Much ado about nothing

Brute-Force Logic

2011-09-05T13:28:00.000-07:00

I find it odd when theistic philosophers try to prove the existence of God using logic and mathematics. It seems to me that these philosophers treat God as some sort of mere abstract concept that can be manipulated by human thought and can be reduced into logical semantics, syntax, symbols and equations. In my opinion, the purported grandeur and inscrutable mystery of the Supreme Being as seen in the eyes of faith are somewhat diminished in this manner.

Just examine this symbolic ontological argument formulated by the German mathematician Kurt Friedrich Gödel to appreciate what I mean:

Tadah! God’s existence was proven as a logical theorem!

This is actually just one of the many versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. One of the earliest and most famous formulations of this argument was posited by St. Anselm of Canterbury. The argument attempts in establishing a priori proof by using reason and intuition. It is more akin to argument by definition. St. Anselm’s formulation of the argument can be paraphrased in this manner:

“A being that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot possibly exist only in the mind. If it exists only in the mind, then it is not really a being that than which nothing greater can be conceived because perfection implies existence. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is a far more perfect being than a merely imagined one. Hence, God exists in reality because he is the being that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”

At first glance, Anselm’s ontological argument seems irrefutable and self-evident. It is like a tautology or stating the obvious. It would be like saying that a triangle has three sides that intersect on a plane, forming three angles and vertices. In terms of Euclidian geometry, a triangle is basically described as such. All seems to be airtight and reasonable that even simple-minded people could intuitively understand what St. Anselm meant.

However, if the ontological argument is closely examined, the fallacy could be revealed. One does not need to be an atheist or an analytic philosopher to realize the errors of Anselm’s argument. In fact, the very first critic of this argument was not an atheist but a Benedictine monk by the name of Gaunilo. To demonstrate his point, Gaunilo used the analogy of a lost island applying the same line of Anselm’s reasoning. His counter-argument can be summarized thus:

1. The Lost Island is that than which no greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
3. If the Lost Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, i.e., one that does exist.
4. Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality.

The objection of Gaunilo was not really a direct refutation of Anselm’s argument but a mere demonstration of absurdity if the same line of reasoning would be applied to other concepts or things. This is called the “overload objection.” It is called as such because if the argument is correct, then the world would be overloaded with all perfect things or beings that we could conceive, such as perfect islands, perfect circles, perfect humans, etc.

Other scholastic and theistic philosophers criticized Anselm’s argument by pointing out the fundamental flaws. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that God’s existence is his essence and the ontological argument can only be meaningful to God himself because he is the only one who completely knows his ‘ontology’ or essence of being.

On the other hand, Immanuel Kant refuted the argument by stating that existence is not a predicate. He distinguished between the analytic and synthetic forms of judgments. In the first type of judgment, the ‘predicate’ merely states something that is already implied or associated with a particular concept. Hence, it would only be a repetition like saying “God exists, therefore he exists.” There is nothing new that can be concluded from the statement. On the other hand, synthetic judgment involves deriving new knowledge or conclusion from the premises or assumptions. Anselm’s argument merely relies on tautology. It could also be considered as a ‘bare assertion fallacy’ because the conclusion is already contained in the premise.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was a failed attempt in providing a ‘proof’ simply because it was unable to conclusively establish the actual existence of God as necessary being beyond conceptual definition. Simply put, one cannot prove something to exist by defining that it exists.

REFERENCE LINKS:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://sas.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

Godel's Notations Translated:
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Atheism offers nothing

2011-06-04T20:20:00.000-07:00

These anonymous verses were shared by a fellow atheist on Facebook. I am reposting it here:

Atheism offers nothing to me
It never has and it never will
It doesn’t make me feel good or comforts me
It’s not there for me when I’m sick or ill
It can’t intervene in my times of need
It won’t protect me from hate and lies
It doesn’t care if I fail or succeed
And it won’t wipe the tears from my eyes
It does nothing when I’ve got nowhere to run
It won’t give me wise words or advise
It has no teachings for me to learn
It can’t show me what’s bad or nice
It has never inspired or incited anyone
It won’t help me fulfill all my goals
It won’t tell me to stop when I’m having fun
It has never saved one single soul
It doesn’t take credit for everything I achieved
It won’t make me get down on bended knee
It doesn’t demand that I have to believe
It won’t torture me for eternity
It won’t teach me to hate or despise others
It can’t tell me what’s right or wrong
It won’t tell anybody that they can’t be lovers
It has told nobody that they don’t belong
It won’t make you think that life is worth living
It has nothing to offer me
That is true

But the reason that atheism offers me nothing is because I’ve never asked It to
Atheism offers nothing because it doesn’t need to
Religion promises everything because you want It to
You don’t NEED a religion or to have faith
You just WANT it because you need to feel safe
I want to feel REALITY and nothing more
So atheism offers me everything
That religion has stolen from me before

~anonymous

Some Fundamental Logical Fallacies of Religion

2010-08-01T10:31:00.000-07:00

Generally speaking, religion can be defined as a set of beliefs, rituals, ethics or mores that often involves deep devotion to god or gods or higher plane of existence; it also emphasises the concept of transcendent or supernatural reality that is supposedly beyond the grasp of understanding or reason. Religion purports to explain existence and the meaning of life or afterlife for that matter. Religion can be very formal, organised and dogmatic, such as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, religion can also be highly individualistic in nature or may claim to be not religion at all but purports to be “personal relationship” with the divine.

