

Last week there was this short-lived but hilarious Facebook phenomenon called the Movement To Stop Filipino Freethinkers. It was a fan page announcing that the Filipino Freethinkers, while claiming to promote reason, are actually attacking Christianity.

For some reason a lot of FF members jumped in to become fans and quickly dominated and hijacked the page, quoting disagreeable Bible verses and posting status messages using extreme fundie talk. Not surprisingly, some people actually thought they were serious, and the comments ranged from “Thank you sir, let us continue to spread Christianity” to “You are stupid and ignorant people. There is no evidence of your god”. And I guess that proves Poe’s Law, which states:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.

It was crazy, with freethinkers besting each other’s satire. But I guess all good things must come to an end, and after about two days, the page was removed. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Whoever was behind the Movement certainly did not expect this to happen. I’m sure they had noble intentions of doing God’s work in saving lost souls. However, they were dead wrong in their strategy, because religion only works when information is controlled by those in authority, where valid questions are conveniently silenced by “our minds are too finite to grasp God’s infinite wisdom”.

But once a religious group challenges freethinkers, it must be prepared to make arguments based on reason and science because dogma and doctrine are not recognized as authority.

Now some theists might say that freethinkers also appeal to authority like Wikipedia as if it was an infallible doctrine. But the truth is, scientific authority differs from religious authority in the sense that it is “willing to be challenged, although normally we would not go around challenging every one all the time. It is the willingness to be challenged that is important”. Moreover, Wikipedia gives sufficient notice when an article lacks citations or references, meaning its content might be questionable.

Are the religious authorities willing to be challenged as well, or will they be reverting to “we are not in a position to question God” when confronted with contradictions between certain Bible passages and reality and even between Bible passages themselves?

Long-held scientific theories are quickly discarded like yesterday’s paper as soon as contradicting evidence is found. However, the same cannot be said about religious ‘truths’ (remember Galileo?).

As such, any attempt to proselytize the Filipino Freethinkers will only be a waste of time, which would be better spent praying for divine enlightenment.  If there is an omnipotent deity, he doesn’t need second-rate evangelists spewing out pseudo-reason in order for humanity to hear and accept his word. But to the theist who truly attempts to embrace reason, you are very much welcome to discuss with us. We respect your right to your dogma-based belief for as long as you don’t try to shove it down our throats. And if you are willing to play by the rules of logic, we shall answer your questions as truthfully as we can. Try us, and it will be a great learning experience if what you are seeking for is the truth.

I stumbled upon this article and found this:

There are three truths which must be accepted at the beginning of any investigation into the problem of knowledge and truth:

• The First Fact: The fact of our existence. “I exist.”
• The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. “A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time in the same respect.”
• The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. “My intellect can reason and discover truth.”

These primary truths cannot be “proved” by a positive demonstration because they are presupposed and involved in every demonstration. They are so evident that any attempt to doubt or deny them would already mean they have been affirmed and accepted. They are, therefore, fully grounded in reason and no reasonable person can dispute them consistently.

To some it might sound like circular reasoning, but these truths are indeed self-evident in any logical discussion. Let’s see:

• The First Fact: The fact of our existence. “I exist.”

The fact that we are able to read this proves the first fact. Now what more proof do we need in order to know that we are reading this indeed? Is that circular reasoning?

• The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. “A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time in the same respect.”

Of course. Otherwise, something can be both true and false at the same time in the same respect. If that’s the case, then there is no longer any point in logical discussions because anything can be right and wrong at the same time, so everybody is just wasting time. And this goes hand in hand with:

• The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. “My intellect can reason and discover truth.”

And that’s why we are here at Filipino Freethinkers, to discover truth through Reason. (We appreciate theists who check their dogmas upon entering the site, because doctrine and ‘authority’ have no influence here. But those who don’t believe in reason are wasting their time here and it would be better spent praying for divine enlightenment.)

On the other hand, religion only subscribes to the First Fact (our existence), but not to the First Principle (contradiction) and the First Condition (intellect’s ability to discover truth). Religious dogmas have so many contradictions that are conveniently answered by “our minds are too finite to grasp God’s infinite wisdom”.

