Half and half a baby does not make one

In the dispute of the parentage of a baby between two mothers in Solomon’s court, the real mother denied her right of claim to stop the sword dividing the baby into two equal shares as settlement. Two half baby do not make one.

There are some important questions that we struggle with because it has implication to our outlook, conduct and wellbeing. I think the four are about origin, ethics, meaning and destiny and these questions need answers that unites them as a whole without compromising the integrity of each. Although each of them is already a tough challenge, we have to raise the stake otherwise we won’t be satisfied (‘two half of the baby does not make a whole’).

Charles Darwin at the end of his life saw the implication of the theory he proposed. He knew that once we go for an impersonal origin, we also change our outlook on ethics. This linking was also prophesized by Friedrich Nietzsche stating the 20^th century would be the bloodiest once he buried God. In the book Freedom Paradox, Clive Hamilton links ethics and meaning, and found that if meaning was about enjoyment without the boundary of ethics, it is disastrous. (“Sex out-side the bound of committed relationship is not just tagged as a moral mischief but harmful’). He did not write from a religious platform as found in the later chapters of the book.

 The suggestion of answers to each of the question has implications to the other answers. It is a high standard we must set, because only then we can have satisfaction. 

What is convincing ….to me

I was asked the basis on my confidence of my belief. In a nutshell, I like to relate this in three parts; the initiation, the maintenance and the testing.

Before I was introduced to the belief, I was a troubled youth. I hurt and disappointed my parents in my violent ways, stealing, cheating and gambling. Within me, the guilt and the despair of hurting the very people I love and who loves me. That had not been enough to turn me around.

When I was introduced to the teaching of God’s love and forgiveness through the bible in one particular instance, I responded. Although there was a fair bit of emotion at that moment, the greater joy was a year later when my parents remarked that they saw a total change in me after I started going to church. They did not know the conversion incidence. It was the joy of seeing the joy in my parent.  They even started to direct troubled kids to get help from me.

After this, the reading and study of the bible had been a constant part of my life. That is what can be seen from the outside. On the inside, I become more convinced of the reality of a living God who is active in my life (see blog about the accident). Although many people and Sunday’s sermon had helped, it was the authority of the Bible that these are measured against. I pegged my belief not on people or the churches, but the Bible. That was a journey of about forty years. The troubled youth had so far got a degree in engineering, a master of science, married and with children.

Since the last twenty years (and still doing), I had ventured out to explore other beliefs systems. It cannot be said to be comprehensive. Most people only hold lip service to a belief system, and there are many systems of beliefs. I read about their belief from their literature, and appreciated the honest interactions with some who valued their belief to go beyond superficialities. In this limited study, I analyze each belief’s answer (view) to the four questions of origin, ethics, meaning of life and destiny. I was willing to give each a best shot to the answer. I have found in this journey (so far), the bible had been the best to give a reasonable answer to each and that it also knitted them together as coherence whole.

Each of the above can be taken apart and be explained away with counter perspectives by some cleverness.  It is really personal, and only referenced to me. But for me, in parts and as a whole, it is real and convincing.

Irrational's comment on Pascal's wager...number 4

"What if the Islamic God does indeed exist, and all kuffar (including Christians) will be banished to hell for not accepting Mohammed as His prophet?"


All the monotheistic faith make such claim. The Christian included. 


We have to study the rest of the claims with some critical thinking. The Christian faith has a robust tradition in looking inwardly critically. The Christian is encouraged to do so. 

Irrational's comment on Pascal's wager...number 3

"How can you be sure if you have placed your bet on the right god? Why not believe in every single god that have ever existed, just in case? Within the context of Pascal's Wager, doesn't it follow that we might as well be polytheistic, to cover all basis?"


Pascal made the wager from the standpoint of belief of the Christian faith. The polytheistic position is logically unattainable, as the fundamental faith statements are fundamentally different, although they may have superficial similarities. For example, the monotheistic standpoint is that you choose that particular God, or you are not with them.


Faith statements have to be fundamental in one choice. When considering a critical mind is helpful. 

Irrational's comment on Pascal's wager...number 1

"Believing in God to obtain some meaning in life or to avoid Hell is merely paying lip service. It is akin to pretending to believe out of fear. Will God not judge on such blatant insincerity and intellectual dishonesty? "


Resounding YES!, the God of the bible abhor (to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion; detest utterly;loathe; abominate) insincerity. Jesus took pain and risk to expose this hypocritical stand. He said "many will come calling him Lord, claiming doing many acts in his name....but he will deny knowing them". Unless the nobility comes from the internal, even the good deeds will be counted as filthy. 


Intellectual dishonesty? To judge that a person who chose to be on the side on holding on a belief of God with such categorical condemnation, one must completely, absolutely know for sure that there is no God. 
When Christopher Hitchens wanted to promote his book "God is not great", he wanted to have it debated. He could not find any other faith except the evangelical Christians, who organized the debate.(http://www.fixed-point.org/templates/theme184/pensees/An%20Unlikely%20Friendship.mp3). And many more such debates, with Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins and others. It is either being utterly stupid for the Christian to do so and continues to fund and organize or that we had found that the argument put on by the best had not being adequate, and we are putting the faith to the test. That is Intellectual Sincerity and Honesty

I have found the foundation of my faith robust, and allows me to consider it critically, as well as trying to see it through the eyes of others.