Here I will try to briefly examine some of the fundamental logical fallacies of religion. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that is based on incorrect inference (either inductive or deductive). It may either purposely done to persuade people or it may be unintentionally committed due to insufficient facts or capacity to reason. Logical fallacies divert attention from the main issue, which is the validity of conclusions. I do not want to delve too much on the premises or try to be exhaustive in their epistemological implications. I will just list and try to define some of the logical fallacies that I think most religions purposely or unintentionally commit.

1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick) – This is the argument based on fear or appeal to the emotion. This type of argument permeates most religions. The main strength of this fallacy in persuading people relies on the fear of the unknown or the fear of punishment. For instance, Christianity uses the threat of eternal suffering in HELL to convert people and maintain discipline among followers. In short, "believe in our god or else he will deep-fry your ass!" Hinduism, on the other hand, has the concept of karma. Those who are fearful to return as worms in their next life will surely try to behave. Of course, the opposite of this type of argument is the appeal to reward. Example: "Be converted to our religion and you will receive the gift of eternal life, power to heal the sick, speak in tongues and other super powers."

2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) – Most people are naturally sympathetic about the suffering of others. Ironically, one significant reason for the success of converting people to Christianity during its infancy was the Roman Empire's persecution of Christians. Many pagans were converted because they saw the resilience and steadfast dedications of the early Christians in spite of their sufferings, which included enduring several types of horrible tortures, executions, humiliation and disenfranchisement. The concept of a suffering Christ who willingly (albeit, temporarily) gave up his life is a moving story that can make some faint-hearted cry or cringe.

3. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) – Most religious people and even atheists are contented with arguing their positions based on the appeal to ignorance. Basically, it is reasoning that relies on the incompleteness of knowledge or evidence and using this to assert that a concept or assertion is false because it does not have sufficient evidence. Conversely, it also purports that if a concept or assertion is not absolutely certain to be false, then it must be true. Hence, the phrase, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Taken in the context of the belief in god, how can you prove that god does not exist if you do not have all the knowledge?

4. Argument Based on Unfalsifiability – The error in this type of argument is committed when a claim or assertion cannot be falsified or tested to be true. Almost all of the arguments of all religions fall under this category. Hence, most religious people are contented on accepting their religion as true on the grounds of faith, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely the claims might be. For example, how can you falsify the zombies in the story told by Matthew?

Matthew [27:52] "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose; [27:53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

5. Argumentum Ad Hominem – Simply put, this argument is based on attacking the personal characteristic of an individual. In the Christian religious context, humans are considered as sinful and unworthy of salvation. Hence, Christians should really be grateful and worship Jesus for saving them with his redemptive blood. The fallacy is committed here because of the effort to demean people who are otherwise good. It intends to demoralize people and make them feel guilty and worthless, hence, more pliable for brainwashing.

Romans [3:23] "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard."

Psalm [14:1] “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. they are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good."

Helping the Homeless Veterans

2010-06-29T00:04:00.000-07:00

The United States of America is the most powerful country in the world. This power is largely dependent on its military might. However, it is ironic that many of those who gallantly fought for American ideals are deprived of the basic necessities of life. It is estimated that more than 200,000 veterans are homeless. Many of them were injured and became disabled, both physically and psychologically. As a consequence, many of them are unable to get other source of livelihood when they left the military service. Although most of them may have received government pensions, many have already spent their lump-sum benefits in therapy and hospitalization. On the other hand, those who are receiving monthly pensions may find it difficult to afford to pay rent, much less to buy a house. You can help these veterans if you donate a car. There are organizations, such as the CarsHelpingVeterans.org, that facilitate fundraising programs for homeless veterans by auctioning donated cars.

Instead of simply allowing your old vehicle to rot and be relegated to the junkyards, you can help homeless American veterans through car donations. You can also benefit from this supposedly altruistic deed by receiving tax deductions. Supporting programs, such as this, is 100% tax deductible. The tax deduction that you will receive will depend on the assessed value of the vehicle that you will donate. There are only three simple steps to participate in the car donation program of CarsHelpingVeterans.org. First, you need to fill-in an online form that can be found on their website. Second, you need to schedule a convenient time for pickup. Third, you will receive your tax deductible car donation receipt once all the papers are in proper order.

The vehicle that you will donate will benefit the homeless veterans, especially those who were injured or disabled while in service of the country. The purple heart car donations project is your opportunity to express your gratitude and support for those unsung heroes who need your help.

