“Good! Great! Perfect!”

These words, and others with similar meanings, ought to be scrapped out of the dictionary.

The idea that something, anything, is perfect, is inevitably false. By stating that, for example, a system is good, is like saying that the system is idealised, no longer with any further room for improvement. By instilling the idea that the system is perfect, we temper the need to continually critique the system, and to constantly modify it towards further improvements.

Take for example, this conversation I heard over the radio, where some important guest claimed that “the education system in Singapore is world class”, in response to questions of dismal performances by students taking the ‘O’ Levels. People just don’t know how to appreciate the system! So he implies.

Nonsense.

Everything has room for improvement. From the watches on our hands, to the pollution level of the air, if we look hard enough, there is always something to criticise, something to point to and declare, “Aha! Imperfection!” Never is anything perfect; they can only be adequate to the purpose. Indeed, they are all flawed. Perfection, in the world of today, is watered down; a word that simply means an idea is better received than all its closest competitors.

There have been many ideas gracing the world, originating from the brainstorming of many an intellectual; yet for every idea, there are countless more critics, sceptics who cannot help but point out flaws. Each idea, if better than its predecessor, is one further step on the never-ending quest for perfection. Each idea, to be better than its predecessor, must be critiqued, allowing us to better understand its weaknesses, to improve upon them.

Claims of perfection can be likened towards conservatism. “The current system is good enough, stick to it!” Unfortunately, change is always required, for we live in a changing reality. Conservatism, by holding on to an unchanging past, will never adapt for the future. Hence, conservatism inevitably causes stagnation. A static innovation will always be obsolete.

Science is one field where humans work tirelessly towards perfection, in spite of the fact that perfection renders science itself obsolete. Religion, however, is one field where humans work tirelessly in pursuit of conservatism. There is no way that religion and science do not contradict each other, for their very motivations are polar opposites.

Whenever anyone says an idea is good, judge that statement with suspicion. Whenever anyone says that something is perfect, begin the search for imperfection. The cup is half empty, never half full. Scepticism, however decried it is by its sceptics (how paradoxical), is a necessary evil.

“Real boats rock,” writes Frank Herbert. The appearance of perfection is merely a performance of covering up a smear of mistakes. I agree completely.

Embrace the half empty cup.
01:19
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

Friends of mine know that I attempt to rationalise everything and anything; closer friends would know that I favour reason to the extent of rejecting emotions.

There was a philosopher who defined emotions aptly in its purest essence: “Passion (emotions) is the capacity to obscure reason”. Emotions are something that dominates our psyche, a powerful force that originates from ancient instincts. And instincts, obviously, are animalistic guides towards survival.

The connection between emotions and instincts cannot be ignored. Instincts are what drove organisms from ancient times to present days. They are an organism’s survival reactions, the inner voice that helps them distinguish predator from prey, mate from competitor, and danger from safety. Instincts are what drive salmons to seek breeding places in appropriate places, birds to utilise updrafts to soar in the air, spiders to spin webs for food and shelter, or humans to flinch from contact with pain. Without instincts, there can be no survival. Without instincts, there can be no life.

Emotions and instinct are intrinsically intertwined. Their relation can be easily seen by love: humans experience that compulsive attraction towards the opposite sex, towards friends and family members. Love is necessary for procreation, and hence, for the continuity of mankind. Love is also the binding force in the creation of lasting companionship and community, havens in which the troubles of the world may be forgotten, creating that comforting feeling of safety. In ancient times, safety comes in numbers: love is one of those relics from our ancient past, undoubtedly emotional, and undoubtedly originating from instinct.

Sometimes we feel anger. We feel it when a stranger encroaches on our territory without permission, when someone insults our religion, or when an idiot calls you an idiot. Anger, an emotion motivated by instinctive self-defence, whether in physical, mental, or emotional terms (respectively to the above examples).

At other times, we feel fear. Fear of the dark. Fear of being lonely. Fear of that precious laptop being accidentally dropped on the floor. Fear is the emotion that pulses at us, sending warning signals against what we feel we must avoid. Fear is also an instinctive response that drives us towards self-preservation, like when a robber points a gun at you. You cower and grovel, signals of submission and servitude, making yourself look insignificant, hoping the robber points the gun elsewhere. It is survival instinct creating the feeling of fear, igniting responses that we call instinctive.

