At the prompting of a good friend, I am starting to revisit theological questions. Or more accurately, I am again look at religion and particularly theology from a philosophical perspective. My closer friends will know that I accept, to a fundamental degree, that the firm foundations of religious faith can never come from reason alone. I accept the need for Kierkegaard's "leap of faith". That said, any faith that is blind, that is reached without deep questioning and searching to me is fundamentally hollow, and perhaps even rotten, a soft center without any weight.
For me, one of the most difficult philosophical (let alone religious) problems that exist is the problem of evil. Not merely that there is evil in the world, but that it is often the completely innocent that suffer unjustly. Christianity though in particular has a much greater burden in relation to the problem of evil because they posit a God who is personal, whom you can seek comfort in, pray and talk to, who watches over each and every person just as he watches over the sparrow.
While a humanist can bite the bullet and say that injustice is often a brutal fact of a cold, uncaring world a religious person cannot. A volcano doesn't have intentions, nor an earthquake. It cares not for the fact that a town or a city or a school or tens of million people living nearby. But Christians cannot escape the question of how an all knowing, all powerful God could allow for those many thousands of innocents to die. Indeed, some psychologists have suggested that it is precisely in the fact of the inexplicable brutality of existence, in our need to find some kind of meaning in the very first place, that many turn to God as an answer.
As Peter Singer argues, I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question short of saying that God's ways are unknowable, and any attempt by feeble human minds to understand God's intentions is akin to a monkey trying to grasp the depth and power of Shakespeare. I find this reply unsatisfactory. To begin with, the argument is circular. It attempts to argue that we are incapable of knowing God precisely by presupposing that God is omnipotent and omniscient as well as good, the very three things that seem incompatible together when we deal with unjust evil in the world. More damning for me is the denigration of reason. As I said earlier, any faith that I shall ever come to will be through constant thought, struggle and reflection. It is far far too easy, and correspondingly also too dangerous to just say God's reason is unknowable. Let us not seek to grapple or understand. Let us just accept.
Perhaps that is the crux of religion. Acceptance. Submission (which is the major tenant of Islam). Thy kingdom come they will be done, now and forever. Amen.
20 April 2010
15 April 2010
Catholic Church, Abuse and Homosexuality
The degree to which the Catholic Church engaged in a systematic cover-up of the sex abuse cases which are now being revealed is certainly still contentious. What is not is the series of ill-advised, and in some cases downright insulting remarks that have issued from the Vatican revealing a Church very much on the defensive.
First, the Pope's very own personal pastor made an allusion to the current series of scandals being akin to the persecution of the Jews. That this comparison is inaccurate is self-evident, that it is thoughtless, and an insult to the 6 million Jews who lost their lives in the holocaust is even more so. Many of the victims of the holocaust lost their freedom, their livelihoods and ultimately their lives as a result of blind hatred and pure prejudice. To equate their plight with a Church that is under attack due to the abuse of trust and criminal behavior of admittedly a minority of its members is not just bad taste but horrendously wrong. It is insulting not only to the Jews, but to the actual victims of abuse, and a pathetic attempt to paint the Church as a victim, instead of having it as a body give a fully accounting and reckoning for what has happened.
This especially is the case as more and more victims of abuse come forward with testimony, and with more circumstantial evidence showing the culpability of senior members of the church, who if they did not actively attempt to cover-up or circumvent the truth, at least chose to do nothing, which is a form of culpability in and of itself. The fact that church has repeatedly insisted that this is a private matter that will be dealt with internally, like many other instances of Vatican bureaucratic secrecy, has increased speculation that the church has something to hide. In any other circumstance, individuals facing such allegations would have to come before the open court to face their charges. Some opaque form of internal censure surely is not sufficient given the age of many of the victims when the abuse occurred, the abuse of positions of trust and power of the perpetrators, and the heinous nature of many of the acts. Those suspected of pedophilia should be investigated, and if found guilty, jailed.
Worse still, a senior Bishop, effectively the second most powerful man in the Vatican, has come out with the accusation that pedophilia is inextricably linked to homosexuality. The irony is, in the context of the Church, this might very well be the case. That it is not so for the wider homosexual and transgender community may be testament to the lasting damage of the Church's outmoded stance on sex and sexuality.
That there is a link between pedophilia and homsexuality in the Catholic Church context, is ironically, very much due to the fact that taking up the robe is seen as a last resort to many individuals unable to reconcile their religious beliefs which condemns homosexual acts in any form, and their own innate tendencies. Facing the notion that their inclinations and desires are inherently wrong, they choose instead to renounce desire altogether, taking vows of chastity, hoping that purity can be found in abject self-denial.