"In all things I gave you an example, that so laboring ye ought to help the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

-- Acts 20:35

About the Birds and the Bees

2010-06-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

According to the latest demographic estimate, there are now more than 92 million Filipinos. In a country where 40% of its citizens are living below poverty line with less than 100 pesos (2 USD) of income per day, over-population can really result to serious and multi-faceted problems. Health, education, food production, the environment, employment and shelter are all affected because of over-population. Although Philippine population is only about one-third of US population, Philippine population density is ten times greater with more than 300 persons per square kilometer. On the other hand, the per capita income of Filipinos is only one-twenty-sixth compared to Americans. This is about $1,745 per Filipino per year. This statistic, however, is misleading because the actual spread is not evenly distributed. It is comparable to a cake where only a few eat big slices while the rest eat the crumbs.

It can be argued that a country's population -- its human resources -- is its greatest asset. However, if majority of these so-called assets do not even have the opportunity to become productive and contribute to the economy, assets can easily become liabilities. It is ironic that the poorest families are the ones that have the most number of children. These are the same families who live in slum communities, under the bridges, along the railways, and near water ways or canals. Most of them have shanties made from patched-up scrap or junk materials, such as cardboards, plywoods, corroded GI sheets and rubber tires. These are the same families who struggle to find food everyday. Some are even forced to eat partially rotting food from the garbage thrown by big fast food restaurants.

Unlike what the elderly prelates of the Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) are naively denying, the problems being brought by over-population are self-evident and alarming. The problems are serious enough that some progressive and enlightened legislators have tried to enact a law that will institutionalize a comprehensive reproductive health program. However, true to their backward mentality, the Catholic Hierarchy and the fundamentalist "pro-life" advocates are again trying to sabotage reforms.

Although the religious fanatics, as citizens of the country, have the right to voice out their protests, they do not have the credibility to pontificate and condemn the government in its policies about population control. This is not only because of the separation church and state but more importantly because of credibility. What moral authority does the Catholic Church has asserting the "pro-life" agenda? How is it possible that a church, which tortured and burned thousands of people on grounds of heresy, be even considered as a "pro-life" advocate?

RH Bill N0. 5043 Complete Text

Source: http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/reproductive-health-bill-5043/text-of-rh-bill-no-5043/

HOUSE BILL NO. 5043

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008“.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State upholds and promotes responsible parenthood, informed choice, birth spacing and respect for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards.

The State shall uphold the right of the people, particularly women and their organizations, to effective and reasonable participation in the formulation and implementation of the declared policy.

This policy is anchored on the rationale that sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens.

The State likewise guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children,among other underprivileged sectors.

SEC. 3. Guiding Principles. – This Act declares the following as basic guiding principles:

a. In the promotion of reproductive health, there should be no bias for either modern or natural methods of family planning;

b. Reproductive health goes beyond a demographic target because it is principally about health and rights;

c. Gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and population development;

d. Since manpower is the principal asset of every country, effective reproductive health care services must be given primacy to ensure the birth and care of healthy children and to promote responsible parenting;

e. The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to, be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless;

f. Freedom of informed choice, which is central to the exercise of any right, must be fully guaranteed by the State like the right itself;

g. While the number and spacing of children are left to the sound judgment of parents and couples based on their personal conviction and religious beliefs, such concerned parents and couples, including unmarried individuals, should be afforded free and full access to relevant, adequate and correct information on reproductive health and human sexuality and should be guided by qualified State workers and professional private practitioners;

h. Reproductive health, including the promotion of breastfeeding, must be the joint concern of the National Government and Local Government Units(LGUs);

i. Protection and promotion of gender equality, women empowerment and human rights, including reproductive health rights, are imperative;

j. Development is a multi-faceted process that calls for the coordination and integration of policies, plans, programs and projects that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized;

k. Active participation by and thorough consultation with concerned non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and communities are imperative to ensure that basic policies, plans, programs and projects address the priority needs of stakeholders;

l. Respect for, protection and fulfillment of reproductive health rights seek to promote not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples but those of adolescents’ and children’s as well; and

m. While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure that women seeking care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner.

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

a. Responsible Parenthood – refers to the will, ability and cornmitTrient of parents to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children more particularly through family planning;

b. Family Planning – refers to a program which enables couple, and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions, and to have informed choice and access to a full range of safe, legal and effective family planning methods, techniques and devices.

c. Reproductive Health -refers to the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its funcitions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.

d. Reproductive Health Rights – refers to the rights of individuals and couples do decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the information and means to carry out their decisions; and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.

e. Gender Equality – refers to the absence of discrimination on the basis of a person’s sex, in opportunities, allocation of resources and benefits, and access to services.

f. Gender Equity – refers to fairness and justice in the distribution of benefits and responsibilities between women and men, and often requires. women-specific projects and programs to eliminate existing inequalities, inequities, policies and practices unfavorable too women.

g. Reproductive Health Care – refers to the availability of and access to a full range of methods, techniques, supplies and services that contribute to reproductive and sexual health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems in order to achieve enhancement of life and personal relations. The elements of reproductive health care include:

1. Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition;

2. Promotion of breastfeeding;

3. Family planning information end services;

4. Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;