As freethinkers, we know that belief is no longer a matter of choice, but of conclusion; no matter how the religious (including our parents) try to proselytize, as long as what they preach is unscientific, illogical, or irrational, they cannot force us to believe. Well the most they could do is to make us (falsely) claim belief. We do not choose to be atheists, agnostics, or deists; we just become, most likely as a result of freethinking.

Now the question is, do we choose to become freethinkers? Is it a matter of choice when we base our beliefs on science, logic, and reason instead of authority, tradition, or dogma? Or is it a matter of conclusion (same with becoming atheists, agnostics, or deists)? I think it’s the latter, when we realize that science, logic, and reason are more reliable in terms of finding the truth than authority, tradition, or dogma, but I would like to hear other points of view. How do people become freethinkers in the first place?

And with this we invite everyone to write. We’ve been coming up with fewer articles lately but that’s probably because of the film fest, after which there will be a lot to write about.

I remember a Darwinian article in Time (Asia) Magazine’s special issue, The New Age of Discovery (January, 1998) because it tried to answer questions like why do we find certain human body figures sexy. It said that most men find a specific waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of women sexy (now I won’t tell the exact figure to avoid causing unnecessary insecurities) because that ratio signals fertility. Men don’t consciously know this, but evolution somehow programmed it in our instincts to ensure the perpetuation of our genes.

In another article, I read about an experiment on human scent. It involved a certain number of men and an equal number of women. The men were made to shower using only unscented soap (no cologne or deodorant either) and sleep with a white shirt on. They would shower again on the second night but would wear the same shirt to bed. Then the shirts would be sniffed by the women, who would each try to determine which shirt smells the “sexiest”. After their genes were tested, it was found out that the sexiest scents for most of the women belonged to the men whose genes were very much dissimilar from theirs. Parents with diverse genes often bear stronger offspring, and once again evolution has hardwired this into our physiology to help us find a suitable mate – and perpetuate our genes.

But in this overpopulated modern society of ours, procreation is no longer the primarily purpose of sex. In one of our joint articles, a fellow freethinker wrote:

Sex may lead to pro-creation but the two are still two totally distinct acts, no matter how much some belief systems may insist that they’re one and the same. When you start a fire, you aren’t obligated to go cook something. Sometimes, it’s enough just to enjoy the warmth of a blazing fire on a cold night. The same goes for sex. It’s a social activity and a recreational sport as well. From a liberal point of view, it’s not even that different from a couple going dancing (that’s why it’s also called the horizontal tango).

Still, our instincts kick in when a genetically suitable specimen from the opposite gender walks by even if having kids is the last thing on our minds. But as we get to know a person, after a while we get attracted to non-physical traits like kindness and a sense of humor. Perhaps we instinctively know that certain personal attributes are preferable for long-term companionship, especially when it comes to the point when procreation and even sex are no longer possible.

But the beauty of these personal qualities is that they can be enjoyed now as much as in the future. Being the most highly evolved among all creatures, humans interact in ways beyond touching and smelling. A nice conversation connects us more profoundly than two chimps grooming each other. Although touching is nice, it is often meaningless unless coupled with an emotional bond. And so while evolution already dictated what we should find physically attractive, it is our longing for a deeper connection that needs to be satisfied if we are to truly enjoy being human.

Happy Valentines everyone!

Last night I watched Creation, a film about the life of Charles Darwin and how he came to write On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. What I found especially moving was his own struggle against the authority of religion and the beliefs of his religious wife. With religion he had no qualms, but the fear of breaking his wife’s heart almost stopped him from finishing his book.

In one of the scenes, Darwin described to his friend, a reverend, how some caterpillars never become butterflies because parasitic wasps lay eggs into them. Once the egg hatches, the wasp larva will feed on the flesh of the caterpillar, leisurely devouring it from the inside, killing it slowly and painfully until all that is left is an empty shell. And then the larva will emerge as an adult wasp, ready to mate and repeat the cycle. When confronted with such cruelty in nature, the reverend simply said that it was really not for them to speculate on the mind of God.

How convenient it was for the reverend to say that they had no right to second-guess God’s reasons while religion has eternally claimed to have the ‘revealed’ word of God and stubbornly holds on to this ‘revelation’ amid contradicting evidence, insisting that it is the truth.