I am not saying that all the pedophiles and sex abusers were homosexual, in fact, far from it, something that already shows the inaccuracy and plain idiocy of Cardinal Bertone's remarks. What is does serve to underline is that abject self-denial, which is in line with the Church's notion of the sexual act as a kind of impurity can be signficantly damaging if the repression results in systematic abuse. This leaving aside the psychological trauma faced by some of the clergy, particularly the homosexual ones in this form of repressive self-denial.
How ironic then that the current Pope was the author of the last major Catholic statement on homosexuality, which trots out the usual cliches on the matter. Violence against them is no doubt wrong, but we should never detract from its inherent wrongness. Homosexual inclinations itself is not a sin - presumably engaging in homosexual acts itself would constitue such, but it "is a strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil". Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Indeed, because it is a moral disorder, it prevents achieving personal fulfilment and happiness. As such "The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom". So, telling individuals that what many of them perceive (or feel) to be a fundamental part of their identity is an intrinsic evil they are extending the sphere of personal freedom. By condemning a whole group of individuals as intrinsically morally evil (and then stating that of course, they should still have our love), they are promoting their best interest. I struggle to see how.
Attempting to accept or condone homosexual beliefs is seen as seeking to undermine the Church. Those who represent the view of acceptance are ignoring the teaching of the Church. Supporting gay rights on grounds of equality is mistaken and an attempt at manipulation given that homosexuality "may threaten the lives and well-being of a great number of people". How exactly? By undermining the church?
In contrast, we have the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality, and indeed their views on sex in general including contraception. What harm has that done? Just ask the numerous victims who have been sexually abused by Catholic clergy in whom they had the utmost trust, and were often allowed to continually abuse young children systematically over an extended period of time. Just ask the young, confused homosexual men and women who are not able to reconcile their sexual identities with a faith that tells them they are inherently sinful. Tell that to an African woman who is infected with HIV because the Church tells her husband that using condoms is a moral wrong, and he uses that as an excuse to have unprotected sex with her. There is real harm, here. Harm that the Catholic Church must answer for. Harm that it can no longer deny and hide away. Harm that will not dissipate from feeble attempts to paint the church as a victim, or indeed as a bastion under siege.
First, the Pope's very own personal pastor made an allusion to the current series of scandals being akin to the persecution of the Jews. That this comparison is inaccurate is self-evident, that it is thoughtless, and an insult to the 6 million Jews who lost their lives in the holocaust is even more so. Many of the victims of the holocaust lost their freedom, their livelihoods and ultimately their lives as a result of blind hatred and pure prejudice. To equate their plight with a Church that is under attack due to the abuse of trust and criminal behavior of admittedly a minority of its members is not just bad taste but horrendously wrong. It is insulting not only to the Jews, but to the actual victims of abuse, and a pathetic attempt to paint the Church as a victim, instead of having it as a body give a fully accounting and reckoning for what has happened.
This especially is the case as more and more victims of abuse come forward with testimony, and with more circumstantial evidence showing the culpability of senior members of the church, who if they did not actively attempt to cover-up or circumvent the truth, at least chose to do nothing, which is a form of culpability in and of itself. The fact that church has repeatedly insisted that this is a private matter that will be dealt with internally, like many other instances of Vatican bureaucratic secrecy, has increased speculation that the church has something to hide. In any other circumstance, individuals facing such allegations would have to come before the open court to face their charges. Some opaque form of internal censure surely is not sufficient given the age of many of the victims when the abuse occurred, the abuse of positions of trust and power of the perpetrators, and the heinous nature of many of the acts. Those suspected of pedophilia should be investigated, and if found guilty, jailed.
Worse still, a senior Bishop, effectively the second most powerful man in the Vatican, has come out with the accusation that pedophilia is inextricably linked to homosexuality. The irony is, in the context of the Church, this might very well be the case. That it is not so for the wider homosexual and transgender community may be testament to the lasting damage of the Church's outmoded stance on sex and sexuality.
That there is a link between pedophilia and homsexuality in the Catholic Church context, is ironically, very much due to the fact that taking up the robe is seen as a last resort to many individuals unable to reconcile their religious beliefs which condemns homosexual acts in any form, and their own innate tendencies. Facing the notion that their inclinations and desires are inherently wrong, they choose instead to renounce desire altogether, taking vows of chastity, hoping that purity can be found in abject self-denial.