5. Adolescent and youth health;

6. Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections (RTIs), HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections (STIs);

7. Elimination ofviolence against women;

8. Education and counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health;

9. Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions;

10. Male involvement and participation in reproductive health;,

11. Prevention and treatmentof infertility and sexual dysfunction; and

12. Reproductive health education for the youth.

h. Reproductive Health Education – refers to the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes developing the necessary skills do be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate. and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.

i. Male involvement and participation – refers to the involvement, participation, commitment and joint responsibility of men with women in all areas of sexual and reproductive health, as well as reproductive health concerns specific to men.

j. Reproductive tract infection (RTI) – refers do sexually transmitted infections, sexually transmitted diseases and other types of-infections affecting the reproductive system.

k. Basic Emergency Obstetric Care – refers to lifesaving services for maternal complication being provided by a health facility or professional which must include the following six signal functions: administration of parenteral antibiotics; administration of parrenteral oxyttocic drugs; administration of parenteral anticonvulsants for pre-eclampsia and iampsia; manual removal of placenta; and assisted vaginal delivery.

l. Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care – refers to basic emergency obstetric care plus two other signal functions: performance of caesarean section and blood transfusion.

m. Maternal Death Review – refers to a qualitative and in-depth study of the causes of maternal death with the primary purpose of preventing future deaths through changes or additions to programs, plans and policies.

n. Skilled Attendant – refers to an accredited health professional such as a licensed midwife, doctor or nurse who has adequate proficiency and the skills to manage normal (uncomplicated) pregnancies, childbirth and the immediate postnatal period, and in the identification, management and referral of complication in women and newborns.

o. Skilled Attendance – refers to childbirth managed by a skilled attendant under the enabling conditions of a functional emergencyobstetric care and referral system.

p. Development – refers to a multi-dimensional process involving major changes in social structures, popular attitudes, and national institutions as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality and the eradication of widespread poverty.

q. Sustainable Human Development – refers to the totality of the process of expending human choices by enabling people to enjoy long, healthy and productive lives, affording them access to resources needed for a decent standard of living and assuring continuity and acceleration of development by achieving a balance between and among a manageable population, adequate resources and a healthy environment.

r. Population Development – refers to a program that aims to: (1) help couples and parents achieve their desired family size; (2) improve reproductive health of individuals by addressing reproductive health problems; (3) contribute to decreased maternal and infant mortality rates and early child mortality; (4) reduce incidence of teenage pregnancy; and (5) enable government to achieve a balanced population distribution.

SEC. 5. The Commission on Population (POPC0NI). – Pursuant to the herein declared policy, the Commission on Population (POPCOM) shall serve as the central planning, coordinating, implementing and monitoring body for the comprehensive and integrated policy on reproductive health and population development. In the implementation of this policy, POPCOM, which shall be an attached agency of the Department of Health (DOH) shall have the following functions:

a. To create an enabling environment for women and couples to make an informed choice regarding the family planning method that is best suited to their needs and personal convictions;

b. To integrate on a continuing basis the interrelated reproductive health and population development agenda into a national policy, taking into account regional and local concerns;

c. To provide the mechanism to ensure active and full participation of the private sector and the citizenry through their organizations in the planning and implementation of reproductive health care and population development programs and projects;

d. To ensure people’s access to medically safe, legal, quality and affordable reproductive health goods and services;

e. To facilitate the involvement and participation of non-government organizations and the private sector in reproductive health care service delivery and in the production, distribution and delivery of quality reproductive: health and family planning supplies and commodities to make them accessible and affordable to ordinary citizens;

f. To fully implement the Reproductive Health Care Program with the following components:

(1) Reproductive health education including but not limited to counseling on the full range of legal and medically-safe family planning methods including surgical methods;

(2) Maternal, pen-natal and post-natal education, care and services;

(3) Promotion of breastfeeding;

(4) Promotion of male involvement, participation and responsibility in reproductive health as well as other reproductive health concerns of men;

(5) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; and

(6) Provision of information and services addressing the reproductive health needs of the poor, senior citizens, women in prostitution, differently-abled persons, and women and children in war AND crisis situations.

g. To ensure that reproductive health services are delivered with a full range of supplies, facilities and equipment and that service providers are adequately trained for reproductive health care;

h. To endeavor to furnish local Family Planning Offices with appropriate information and resources to keep the latter updated on current studies and research relating to family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition;

i. To direct all public hospitals to make available to indigent mothers who deliver their children in these government hospitals, upon the mothers request, the procedure of ligation without cost to her;

j. To recommend the enactment of legislation and adoption of executive measures that will strengthen and enhance the national policy on reproductive health and population development;

k. To ensure a massive and sustained information drive on responsible parenthood and on all methods and techniques to prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies, it shall release information bulletins on the same for nationwide circulation to all government departments, agencies and instrumentalities, non-government organizations and the private sector, schools, public and private libraries, tri-media outlets, workplaces, hospitals and concerned health institutions;

l. To strengthen the capacities of health regulatory agencies to ensure safe, high-quality, accessible, and affordable reproductive health services and commodities with the concurrent strengthening and enforcement of regulatory mandates and mechanisms;

m. To take active steps to expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP), especially among poor and marginalized women, to include the full range of reproductive health services and supplies as health insurance benefits; and

n. To perform such other functions necessary to attain the purposes of this Act.