Ah, Truth. A word not to be taken lightly. How do we know the truth? That is a very hard question, but we can ask an easier one: How do we know if something is false? For starters, we could shed the light of science into claims asserted from behind the dark shroud of ‘authority’. If there is a God, he/she/it gave us eyes to see and minds to interpret what we see. Science isn’t asking us to believe anything; science is merely asking that we open our eyes.

Religion’s authority is derived solely from what they claim to be ‘divine revelation’. Who indeed would dare question an instruction or doubt a story if it was God Himself who said it? To answer that, one simply has to look at the deists’ definition of ‘revelation’:

Revelation: The act of revealing or of making known. In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true.

Now the lack of credibility of this hearsay revelation is not as sinister as the supposed message from God. Religion is basically telling us that this life is infinitely less significant than the next. And because of this, a lot of people fail to live their lives fully in terms of time and freedom, and some don’t get to live a life at all. And for me that is the ultimate wrong.

If religion is this influential in the Information Age, just imagine how powerful it must have been at the time of Darwin when knowledge could only be found in a few books held by an elite few. One of this few is religion of course, and they even have their own brand of ‘knowledge’ which they gladly publish and distribute.

Fortunately, science is steadily keeping up. Religion has practically let go of the literal creation story, shifting to a metaphorical translation disguised as Intelligent Design, but this too is losing ground to natural selection. Then there is the question of the origin of life itself, to which abiogenesis, although not yet a scientific theory in the strict sense, is offering plausible explanations.

With these significant grounds being conquered by science, religion is desperately holding on to its last bastion of authority in its claim for holding the truth: the origin of the cosmos. And with this I remember what Richard Dawkins said in a debate with John Lennox:

“Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin.”

I had this very interesting discussion on the article Malum Prohibitum. My opponent was stressing that I had no right to declare any crime as malum in se (wrong or evil in itself) because I could not present an objective point of reference as to what constitutes right and wrong.

When I told him that malum in se can be objectively identified as those acts that “cause direct or immediate harm to person or property” – crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and robbery – he said that this is not objective enough.

I then said that using science and reason we can objectively measure the damage or harm certain things cause, like a bullet to a man’s head. He then replied that what if the bullet is put in the head of Hitler, wouldn’t that change anything? I’ll answer no; murdering Hitler would still be malum in se. But if my opponent’s question implies the death penalty, it does complicate the issue. If malum in se means “direct or immediate harm to person or property”, why do certain states execute (fatally harm) their criminals when malum in se is supposed to transcend laws and governments?

Now the good thing about being a freethinker is that discussions like this can be a great learning experience. For some people, discussions mean defending one’s position – and pride – to death. But for the freethinker, the ego only comes second to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. And I must say that this had been a great learning experience for me, forcing me to think and read up on the topic.

Let us first try to come up with a truly objective reference for malum in se. “Direct or immediate harm to person or property” was mentioned earlier, and that we can observe and/or measure this harm using science and logic. Let’s take the five examples of malum in se mentioned above:

1. Murder – heartbeat can be measured, and a lack of it can be observed.

2. Rape – physical, physiological, and psychological damage can be measured and/or observed.

3. Kidnapping – psychological and sometimes physical damage can be measured and/or observed in the victim, and if it is kidnap for ransom, damage to property can literally be measured in terms of money.

4. Theft – also damage to property that can literally be measured in terms of money.

5. Robbery – psychological and sometimes physical damage can be measured and/or observed in the victim, and damage to property can literally be measured in terms of money.

This looks clear and objective enough – until we tackle the death penalty again. What differentiates murder from penal executions in the context of malum in se? They both cause direct and lethal harm. So why do some states have the death penalty? If someone answers that the death penalty punishes and prevents serious crimes, I would say that a state has the power and resources to hold a prisoner for life; there is no need to kill him. And this really had me stumped for a while.

Then it hit me: semantics. I realized that I might have taken for granted the definition of malum in se as simply “wrong in itself”, and Wikipedia’s article being a stub didn’t help much. So I tried the online legal dictionaries and found this:

malum in se (mal-uhm in say) adv. Latin referring to an act that is “wrong in itself,” in its very nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created by statute, which are “malum prohibitum.” Example: murder, rape, burglary, and robbery are malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most “white collar crimes” are malum prohibitum.