From above examples (and many others), I am led to conclude that emotions are based on instincts. “So what?” you say. Basing our actions on instincts may be good for survival; yet, survival may not be the primary motivation in our cultivated lives of present days. Romantics may idealise emotions, yet rationally, setting emotional appreciation as an ideal is like embracing the idea that the world is flat all over again. By embracing emotions, and hence, instincts, we are returning to our animalistic roots. To put it crudely, these are barbaric roots, another reality where the law is “kill or be killed”, and survival is the only form of victory. To what purpose do we do so? Are instincts relevant in these changing times?

Reason used to be a survival tool; a tool sharpened through contemporary pressures driving the species. Many animals have some form of reasoning; humans are the only species to have perfected reasoning to such masterful levels. Today, reason is our primary method by which we comprehend the world, and organise things into a logical perspective. If instincts are what allow us to survive, reason is what allows us to excel. If survival is not an issue, why should we utilise emotions? In such a non survival-oriented society, emotions are becoming relegated and increasingly obsolete in our lives.

Another issue to consider is the well-known problem of emotions clouding effective usage of reason. Given sufficient data, everything can be rationalised, and if so, reason will indeed become the most powerful tool anyone may have. Such an idea is outlined within the proverb: “The pen is mightier than the sword”. Irrational actions have been seen to have disastrous consequences upon this world. Stupid wars would have been prevented, radicalism and fanaticism curbed, countless lives saved, if only emotions have not intervened. The most recent example of a stupid war started by emotions would be America’s invasion of Iraq, when public opinion was stirred against the denizens of Middle East, and even now, the actual perpetrator of 9/11 has not yet been found.

Politics and religion, in fact, are two facets in contemporary societies where emotions reign. Public opinion often sways because of emotional issues: threats to national security, foreign talent invasion, etc. From the government’s perspective, the easiest way to manipulate the masses is to keep them under the illusion of a threat, and keep them on their toes. The idea that the current government will be the source of security can instil public faith in them. The same applies to organised religion: keep them threatened by the devils, by the faithless, by the fear of sinning, fear of offending the God. Manipulate and shape this fear towards the purposes the Church intends. What could be easier? However good the intentions, they make the act no less digestible.

Emotions are also transient in nature. Without solid justification, emotional goals waver. Emotions themselves cannot be sustained, making quests like “I live for happiness” utter bullshit. If such happiness is inevitably temporary, to what purpose do we seek it for?

True, without emotions, we lose some portion of our humanity. We lose the reason for existence, love, inherent sentimentality, and more. I have not proposed that we ignore emotions altogether, but that emotions be controlled by rational beliefs in all cases where survival is not the essential issue. In this aspect, I have succeeded several times, proving beyond doubt that emotions can indeed be rationalised: once, I was suicidal, emotionally dead. Yet, I was able to reason out a motivation for continuing my life, which is my current quest for answers. If motivation, an emotional drive, can be reasoned and instilled by rationalising, so can all other emotions. Reason should never be controlled, and I reject emotions as the controller of my life.
12:03
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

Evangelists these days appear to enjoy attacking atheists and agnostics with a particular challenge that make it seem very disadvantageous for us to answer. The challenge goes like this: “I dare you to pray; if you are willing to do so, you might just sense God’s touch on this world.”

Seriously, such an attempt to incite us is quite disgusting, as though we are not brave enough to do so. It is like asking a Muslim to eat pork. It is because of the stance of our beliefs that we refuse to take up such a dare, yet it looks as though we are not open-minded enough when we turn down the challenge. How about such a response: I refuse this challenge because I have evolved past the need to do so, freed from the basic need for a higher purpose that believers depend on.

Instead of challenging us, how about I challenge believers to think like an atheist for even a day?

From the godless perspective, certain beliefs must inevitably be embraced. Life was started on the whim of probability and our universe came to be what it is today, simply by pure luck. We humans live meaningless existence, with acts that shall soon be forgotten, touching lives that will soon die anyway, leaving no lasting trace of ourselves in the passage of time. Indeed, against the infinite universe, our finite acts inevitably make no more than a ripple in the ocean. Oblivion awaits us, a gaping, endless darkness promising nothing except the delineation of our consciousness.