I am not saying that all the pedophiles and sex abusers were homosexual, in fact, far from it, something that already shows the inaccuracy and plain idiocy of Cardinal Bertone's remarks. What is does serve to underline is that abject self-denial, which is in line with the Church's notion of the sexual act as a kind of impurity can be signficantly damaging if the repression results in systematic abuse. This leaving aside the psychological trauma faced by some of the clergy, particularly the homosexual ones in this form of repressive self-denial.
How ironic then that the current Pope was the author of the last major Catholic statement on homosexuality, which trots out the usual cliches on the matter. Violence against them is no doubt wrong, but we should never detract from its inherent wrongness. Homosexual inclinations itself is not a sin - presumably engaging in homosexual acts itself would constitue such, but it "is a strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil". Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Indeed, because it is a moral disorder, it prevents achieving personal fulfilment and happiness. As such "The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom". So, telling individuals that what many of them perceive (or feel) to be a fundamental part of their identity is an intrinsic evil they are extending the sphere of personal freedom. By condemning a whole group of individuals as intrinsically morally evil (and then stating that of course, they should still have our love), they are promoting their best interest. I struggle to see how.
Attempting to accept or condone homosexual beliefs is seen as seeking to undermine the Church. Those who represent the view of acceptance are ignoring the teaching of the Church. Supporting gay rights on grounds of equality is mistaken and an attempt at manipulation given that homosexuality "may threaten the lives and well-being of a great number of people". How exactly? By undermining the church?
In contrast, we have the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality, and indeed their views on sex in general including contraception. What harm has that done? Just ask the numerous victims who have been sexually abused by Catholic clergy in whom they had the utmost trust, and were often allowed to continually abuse young children systematically over an extended period of time. Just ask the young, confused homosexual men and women who are not able to reconcile their sexual identities with a faith that tells them they are inherently sinful. Tell that to an African woman who is infected with HIV because the Church tells her husband that using condoms is a moral wrong, and he uses that as an excuse to have unprotected sex with her. There is real harm, here. Harm that the Catholic Church must answer for. Harm that it can no longer deny and hide away. Harm that will not dissipate from feeble attempts to paint the church as a victim, or indeed as a bastion under siege.
14 April 2010
Interesting Puzzle
I am glad that I rushed down to take part in the Brewerkz pub quiz after ringing Jake up mainly because we managed to win, with a team of just four people. That worked out to a cool 80 over dollars per person on the night, which was quite wonderful. I also won a free beer to boot after betting with Jake that Yokohama was the second largest city in terms of population in Japan after Tokyo, though Jake rightly pointed out that much of that depended on things like how you defined city and metropolitan limits.
I ended up having a long chat with the quiz masters afterwards, and it turned out that one of them was a banker, dealing with derivitives and thus analytical by nature. His background in gambling actually helped a great deal, at least in terms of securing him his job, because some of the interview questions were actually based on logic and probability. He challenged us with two specific puzzles which I only fully worked out afterwards, and it makes enormous intuitive sense, I thought I would share them.
The first puzzle involved a game of chance with a die. Let us say that you will pay in cash the amount equivalent to the die roll (e.g. if it lands on a six, the person wins six dollars). What price should you make a person pay in order to compete in the game? The answer is derived by using simple math. First, there is an equal probability of each outcome (the die landing on any number from one to six). So the average payout can be calculated by taking the total payout in each individual outcome (i.e. $1 in the case of die roll 1, $2, in the case of die roll 2) and dividing it by 6. So what you get is $1+$2+$3+$4+$5+$6= $21 in total, dividing by 6 gives you $3.50. So you should charge at a very minimum $3.50 for a roll.
He then added a more challenging twist. Say you give the gambler a chance at a second roll of the die. The number that then comes up on the second roll is the payout will be given (i.e. if you roll 3 on the first go and 2 on the second, the payout is $2). What price would you set for a person to compete in this 2 roll game? Would it be the same as in the first case, more expensive, or less expensive?
The answer of course is that you have to set it more expensive. Calculating the exact amount is a matter of logically predicting the behaviour of the gambler. To begin with, the gambler will not re-roll unless he has a even or better chance of improving his payout. Because there is always a risk that he will throw lower the second time around. So the gambler will probably hold if he rolls 4,5 or 6 the first time, and re-roll if he rolls 1,2,3. If he re-rolls the scenario exactly mirrors the first one above. However, given that the gambler has the option of holding on a high number and improving his payout on a low one, it logically means that the price has to be set higher.
How to calculate this? Very simple, first deal with the first roll which has a payout of 4+5+6 divided by 3 which is 5 - the gambler will re-roll otherwise. As calculated above, the average payout on a second roll (should the gambler roll 1,2 or 3) is 3.5. So the price set for a gambler to take part in this second game is the average of these two which is 8.5 divided by 2 which is 4.25. So you should make someone pay $4.25 in order to take part in the double roll game.
