We took leave today, and got up earlier to take a walk at the beach in the hope of catching a brilliant sunrise.  That was not to be.

One of the many joys of my job is the highly intelligent client who asks highly inane questions.  Today, in response to a written opinion I had given, I received a call from another one of those highly intelligent clients, who asked : "what do you mean when you ask ‘who is the owner of the copyright’ ?".

Stumped, I answered her the best I could.

"When I said ‘owner of the copyright’, I meant the ‘copyright owner’."

There was a stunned silence at the other end of the line which, I hope, means that enlightenment had struck her like a thunderbolt.

Of course I wouldn’t know if she did understand what I was trying to explain, because our phone conversation kind of ended there.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, woke up in a genocidal mood this morning.  So he decided, at the "World without Zionism" Conference later today, to declare that Israel must be destroyed.  Which I think is probably not one of the most intelligent things to say, ever.

1.  The international community is now justified in its fears about Iran’s nuclear programme, and taking measures to control it.

2.  Israel now has more reasons to treat Iran’s Palestinian "brothers" with suspicion.

3.  Israel has an excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, like it did on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

4.  There’s a strange logic involved here.  On the one hand Iran tries to use the UN machinery to condemn the state of Israel for whatever it believes Israel has done wrong (which means that Israel’s right to exist is recognised); but on the other it now declares that Israel has no right to exist.  It’s like how the Jehovah Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance to the state, yet rely on state-conferred Constitutional protections on the freedom of religion to allow them to continue practising their faith.

In a sign that my parents have entered their "golden years", they have started arguing over the silliest of things.

Over the weekend, we bought a two-door refrigerator for the family.  And for the next couple of days, before it was finally delivered to our home, they fought over where it should be placed - backyard, kitchen or dining hall ?

Anyway, the refridgerator arrived yesterday.  And they found that it was too big to fit through the kitchen door.  So it could not be placed in the kitchen, or the backyard adjoining the kitchen.  It now sits in the dining hall.

Then, according to Joyce, they were arguing this morning over which refridgerator shelf should be used to store which foods.

Sigh.  I wonder if Joyce and I will behave like this at their age ?

Finished reading Angels & Demons (A&D) sometime last week.  I think The Da Vinci Code (DVC) is better written.  Or at least, it’s a lot more fun as it features more symbology and puzzles.  I suppose that’s part of the reason why it’s a bigger hit.  And having read both novels, I would guess Dan Brown’s worldview to be :

1.  Nature appears to be the result of intelligent design, and so there probably is a Creator God or gods, somewhere out there.

In A&D, Brown has the heroine Vittoria declare "when you lie out there under the stars, do you sense the divine ?  Do you feel in your gut that you are staring up at the work of God’s hand ? … Science tells me God must exist".  The hero Robert Langdon responds positively, in which I read, apart from physical attraction between the two characters, Brown affirming the foregoing declaration to be true : "Looking at her, Langdon felt something stir within him that he had not felt in a long time.  There was a bewitching clarity in her eyes … a purity in her voice.  He felt drawn".

In DVC, Brown has his hero Robert Langdon talk about PHI or the Divine Proportion : "PHI’s ubiquity in nature clearly exceeds coincidence, and so the ancients assumed the number PHI must have been preordained by the Creator of the universe.  Early scientists heralded one-point-six-one-eight as the Divine Proportion … My friends, as you can see, the chaos of the world has an underlying order.  When the ancients discovered PHI, they were certain they had stumbled across God’s building block for the world, and they worshipped Nature because of that.  God’s hand is evident in Nature …"

2.  Religion or faith in God or gods, even if based on false premises, imparts meaning to our created universe and gives humans hope in life.

In both A&D and DVC, the story ends with certain myths from religion (ie. the Roman Catholic faith) being shattered.  Conspiracy theories are introduced to lead the reader to think that miracles are actually the product of human machinations, and that the masses place their trust in religion because of their blind faith.  In A&D, for example, Brown suggests that there was once a massive conspiracy by the Roman Catholic church to suppress science, so that the masses will continue believing in its miracles.  In DVC, Brown suggests that the theology of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is a myth perpetuated (again) by the Roman Catholic church to deceive the masses; in fact Jesus was nothing more than a great religious leader who married Mary Magdalene and fathered children, a truth that the Roman Catholic church has been seeking to suppress through the centuries.

However, in both A&D and DVC, the hero Robert Langdon and the heroine - who stumble upon the "truth" in the course of their adventures - choose not to expose the deceit of the Roman Catholic church, because they realise that religion - even false religion - gives people hope and meaning in life, and have no wish to undermine this hope.

(The above being the case, I find it somewhat ironic that the conspiracy theories that Brown chose to write about itself undermines the hope that religion brings to the real world).

3.  Because all religions are false, and have a search for meaning as a common denominator, what one believes in doesn’t really matter.