It appears that malum in se is not absolutely objective after all but that which is considered generally wrong by a civilized society, and one of its differences with malum prohibitum (“wrong because prohibited”) is that civilized societies may sometimes disagree on what should be malum prohibitum, but not malum in se; no civilized society today condones murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and robbery. And so when it comes to the death penalty, civilized societies simply haven’t agreed on this one, or at least not yet. (Same with abortion; civilized societies still do not have a general concensus as to whether or not a fetus can be called a person.)

As such, our secular morality (what is right and wrong in the context of malum in se) is based on what is beneficial to our survival and welfare as a civilized society. Humans are subjective, but they try to become as objective as possible using the disciplines of science and logic, and they get better over time in living peacefully amid the growing population. Just imagine if the world was already this crowded in the Stone Age or even during medieval times. Also, imagine that our technology and weaponry were already this advanced, but not our civility. Without laws to protect the rights of the weak, there would be no stopping man’s territorial instincts and greed from doing harm to humanity’s survival and welfare.

My opponent said that he doesn’t agree that our morality has improved over the centuries. He wrote:

What is drug abuse and pornography compared to slavery? Sure, pedophilia is really bad, but we have serious laws against that now. But as for slavery, centuries ago certain governments (and the Bible) actually condoned it. What I’m saying is, while there are individuals today who do not respect the rights of others, our society or government will punish them for doing harm. As for suicide, we now have groups that offer help through counseling and suicide hotlines. It may not be perfect, but isn’t that clear, observable progress?

By the way, my opponent had also said:

I told him that I agreed but unfortunately, while it would be ideal to have a truly objective and perfectly moral reference point for morality, there simply isn’t one. To drive my point, I then asked him if he was willing to modify his statement into something like this:

“There is a transcendent entity (one apart from us humans) that is truly an objective point of reference for morality (what is right or wrong). This transcendent describes or has described morality, is highly moral (perfect, if you may), and reveals or has revealed itself to us so that our reasons are guided by its morality.”

And he said that he will assert that statement. Now I can’t wait to see him support that with hard evidence.

The 2nd Davao Meetup was a success. I wish to thank both new and old members for making it. We had a really great time sharing our journeys and bonding with fellow freethinkers.

We had too much fun (and beer) actually, that we were not able to do an initial planning for the First FF Davao Forum. (For this we will have to do it online and discuss it on the next meetup.)

Now I’ll just give the highlights of our little Saturday night and let the pictures do the rest of the talking.

• Special thanks to Narsdoktor for the generous donation which easily took care of all the burgers and beers a dozen freethinkers consumed from 6pm till midnight. You truly were with us in spirit.

• Special thanks to Bdul for lending us his books.

• Special thanks to Harley Blvd. Motor Cafe for the great food and accommodation.

• To Ryan Tani and the rest of the FF community for your encouragement and support.

• And of course, to Skyline Bugoy for the great pictures, the rest of which can be found here:

http://s816.photobucket.com/albums/zz83/SkylineBugoy/FFT/

Thanks everyone. Can’t wait for a third.

In law, a crime can be categorized as either malum prohibitum (“wrong because prohibited”) or malum in se (“wrong or evil in itself”). In a civilized community, murder, rape, theft, robbery, and kidnapping are generally perceived as mala in se regardless of where they were committed or even if there were no written laws punishing them. On the other hand, illegal possession of drugs or firearms and traffic and tax violations are mala prohibita – crimes in certain societies because their statutes made them crimes.

It isn’t hard to see why some acts were criminalized since they compromise public welfare. Offenses involving drugs, firearms (possession), and driving are mala prohibita because they “result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize”. A drug user may enjoy his ‘trip’ peacefully, but there is the possibility that later on his addiction will lead him to steal, rob or kill to support his habit. A man carrying a gun might be a very responsible owner, but what if ego and testosterone take over during an altercation? Beating the red light may not be the same as deliberately hitting another vehicle, but it greatly increases the risk of collision.