I ended up having a long chat with the quiz masters afterwards, and it turned out that one of them was a banker, dealing with derivitives and thus analytical by nature. His background in gambling actually helped a great deal, at least in terms of securing him his job, because some of the interview questions were actually based on logic and probability. He challenged us with two specific puzzles which I only fully worked out afterwards, and it makes enormous intuitive sense, I thought I would share them.
The first puzzle involved a game of chance with a die. Let us say that you will pay in cash the amount equivalent to the die roll (e.g. if it lands on a six, the person wins six dollars). What price should you make a person pay in order to compete in the game? The answer is derived by using simple math. First, there is an equal probability of each outcome (the die landing on any number from one to six). So the average payout can be calculated by taking the total payout in each individual outcome (i.e. $1 in the case of die roll 1, $2, in the case of die roll 2) and dividing it by 6. So what you get is $1+$2+$3+$4+$5+$6= $21 in total, dividing by 6 gives you $3.50. So you should charge at a very minimum $3.50 for a roll.
He then added a more challenging twist. Say you give the gambler a chance at a second roll of the die. The number that then comes up on the second roll is the payout will be given (i.e. if you roll 3 on the first go and 2 on the second, the payout is $2). What price would you set for a person to compete in this 2 roll game? Would it be the same as in the first case, more expensive, or less expensive?
The answer of course is that you have to set it more expensive. Calculating the exact amount is a matter of logically predicting the behaviour of the gambler. To begin with, the gambler will not re-roll unless he has a even or better chance of improving his payout. Because there is always a risk that he will throw lower the second time around. So the gambler will probably hold if he rolls 4,5 or 6 the first time, and re-roll if he rolls 1,2,3. If he re-rolls the scenario exactly mirrors the first one above. However, given that the gambler has the option of holding on a high number and improving his payout on a low one, it logically means that the price has to be set higher.
How to calculate this? Very simple, first deal with the first roll which has a payout of 4+5+6 divided by 3 which is 5 - the gambler will re-roll otherwise. As calculated above, the average payout on a second roll (should the gambler roll 1,2 or 3) is 3.5. So the price set for a gambler to take part in this second game is the average of these two which is 8.5 divided by 2 which is 4.25. So you should make someone pay $4.25 in order to take part in the double roll game.
11 April 2010
Singapore Live Music
I was invited by a friend to attend a free live gig at the Esplanade outdoor open stage this evening. It was a metal gig, and though it is not one of my favourite popular music genres - I prefer alternative and rock - I thought I might give it a go. She was going because her cousin was a guest musician playing back-up guitar.
There are often complaints in Singapore about the lack of any kind of independent music scene here, complaints that I increasingly find are thoroughly unjustified. It is an undeniable fact that the live music you get in most commercial bars and pubs consists of nothing more than cover bands, but I am increasingly learning of what a vibrant original music scene Singapore actually possess. Beyond our ability to manufacture Taiwanese pop divas, we have interesting bands that play stuff on the edges (metal, grunge, rap) many of whom are more than decent.
I love the feel of live music, the evident passion of many of the fans. The concert was fairly dead though until to the amusement, surprise and general gawking disbelief of everyone, an old uncle, dressed in classic striped short sleeve shirt got up and started head bobbing, doing air guitar and generally just prancing around. Singapore never ceases to surprise. Seeing him along with some of his old uncle friends attending a metal gig was already cause for much surprise - seeing him mimic a riff on an imaginary guitar, that was just thrilling and completely out of the blue.
There are often complaints in Singapore about the lack of any kind of independent music scene here, complaints that I increasingly find are thoroughly unjustified. It is an undeniable fact that the live music you get in most commercial bars and pubs consists of nothing more than cover bands, but I am increasingly learning of what a vibrant original music scene Singapore actually possess. Beyond our ability to manufacture Taiwanese pop divas, we have interesting bands that play stuff on the edges (metal, grunge, rap) many of whom are more than decent.
I love the feel of live music, the evident passion of many of the fans. The concert was fairly dead though until to the amusement, surprise and general gawking disbelief of everyone, an old uncle, dressed in classic striped short sleeve shirt got up and started head bobbing, doing air guitar and generally just prancing around. Singapore never ceases to surprise. Seeing him along with some of his old uncle friends attending a metal gig was already cause for much surprise - seeing him mimic a riff on an imaginary guitar, that was just thrilling and completely out of the blue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