No where is this clearer than in A&D, where the heroine Vittoria says that "religion is like language or dress.  We gravitate toward the practices with which we were raised,  In the end, though, we are all proclaiming the same thing.  That life has meaning.  That we are grateful for the power that created us … faith is universal.  our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary.  Some of us pray to Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles.  In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves."

As instituionalised / organised religion is no different from pagan nature-worship religions in Brown’s eyes - and the former may in fact be worse in his opinion given the numerous injustices committed in their name - pagan, nature-worship religions are presented in a positive light in Brown’s books.

Rambling Thoughts :

I can’t disagree with the fact that every component in creation fits together so well that the universe is more likely to be created, than the result of some random, cosmic big bang. 

The question is who is the God or gods responsible for this, and what is God’s nature (ie. good, evil, amoral, etc.).  Brown doesn’t come to a definitive conclusion on this point, preferring instead to take the view that all religions are good (or rather, not necessarily bad), so long as they give hope and meaning.  In my humble opinion, given Brown’s intelligence, his conclusions on religion (or lack thereof) smack of intellectual shoddiness and capitulation.  He could have done better.

To my mind, creation could only have been the work of a single God.  If multiple "gods" of equal power were involved, there would be a lot more chaos in creation.  I suppose one could argue that I’m merely projecting my quarrelsome human nature onto these multiple "gods" - why can’t multiple "gods" coexist peacefully ?  Maybe.  But if that is the case, why haven’t these "gods" revealed themselves in a religion where there is worship of multiple "gods" of equal power that coexist peacefully ?

Moving on, if creation is the work of a single God, what is His nature like ?  Is He loving and good, or spiteful and evil, or quick to judge and punish, or arbitrary and amoral ? 

Well, God could possibly be spiteful and evil, or arbitrary and amoral, but if that is the case, then we are no better off having a God than not having one.  There would be no real hope or meaning in life.  Might as well jump off the next balcony to our deaths.

Anyway, I think that the fact that humans distinguish between good and evil, order and arbitrariness, points towards a God who is by nature good.  The God who created the universe is also the one who fashioned the human mind.  If God had intended that which is evil and arbitrary to be the proper order of the universe, our minds would also have been fashioned to think of what is evil and arbitrary as "good" (in the sense of being the proper order of things).  Since we think otherwise (ie. that good and orderliness is the proper order of the universe), God must by nature be good.

There are several religions that point towards a god that is good.  (Strangely enough, there are religions with gods that behave arbitrarily, or are sometimes evil, but people worship them anyway !).  But religions can pretty much look like theories - why should I believe your theory that the god of such-and-such a religion is good just because you say so ?

As far as I can see, there is only one religion that goes beyond theory, because its God actually demonstrated the extent of His goodness.  This is the God of Christianity who, in order to redeem humanity from sin, sacrificed His (human) life on the cross.  And so far, no one has proven that Jesus Christ did not exist (He is a historical figure) or that He was anyone less than the Son of God.

"… God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". (Romans 5 : 8)

(See my previous post on Dan Brown here).

It just occurred to me, that if some Christian leader had suggested that Christianity could not be reconciled with Buddhism, he’d probably be criticised for being narrow-minded or militant. But people are less likely to say that of the Dalai Lama, who has incidentally said the same (see previous post).

Anyway, if it is true that Christianity and Buddhism are fundamentally different faiths that cannot be reconciled (and as far as I am concerned this is true), then it is all the more important for those who are undecided about those religions to examine their teachings to determine which is true. Both religions cannot be right when many of the "truths" they teach conflict with each other; one must be true and the other false. To continue subscribing to the maxim that all religions are good so long as they teach us to become good, seems intellectually shoddy to me.

I’m midway through a book on a talk given by the Dalai Lama, at the invitation of some Christians (or more accurately, Roman Catholics), about his thoughts on the Christian gospels.  While there is much in the book that I disagree with, I have to say that in fairness, the Dalai Lama did humbly inform his audience that he knew little about Christian scriptures or theology.  Also, he did not ask to give the talk; those ecumenical zealots invited him.  My points of disagreement notwithstanding, the Dalai Lama does make some very valid and insightful comments that would put many Christians to shame.  I think that it is a shame that the following nugget of wisdom (note its parallels with Romans 12 : 1) should come from the mouth of someone who claims not to know much about the Christian faith :

[ The Dalai Lama, commenting on the command of "love your enemies" : ]

"God created you as an individual and gave you the freedom to act in a way that is compatible in accordance with the Creator’s wishes - to act in an ethical way, in a moral way, and to live a life of an ethically disciplined, responsible individual.  By feeling and practising tolerance and patience toward fellow creatures, you are fulfilling that wish : you are pleasing your Creator.  That is, in a way, the best offering that you can make to the divine Creator."