The membership of the Board of Commissioners of POPCOM shall consist of the heads of the following AGENCIES:

1. National Economic DevelopmentAuthority (VEDA)
2. Department of Health (DOH)
3. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
4. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
5. Department of Agriculture (DA)
6. Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)
7. Department of Education (DepEd)
8. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
9. Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
10. University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI)
11. Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAFI)
12. National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPQ
13. National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW)
14. National Youth Commission (NYC)

In addition to the aforementioned, members, there shall be three private sector representatives to the Board of Commissioners of POPCOM who shall come from NGOs. There shall be one (1) representative each from women, youth and health sectors who have a proven track record of involvement in the promotion of reproductive health. These representatives shall be nominated in a process determined by the above-mentioned sectors, and to be appointed by the President for a term of three (3)years.

SEC. 6. Midwives for Skilled Attendance. -Every city and municipality shall endeavor to employ adequate number of midwives or other skilled attendants to achieve a minimum ratio of one (1)for every one hundred fifty (150) deliveries per year, to be based on the average annual number of actual deliveries or live births for the past two years.

SEC. 7. Emergency Obstetric Care. – Each province. and city shall endeavor to ensure the establishment and operation of hospitals with adequate and qualified personnel that provide emergency obstetric care. For every 500,000 population, there shall be at least one (1) hospital for comprehensive emergency obstetric care and four (4) hospitals for basic emergency obstetric care.

SEC. 8. Maternal Death Review. – All LGUs, national and local government hospitals, and other public health units shall conduct maternal death review in accordance with the guidelines to be issued by the DOH in consultation with the POPCOM.

SEC. 9. Hospital-Based Family Planning. -Tubal ligation, vasectomy, intrauterine device insertion and other family planning methods requiring hospital services shall be available in all national and local government hospitals, except: in specialty hospitals which may render such services on an optional basis. For indigent patients, such services shall be fully covered by PhilHealth insurance and/or government financial assistance.

SEC. 10. Contraceptives as Essential Medicines. – Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies shall be considered under the category of essential medicines and supplies which shall form part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and lord hospitals and other government health units.

SEC. 11. Mobile Health Care Service. -Each Congressional District shall be provided with a van to be known as the Mobile Health Care Service (MHOS) to deliver health care goods and services to its constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy, as well as disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health: Provided, That reproductive health education shall be conducted by competent and adequately trained persons preferably reproductive health care providers: Provided, further, That the full range of family planning methods, both natural and modern, shall be promoted.

The acquisition, operation and maintenance of the MRCS shall be funded from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of each Congressional District.

The MHCS shall be adequately equipped with a wide range of reproductive health care materials and information dissemination devices and equipment, the latter including but not limited to, a television set for audio-visual presentation.

SEC. 12. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education. – Recognizing the importance of reproductive health rights in empowering the youth and developing them into responsible adults, Reproductive Health Education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School. In order to assure the prior training of teachers on reproductive health, the implementation of Reproductive Health Education shall commence at the start of the school year one year following the effectivity of this Act. The POPCOM, in coordination with the Department of Education, shall formulate the Reproductive Health Education curriculum, which shall be common to both public and private schools and shall include related population and development concepts in addition to the following subjects and standards:

a. Reproductive health and sexual rights;

b. Reproductive health care and services;

c. Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health;

d. Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;

e. Responsible parenthood.

f. Use and application of natural and modern family planning methods to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies;

g. Abstinence before marriage;

h. Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders;

i. Responsible sexuality; and

j. Maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services.

In support of the natural, and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth, the POPCOM shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their children.

In the elementary level, reproductive health education shall focus, among others, on values formation.

Non-formal education programs shall likewise include the abovementioned reproductive Health Education.

SEC. 13. Additional Duty of Family Planning 0ffice. – Each local Family Planning Office shall furnish for free instructions and information on family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition to all applicants for marriage license.

SEC. 14. Certificate of Compliance. – No marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the local Family Planning Office certifying that they had duly received adequate instructions and information on family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition.

SEC. 15. Capability Building of Community-Based Volunteer Workers. – Community-based volunteer workers, like but not limited to, Barangay Health Workers, shall undergo additional and updated training on the delivery of reproductive health care services and shall receive not less than 10% increase in honoraria upon successful completion of training. The increase in honoraria shall be funded from the Gender and Development (GAD) budget of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

SEC. 16. Ideal Family Size. – The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.

SEC. 17. Employers’ Responsibilities. – Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment.

All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.

SEC. 18. Support of Private and Non-government Health Care Service Providers. – Pursuant to Section 5(b) hereof, private reproductive health care service providers, including but not limited to gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to join their colleagues in non-government organizations in rendering such services free of charge or at reduced professional fee rates to indigent and low income patients.