Other crimes, on the other hand, are debatable (and have actually been the subject of widespread debate) as far as their rationality, logic and sensibility are concerned. I just mentioned a possible reason behind drug laws, but marijuana advocates over the world are clamoring for legalization, insisting that it is very much harmless compared to other drugs, including alcohol.

In the novel Primal Fear, there is a part that mentions malum prohibitum and malum in se:

“Malum prohibitum is the way society defines the limits of acceptable behavior. So if everybody in the country wants to drink booze and booze is against the law, the law gets changed. But malum in se never changes. If everybody in the country suddenly went kill-crazy, they wouldn’t legalize murder.”

In the first half of the twentieth century there were certain periods in the United States and other countries when alcohol was illegal – not just the consumption in certain places or times, but also the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of it. But the people loved their drink, and through their elected representatives they eventually managed to have the prohibition lifted.

Now let us see how malum prohibitum and malum in se apply to religion by taking a look at the Ten Commandments:

1. “You shall have no other gods before me” – malum prohibitum and does not even compromise public welfare

2. “You shall not make for yourself an idol” – malum prohibitum

3. “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God” – malum prohibitum

4. “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy” – malum prohibitum

5. “Honor your father and mother” – malum prohibitum. M. Scott Peck, MD said that this is probably the commandment that did the greatest damage (although I disagree with him because the term used was ‘honor’ and not ‘obey’) because there are psychologically sick parents who make their children do sick things, and a child who follows this ‘divine’ commandment would surely do what his/her parents say lest his/her days will not be long.

6. “You shall not commit adultery” – malum prohibitum but also touches on morality issues

7. “You shall not murder” – malum in se

8. “You shall not steal” – malum in se

9. “You shall not bear false witness” – malum in se, causing direct and immediate harm to a person’s honor and might even risk the his/her property, liberty, or life

10.  “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or goods” – malum prohibitum. It is one thing to covet (immoderately desire), but it’s totally another thing to act on this desire.

Out of the Ten Commandments, only three can be considered mala in se – murder, theft, and bearing false witness. The rest are mala prohibita and do not even compromise public welfare. The Commandments do not mention rape, plunder, and child abuse, and these acts were clearly condoned and even commissioned in the Bible. Most of its ‘laws’ are about pleasing the religion’s deity, who is actually also guilty of murder and genocide (Sodom and Gomorrah, the great flood, killing of the firstborn, etc.).

Now all this begs the question: Is religion (and the Ten Commandments) an ideal basis for what is right and wrong? Should our society’s morality be based on what the Church declares as moral and immoral? Governments have created laws to punish and prevent every imaginable mala in se crime. However, religions seem to focus on malum prohibitum, and the things they prohibit do not even compromise public welfare, but simply undermine the source of their power and authority.

* * * * *

Related article: Malum In Se

I remember a feature in Discovery Channel many years ago on the idea of downloading everything from a person’s mind – knowledge, memories, language, emotions, etc. – and uploading it to a supercomputer that controls a robot. This robot would then act and interact based on the whole personality of the borrowed mind, and it would keep on doing so even after the person is long dead, rendering him/her immortal.

Unfortunately, this attempt at immortality would only benefit the surviving family, friends, and colleagues because as far as the person is concerned, he/she has already ceased to exist and cannot experience or enjoy this “life” the robot is living.

Moreover, having one’s mind “transfered” to a robot’s electronic brain isn’t really very much different from distilling one’s thoughts into literature. Great minds from decades and even centuries ago continue to speak to the living and influence millions. Sure, a robot is cool, and Shakespeare might still be writing plays today if his mind was backed up in a supercomputer, but until such time that the technology becomes available, the written word is the closest one can get to immortality.

So to those who don’t believe in an afterlife, if you post your articles here at Filipino Freethinkers a part of you will become frozen in time, to be read, shared and discussed by future generations of freethinkers. By then this site might be run by Ryan’s great-great-great-grandchildren or by an FF Foundation – or by the CBCP, heaven forbid! – but as long as it exists, so will the authors, in a way.

And with this we are inviting everyone to submit articles on freethought – essays, stories, even poems.

Write up guys, and become immortal! :)