Naturally, human instinct dictates that such beliefs should be rejected. We refuse to live futile lives, or rather, to even believe life is futile. After all, isn’t it so comforting to believe that there is a heavenly father up there, watching you, loving you, guaranteeing that your acts here may secure you eternal happiness? Even the most ardent of believers have a common motive: to be vindicated and awarded a place in heaven. In the face of such extremes, who would want to head back to reality believing that there is no inherent value in life? “I want life to be purposeful! I do not want a futile existence!” Of course, we all prefer that, but reality usually neither matches our narrow-minded understanding, nor our narrow-minded faiths.

Occam’s Razor has already ruled that God, a complex being, is never likely to be an explanation for any occurrence in this world, however miraculous they seem. For almost every amazing event (save Creation, the final mystery), science or statistical explanations usually suffice. The mere possibility of there being simple explanations for all “godly” acts simply undermines the possible existence of God, or his “touch” on this world. Yet people actually insist on God being the be-all-and-end-all explanation. How self-deceptive.

Let’s face it; God is, more likely than not, non-existent. Yet despite the range of evidences and conventional wisdom, you still want to believe in him. Does that belief originate from reason, or from emotions? More likely the latter, isn’t it?

It is very difficult to accept life as an atheist. You get to stand alone in this world, unsupported, uncertain of life’s purpose, facing the odds of the world without guarantees.

So, then, believers all:

Are you brave enough to challenge the odds, to believe in a meaningless life, and yet attempt to live it to the fullest, struggling in futile in search of justified answers?

Are you brave enough to reject what appeals to the emotions, and to embrace beliefs that are founded more solidly, and only, on cold reason?

Are you brave enough to embrace the idea that existence is a fluke? That life may not be very worth living? That the guarantees and love the God promised to shower on you is merely an illusion?

Don’t try to challenge us agnostics and atheists to try praying, as though we are not brave enough, or accepted all this uncertainty in our lives. You have no right to do so if you cannot free your mind from the deceptive beliefs of security, or to accept that we humans are simply not evolved enough to easily accept living without commitment to a higher purpose/being, however illusionary.

No right at all.
01:34
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

After meditating for half a month on an epistemology problem, I am glad to say that I finally solved it =) Below is the summary of the initial problem:

We cannot explain why reason works. Reason is therefore unjustified in how it works, and this means our use of reason is faith driven.

In essence:

We cannot justify why we believe in reason, therefore we have faith in reason.

This argument is wrong because reason is the underlying method for any form of justification to take place. We recognise that something is considered sufficient justification through the use of reason itself. For example, we justify that something is red in colour through the use of perception, which is logically correct as the hypothesis corresponds to the evidence. Note that in relating evidence to a proposition, we demand the use of logic, and reason is obviously involved, no matter the material or source by which the content of justification originates. Hence, reason is the key towards justification; without reason, there can be no justification.

Now, looking back at the statement, we can now see the problem. By arguing that our belief in methods of reason is unjustified, the argument is utilising reason itself to create the paradox in the first place. If reason is unjustified, and if that were true, the statement itself has to be unjustified, which creates a paradox and renders the statement invalid.

Another way of creating the paradox is that if reason is unjustified, and since justification requires the use of reason, this means that all justification would be unjustified, which is obviously ridiculous.

Hence, the problem must lie with an underlying assumption or inherent error made in the argument itself, and reason, as we have seen, has nothing to do with faith at all.

Kudos to Cheryl for proof-reading the solution =)
23:19
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

There are three places (ok, technically, four) to go to practically know everything there is to know about me:

Astrology sign – Virgo

MBTI type – INTJ here, and here

PersonalDNA – Reserved Inventor (facebook required)

I never fail to be amused at how accurate some of these tests are at reflecting my personality. Especially stunning is the Virgo prediction, as I never thought that I could ever get an accurate character description merely from star sign alone.

---------------

I am wondering what distinguishes character and behaviour... it is not as simple as it seems. If anyone cares to assist, you shall be very much welcome.
20:22
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

I witnessed one of the most amazing views of the sky this morning.