SEC. 19. Multi-Media Campaign. – POPCOM shall initiate and sustain an intensified nationwide multi-media campaign to raise the level of public awareness on the urgent need to protect and promote reproductive health and rights.

SEC. 20. Reporting Requirements. – Before the end of April of each year,the DOH shall submit an annual report to the President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on a definitive and comprehensive assessment of the implementation of this Act and shall make the necessary recommendations for executive and legislative action. The report shall be posted in the website of DOH and printed copies shall be made available to all stakeholders.

SEC. 21. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are prohibited:

a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall:

1. Knowingly withhold information or impede the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods;

2. Refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization.

3. Refuse to provide reproductive health care services to an abused minor, whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or personnel of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or to duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary.

4. Fail to provide, either deliberately or through gross or inexcusable negligence, reproductive health care services as mandated under this Act, the Local Government Code of 1991, the Labor Code, and Presidential Decree 79, as amended; and

5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work; Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible: Provided, finally, That the patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in RA 8344 penalizing the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases.

b) Any public official who prohibits or restricts personally or through a subordinate the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning;

c) Any employer who shall fail to comply with his obligation under Section 17 of this Act or an employer who requires a female applicant or employee, as a condition for employment or continued employment, to involuntarily undergo sterilization, tubal ligation or any other form of contraceptive method;

d) Any person who shall falsify a certificate of compliance as required in Section 14 of this Act; and

e) Any person who maliciously en ges in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.

SEC. 22. Penalties. – The proper city or municipal court shall exercise jurisdiction over violations of this Act and the accused who is found guilty shall be sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president, treasurer, secretary or any responsible officer. An offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. An offender who is a public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the government service.

Violators of this Act shall be civilly liable to the offended party in such amount at the discretion of the proper court.

SEC. 23. Appropriations. – The amounts appropriated in the current annual General Appropriations Act for reproductive health and family planning under the DOH and POPCOM together with ten percent (10%) of the Gender and Development (GAD) budgets of all government departments, agencies, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities funded in the annual General Appropriations Act in accordance with Republic Act No. 7192 (Women in Development and Nation-building Act) and Executive Order No. 273 (Philippine Plan for Gender Responsive Development 1995-2025) shall be allocated and utilized for the implementation of this Act. Such additional sums as may be necessary for the effective implementation of this Act shall be Included in the subsequent years’ General Appropriations Acts.

SEC. 24. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, the Department of Health shall promulgate, after thorough consultation with the Commission on Population (POPCOM), the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), concerned non-government organizations (NGOs) and known reproductive health advocates, the requisite implementing rules and regulations.

SEC. 25. Separability Clause. – If any part, section or provision of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, other provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 26. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, Orders, issuances, rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 27. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of national circulation.

Futility of Prayers

2009-07-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

Religion promotes superstitious wishful thinking. This naive attitude is usually expressed in prayers. It is assumed that prayers are means of communicating with the divine but it seems that “communication” in this case is actually just a monologue. Shouting inside a cave might be more effective than praying because at least you will get an immediate response.

At best, the answers of a deity or deities to prayers are subject to the interpretation of the believers. For instance, some say that the Judeo-Christian God answers prayers in three ways, namely, YES, NO, and WAIT. However, this statement does not make much sense; it is tantamount to saying that God is really unreliable when it comes to answering prayers. You can pray to a potato and you will surely receive the same three possible answers of YES, NO, and WAIT depending on your own interpretation.

Assuming that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent and all-wise God does exist, praying would be self-contradictory and futile because of four main reasons:

1. If God is all-knowing or omniscient, prayers are not necessary because he already knows what we need. It would be redundant to constantly remind God of the things that we need or want.

2. If God has a divine plan (e.g., the manner and time of death of a love one), many types of prayers are meaningless if they contradict this plan.

3. If God is all-wise, prayers are meaningless because we mere mortals cannot change the mind of God by pointing out certain deficiencies in our lives. Even these deficiencies may actually have their own purpose.

4. Prayers of thanks and praise are merely ego-boosting. How can an omnipotent and omniscient God benefit from our expression of gratitude and flattery?

Revelation

2009-06-20T09:59:00.000-07:00

For almost three years now since I have started this blog, I have somewhat kept this blog secret from my wife. Thankfully, she is not really fond of searching my name in Google. Otherwise, she would have easily found this blog. Although my wife knows that I have several blogs, I have not put emphasis on this particular blogsite. In one hand, I was ambivalent about revealing the existence of this blogsite to my wife in fear that she would be angry at me. After all, I was the one who converted her to Mormonism. When I became an atheist, I thought she would feel somewhat betrayed if she found out about my new conviction. I really did not want to hurt her feelings. At the same time, I did not have any intention of converting her to atheism. On the other hand, I also wanted her to understand me. It is ironic that in the back of my mind I was really half-hoping that she would read this blog so that she could understand me better.