The other part of the book which I find somewhat hilarious but painfully ironic is where the Dalai Lama reminds the ecumenical Christian zealots (or to be more precise, Roman Catholic zealots) that Christianity and Buddhism prescribe fundamentally different worldviews and are therefore irreconcilable.  Unlike other religions, Buddhism is generally not confrontational and one would have thought that the Dalai Lama, as the leader and chief philosopher of a major school of Buddhism, would have suggested that there is a way to reconcile all religions.  But he did not (and for that he has my respect).  In fact, he even humbly admitted that "there are diverse philosophical viewpoints even among Buddhists" on many matters.  And so he ends one of his talks with what I read to be a mild rebuke of those who foolishly seek to marry the two religions into one, and compromise (their Christian) faith :

"To sum up all that we’ve discussed, I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue … especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation and the enhancement of tolerance … But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue I feel we must part company.  The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions between causes and conditions.  Within that philosophical worldview it is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth.  Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation.  Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based on a belief in the Creation and a divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditions has no place within that worldview.  So in the realm of metaphysics it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge."

It is the time when my department conducts its annual feedback exercise to solicit feedback from clients on the quality of our services.  Although I’ve not done anything significantly different at work this year (and in fact have been a little careless of late), I’m pleasantly surprised to learn that several clients have commended me personally on my work.  Although this won’t earn me a promotion (I can’t be promoted, thanks to the anal retentive HR policies of the organisation - anyone want to offer me a job ?), I am grateful that my faithful toiling (lack of talent notwithstanding) has not gone unnoticed.  As a matter of faith I also take this to be a pat-on-the-back from my Heavenly Father, because when I remember I try to excel at what I do so that I may somehow glorify Him through it.

"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody". (1 Thessalonians 4 : 11 - 12)

"… whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God". (1 Corinthians 10 : 31)

Fatherhood can be so fun.

Heard over Power98 today (which broadcasts a pretty decent morning talk show, if you discount the propaganda) - an NSman father who (believe it or not) packs his reservist full pack together with his kids and describes the exercise as a meaningful "bonding" session, especially since he tells his kids what every item is used for !

Personally I’ve not unpacked (and repacked) my full pack items for something like ten years, so I can imagine how bizarre my conversation with Jed will be.

"Jed, this is pack 2.  It contains Daddy’s PT kit (which is now too small to fit Daddy), and his underwear, which he has not worn for the last ten years (which even if it has not disintegrated by now, also cannot fit Daddy)."

I wonder if that patriotic father on Power98 has one of those super-duper jungle survival kits in his full pack which contains a … ahem … prophylactic ?  (Mine doesn’t, BTW, both the jungle survival kit and the prophylactic).  I wonder what he would say to his kids if they asked him about it.

"Daddy, is that a candy ?"

"No dear, it’s a receptacle for collecting water in the jungle."

Published in the Straits Times Forum, October 2003 :

I refer to Madam Cindy Tan Hui Cheng’s letter, ‘Why a condom?’ (ST, Oct 1).

One of the most vital requirements for a jungle survival kit is something to help the soldier collect water. The condom in the kit is meant for this purpose.

It is hygienically packaged and more compact than a folded plastic bag, and it can hold a reasonable amount of water.

The condom can also be used to keep the other essential survival items such as matches and medical items dry after they have been opened.

COLONEL BERNARD TOH
Director,
Public Affairs
Ministry of Defence

Started on Jesus Among Other Gods : The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, by Ravi Zacharias.  Read the introduction and found myself agreeing with what the author says (interestingly it has parallels with one of my previous posts).  The book is also, I think, very relevant at a time when there are calls for restrictions on Christian evangelism and greater respect for the sensitivities of other religions in multi-religious Singapore :

"When I began writing this book, I dreamed little of how difficult a task this was going to be.

The difficulty has really not been in knowing what to say, but in knowing what not to say.  We are living in a time when sensitivities are at the surface, often vented with cutting words.  Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it to be true.  Morally you can practise anything, so long as you do not claim it to be a "better" way.  Religiously you can hold onto anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it.  If a spiritual idea is eastern, it is granted critical immunity; if western, it is throughly criticised.  Thus, a journalist can walk into a church and mock its carryings on, but he or she dare not do the same if the ceremony is from the eastern fold.  Such is the mood at the end of the twentieth century.

A mood can be a dangerous state of mind, because it can crush reason under the weight of feeling.  But that is precisely what I believe postmodernism best represents - a mood.

…

The reality is that if religion is to be treated with intellectual respect, then it must stand the test of truth, regardless of the mood of the day.

…

I must say one more thing.  I have covered thousands of miles during this writing … In the course of this, I have met some very fine and gracious people … One such person was the attendant at the hotel where I was staying.  He is a Muslim man.  Everyday when he came in to make my room, he would also make me a cup of tea, and we would talk.  On his off day, he took me sightseeing in his city, and we visited many places of worship.  I will never forget him.  I wish more people showed the kindness that he did and the courtesies he always offered.

And that is the point I wish to make.  We can be worldviews apart without anger or offense.  What I believe, I believe very seriously.  And it is because of this that I write this book.  By equal measure, anything to the contrary, I must question.

My earnest prayer is that when you read this, you will make a judgement of the Christian message based on truth. not the mood of our times.  Moods change.  Truth does not."