The deep darkness of the navy blue night appeared to oppress the turquoise light of the eastern sky. Bright was the line defining the horizon, setting the stage for the rising sun of latter hours.

Above the clumps of flats dotting the landscape as far as the eye could traverse, the crescent moon peered out of the turquoise wilderness, looking as elegant as it looked fragile. Its thin, razor sharp body delineated its darker body, whose lonely shadow dominated the emptiness.

Among the surroundings, jewelled stars flickered, once again marking their eternal presence in the celestial parchment. One, especially, shone like a torch; a diamond indeed, strutting its beauty through delightful illumination.

Such was the sight that took my breath away.
21:28
0 Comments | Post/Read comment

After Zhuang Mao literally issued a challege here, I shall respond in kind. (No hard feelings, I hope =) Let this be merely another of our friendly debates.)

The argument is fundamentally flawed in several areas:

Firstly, the usage of faith is not well defined in the passage regarding the determination of truth. Faith is literally belief without sufficient justification; yet many “real-life” examples put forth in the passage do not point to the use of faith. Rather, almost all of them are based on induction, or empiric reasoning. An example of the use of induction is that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west: since birth, such an occurrence has remained a cornerstone of the observation of our world, and we do not doubt that it will rise and set in the same direction the next day, or even next year. Induction utilises reason, and is not faith, as the argument claims. It is because the rising of the sun has always occurred, which is exactly why we have no reason to claim otherwise, as all evidences point to the sun rising when morning comes. Faith, unlike what the argument claims, is not widely used in real life at all.

Secondly, the passage attempts to argue that it is through faith and reasonable certainty that we know whether something is true. Philosophically, knowledge constitutes three major components of justification, truth and belief. Truth is something that is either true or false, and is a constant in knowledge. Belief is subjective in terms of the individual, which leaves us with justification as the only remaining pointer that can indicate truth, either indirectly, or rigidly. Justification can be obtained through five possible sources: reason, perception, testimony, consciousness and memory. It is unfortunate that faith does not justify, but merely commits. Reason merely makes up one of the five possibilities.

Thirdly, unlike the claim of the argument, it is true that we are used to having certainty in our lives. In fact, we demand to have certainty in our lives, we demand for proof of all claims of truth, and we definitely do the same to religion. Undoubtedly, even the staunchest of believers would have wavered at some point or another, but never do we lose faith that 1+1=2 becomes a wrong statement in the world of tomorrow. We demand for rigid proofs in the mathematics and sciences for the reason that the claims made can never be doubted. By declaring that we should not do the same to religion, what does argument imply? That Christianity, by representing divinity, will never be doubted, because the truth within is intuitively obvious to all? Explain to me then, why that 5 billion people on this world remain non-Christian, why that the proportion of atheists is steadily rising, and why that even God’s existence can be easily subjected to philosophical doubt?

Lastly, the uncertainty principle, as mentioned, does indeed work both ways. Yet, it is because it works both ways that the ideas put forth by Christianity are to be subjected to doubt. It is because I have reason to doubt Christianity, that I have reason to dig deeper into the underlying truth or falsehood that belies the faith, before I commit myself to the religion. However, those who believe blindly have set their beliefs in stone, whether or not the justification is sufficient or even presented accurately. It is the beliefs of Christian that colours their world, and events ranging from pure coincidences to unexplainable “miracles” that consistently “prove” that their God exists, despite a myriad of other alternatives. In science, we call this Occam’s Razor, the idea that the simplest hypothesis is most likely true; a simple, realistic reason is always much more likely than the argument that things occur because of God.

Most importantly, if God is exactly as the Bible depicts God to be, I fear for my time in the afterlife. Who would want to put faith in the benevolence of one who would destroy nearly the entire world population, without letting any one of these “guilty” ignorant beings understand what is it that they were doing wrong? (Noah’s Ark) What kind of “father” would want to sacrifice his own son? (Jesus) There are other, similarly horrendous situations in the Bible where God does not seem as benevolent as he claims to be. Once again, I shall end off with a quote.

“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” - Susan B. Anthony
21:35
17 Comments | Post/Read comment