It was really a gradual process before I have finally revealed to her the existence of this blogsite. It took almost three years. I first became inactive in attending church services. Some circumstances also contributed to our lost of enthusiasm to attend church services. One of which was my job relocation. We were seldom able to go to our local Mormon church because of the impractical distance. It gave me the opportunity to gradually show her the doctrinal and historical errors of the Mormon Church.

However, I have not fully revealed my atheism. I just told her that I was just seeking the truth. I have not discouraged her to pray or believe in God. In fact, I have not even protested when she started teaching our three-year old son how to pray. She has her own convictions but she was not really fanatic about the Mormon Church. She too eventually became inactive from attending church services even when we finally returned to our former residence after I was retrenched from my job. However, I still saw that she still had some emotional attachment to our unofficially "former" religion. We often confide with each other about the merits of having a religion, especially now that our son is already starting to have questions about certain religious-related things he sees on television and learns from his playmates. Our son also has recently started pre-school class.

It was only about two weeks ago that I finally encouraged my wife to read about this blogsite. We previously had some discussions about religion in general. After some sort of debate, we both agreed that science is a better and more reliable test of reality compared to religion. It actually started with a dinner table discussion. We were then planning her return to school. She was then thinking of taking up a course in physics. Our conversation eventually led to a discussion about the origin and nature of the cosmos as defined by physics. In the course of our conversation, it became clear to her that I do not anymore believe in an intelligent designer. She was not angry, surprised or depressed when I finally revealed to her that I am an atheist. She told me that she already knew. She just did not want me to be pontifical about it.

Selective Abomination

2008-09-28T05:57:00.000-07:00

When religious leaders and intolerant conservatives condemn something as immoral or abomination, they have the ever-reliable quotations from the bible. They will hurl all sorts of pestilence on you if you happen to disagree with them. How can mere mortals ever question the wisdom of God? Well, the reality about this judgmental attitude of most "righteous" religious people is that they suffer from selective bible quotation syndrome (SBQS). They always try to retrofit verses to support their agenda. They would select one passage of "absolute truth" but ignore others. One best example this SBQS is the issue of homosexuality. Most religious conservatives would quote Leviticus 18:22 to prove that homosexuality is immoral and unacceptable. One notable conservative is Dr. Laura Schlesinger. She once mentioned in her radio show that homosexuality should not be condoned under any circumstance because the bible declares it to be an abomination. One listener of the radio show posted this open letter in response to Dr. Laura's assertion:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned > in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring > > > nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but > > > not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if > I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

A Hypocritical Concession

2008-09-22T16:40:00.000-07:00

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." -- 1 Timothy 6:10

The Bible supposedly covers all moral issues. However, it does not specifically have commandment that condemn gambling. This is perhaps the main reason why the some Christian churches, particularly the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, condones and even encourages gambling for a cause. Community Bingos, raffle draws, lottery, and online casinos are some of the main sources of revenues of established churches. In the Philippines, for instance, the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has regular cut on the proceeds of the government-owned casino, the Casino Filipino, and other big online casinos. It also gladly accepts money from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes and Lotto Office.

It seems that the Philippine Catholic hierarchy has a double standard when it comes to gambling. In one hand, the bishops and priests condemn lesser forms of gambling, particularly the illegal number game of the masses, jueteng. On the other hand, the same hierarchy seems to tolerate and even encourage big-time gambling, including casinos. The hypocrisy does not end here. There are some reported incidences that local parish churches also receive proceeds from local jueteng lords as regular contribution for so-called charity works, such as funding the building of churches and supporting the personal vices of corrupt priests.

There was once a time that the late Jaime Cardinal Sin (what a coincidental pun!) was quoted in the media saying: "Even if it would take talking to the devil, if it would mean peace, I will talk to the devil. And I was even willing to use the money of evil in order to help the poor." I never thought that Robin Hood philosophy is incorporated in Catholic theology.

Atonement: Paying Your Debt in Full

2008-09-04T23:28:00.000-07:00

The Christian faith is hinged on the concept of atonement. Through the death of a deity, the sins of mankind was supposedly been paid in full. It is the perfect debt consolidation! All your past sins and future sins are already forgiven if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Well, it is a very successful idea that has survived over two millennia. It is a concept that is touching and sentimental. It appeals to the conscience and sense of gratitude of the believers. What could be more humbling than the idea that the Son of God has sacrificed himself in order for you to be saved?

However, the concept of atonement is not an original Christian concept. It was originally developed by the Jews and other ancient people centuries before Christianity. The ritual of animal and human sacrifices was practiced to pacify the wrath of angry gods. In Judaism, animal sacrifices were done as means of cleaning a person of his sins. In the process, the temple priests had their regular supply of lamb meat or mutton. A whole industry grew out of the idea of atonement.

When Christianity was developed, Jesus was dogmatically elevated to the rank of ultimate sacrificial lamb. He became the high priest and arbiter between God and man. He was seen as the unblemished lamb that was the only acceptable offer to God. On the other hand, the Church grew as some sort of non profit debt company catering to the needs of the sinful but repentant flock. If you become a Christian, all your debts to God will be fully paid because Jesus is supposedly acting as your guarantor. The Church merely facilitates the process.