Pascal's wager

"Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ as implied by the greater context of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatiseon Christian apologetics."  wikipedia


In a simple application to choices 
                                                              God exist                                           God does not exist
 living in belief of God                         1. a meaningful life now                            1. a meaningful life now
                                                       2.  a hope of meaning life after death          2.  no life after death
 living opposing to the belief of God      1. a meaningful life possible                 1. a meaningful life possible
                                                        2. no hope after life                                   2. no life after death

So the correct and safe choice is to live in belief of God, the fate is same (Blue) or better than living opposing to the belief of God. The critical difference of the later is red.


A bit on elaboration on the meaningful life living in the belief of God. Pascal's background is Christian, and a life of joy and charity is fundamental. That is in contrast to the belief that such life with ethical constrain is a deprivation. 

Sex and the bible..a conversation with a Muslim

“You know Andrew, don’t you find the bible a bit of pornographic …” my colleague Zainal asked with an innocent smile over lunch. You must give it to Zainal. He had always pushing the boundaries in conversation, always testing you.

“What do you mean by that?” I asked, putting the ball into his court.

“Well, the bits about so and so slept together..”

“Oh like the bit about Samson and Deliliah?”

“Yes, and so how can the bible be termed as a holy book”. It may be from his Muslim background that a holy book must be a sanitized from any descriptions of ‘evil’.

“You know Zainal, sex in the Christian belief is a gift of God. Sex within the bound of a marriage, an intimacy that expresses the commitment of a relationship of love is a gift from God. Of course, we are more acquainted with the abuse of it, a shame and dirtiness that shrouds this precious act. In the media it is an oversold and undervalued commodity. “

“And Zainal, if your father and your mother, my father and my mother did not have sex, you and I will not even be here to discuss this. And you would like to believe that the moment your father and mother came together that conceives you, it was out of the overflowing of love, and not the kind of dirtiness and shame the media want sex to be acquainted with.”

For me Zainal had brought out one aspect of our quest for meaning. I found this in relationship with people, and then the greater quest finally must be in the relationship with God.

Because I value it to be true....

In the comment by Irrational, an important consideration is required as a sieve to ascertain that our observations are not skewed by our bias expectation. The term used is 'confirmation bias'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
From brand loyalty to alternative medicine, many more in between and even exceeding the range, we confirm a lot of our opinion with choice facts, and very often ignoring contrary facts.
One friend of ours boasted that he refused to take certain medicine for his heart condition and chose to take wheat germ to prove the product he was also marketing. Armed with a lot of attractive brochures he would point out the testimonies of remarkable cures. Sadly, this friend of ours had to drop dead due to a heart failure not long later in a social gathering.
How I admire the love of parents on their child, and even more if their child is disabled. Nothing of what we could put on paper, some equations, list of pro and con or a scrap of justification, could explain the love that turned into a duty of care to such child. This child is still loved, even if you would sympathies with their state of affairs.
World views held with the conviction at a personal level should be tested this way. Some objectivity and with critical thinking should be done  in interpreting observations. It may not be easy to step out from our bias, but we should try to. It must be true because it is and not that because we want it to be true.

Thanks Irrational.

The car accident and the invisible hand

A nasty accident happened to me with my fellow staff in the car. Taking a turn too sharply, and maybe the tires was a little worn, the car skidded, spun and crashed into a wooden fence. A block of timber came through the window, missing our faces by just a couple of inches. The car was damaged, but both of us came out unhurt but a little shaken.

If I turned around and told my staff  “Thank God! See my God had protected us”, he might just give an equally valid remark “If your God had really protected us, there should not even be an accident, with the consequence of a damaged car after all!”

But what if, before I started the journey, I told him of a dream, a premonition of God’s soft prompting that something nasty is going to happen on the journey, but we shall be safe. Than the validity had been taken to another level (let’s call this the second level) ‘.

Such experiences cannot be verified in the lab. It is purely a personal perspective. But to the person who had experienced this and continued to see such things in his life, to him the logic is equivalent to a truth statement. And if he is in the community of like-minded people, who experienced these providences  (especially similar to the second level)and continued to do so from time to time, the reinforcement of an invisible hand of providence is quite hard to shake, even in the face of disbelief by others. I am not limiting this experience to just one distinct community of religion.

The test for me is that both the logic of the truth statements, and the logic of personal experiences must be present. There is a bridging that is required.

There's Probably-No God...reasonable statement?

While we cannot prove the certainty of the existence God, nor with certainty we cannot disprove it. While it can be argued that the God or gods presented in the religious scriptures, or beliefs, whether be it the Hindu, the Muslim, Jewish or Christian beliefs, may not fit into one’s liking or opinion to be adequate or reasonable, the extension does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist.

Richard Dawking’s sponsoring the message on buses in England that goes like this “There’s Probably – No God” is a reasonable statement, but the categorical statement that “There is No God” is wrong. Of course you would have to take the risk in living the life believing the absence of God.