Divine debt settlement, however, is not as simple as it may seem. It has the duality of coercion and sympathy-manipulation. If you do not believe in Jesus as savior, you will be eternally damned in hell. Well, that is the coercion component. On the other hand, the sympathy-manipulation component is the idea that Jesus have acted as your proxy in accepting all the punishments that you are supposed to suffer. If that were true, then Jesus must also languish in hell for eternity. Hmmm… something is inconsistent about this atonement business.

Six Degrees of Separation

2008-09-03T03:06:00.000-07:00

Do you have many friends? How did you meet them? It is highly probable that you met most of your friends in your neighborhood, school, and at work. On the other hand, you may also have friends whom you met in the internet. With today's high-tech communication, it is possible to meet anybody regardless of the geographical or cultural boundaries. The world has been made smaller by technology. Modern communication, particularly the internet, created a global community that was not possible before. The community that it created is a trans-generational, trans-cultural, and trans-geographical community. It is a virtual community that exists as electronic digital packets of data. The rules and means might be different but the principles of social networking still apply. It is either you meet someone as complete stranger or you are introduced by someone who know you both. Through incidental meetings and common interest, long-lasting friendships and even romances might develop.

Common wisdom tells us that everyone else in the world is separated by an average of six degrees of separation. Considering the technological connections, the average six degrees of separation might actually be smaller than six degrees. This means that even with the world's more than six-billion population, it is within the realm of possibility that you can meet just anybody else. You can prove this by simply entering an internet chat room. However, how about those who do not have access to the internet?

Meeting the Vicar of Christ

On the other hand, how about those celebrities, world leaders, and other important persons? Do you still have a chance of meeting them? For instance, if you want to meet the pope, what social channels you should take? If you are not a Catholic and you have low socio-economic status, you will need many go-betweens to have audience with the pontiff. You also must have a serious reason of wanting to meet the Holy Father. Of course, this should not include assassination attempt. Assuming that you are an ordinary citizen and not a terrorist, the most common channels that you should take would be like this:

1.) First, you must talk to a Catholic priest about your desire of meeting the pope (you must provide important reason for this such as seeing an apparition of the Virgin Mary on your breakfast bread toast);

2.) Second, the parish priest must talk to his superior or diocese bishop for approval. A formal letter of request might be needed;

3.) Third, the bishop or religious superior must contact the papal nuncio;

4.) Fourth, the papal nuncio must then have an appointment with the Camerlengo or Papal Chamberlain;

5.) Fifth, the Camerlengo might directly schedule an audience and also initiate background investigation on you. On the other hand, your request for audience with the pope might be referred to a special investigative body that is in-charge of miracles and apparition;

6.) If your request is finally approved following strict protocols, you may then have an audience with the pope.

There you have it. It's the classical six degrees of separation. Well, I made-up some of the steps to retrofit the concept but it is a good illustration, don't you think? If you are still not convince of the "six degrees of separation" concept, maybe it is time that you start submitting your request for audience with the Vicar of Christ.

The Milgram Experiment

A more scientific study actually had been conducted to test the validity of the "six degrees of separation" concept. It was the Milgram Small World Experiment. The experiment was conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1967. It was also Milgram who conducted the controversial Obedience Experiment in 1974. The small world experiment sought to find out the the average path of social networks in the United States. Although Milgram did not actually use the term "six degrees of separation," the experiment provided a clue on the average number of people that separates two complete strangers. The experiment yielded the result of 5.5 average. Milgram used chain letters that he randomly sent to a certain number of people. The experiment procedure is detailed below:

Though the experiment went through several variations, Milgram typically chose individuals in the U.S. cities of Omaha, Nebraska and Wichita, Kansas to be the starting points and Boston, Massachusetts to be the end point of a chain of correspondence. These cities were selected because they represented a great distance in the United States, both socially and geographically.^[1]
Information packets were initially sent to randomly selected individuals in Omaha or Wichita. They included letters, which detailed the study's purpose, and basic information about a target contact person in Boston. It additionally contained a roster on which they could write their own name, as well as business reply cards that were pre-addressed to Harvard.
Upon receiving the invitation to participate, the recipient was asked whether he or she personally knew the contact person described in the letter. If so, the person was to forward the letter directly to that person. For the purposes of this study, knowing someone "personally" is defined as knowing them on a first-name basis.
In the more likely case that the person did not personally know the target, then the person was to think of a friend or relative they know personally that is more likely to know the target. They were then directed to sign their name on the roster and forward the packet to that person. A postcard was also mailed to the researchers at Harvard so that they could track the chain's progression toward the target.
When and if the package eventually reached the contact person in Boston, the researchers could examine the roster to count the number of times it had been forwarded from person to person. Additionally, for packages that never reached the destination, the incoming postcards helped identify the break point in the chain.

Results

Shortly after the experiments began, letters would begin arriving to the targets and the researchers would receive postcards from the respondents. Sometimes the packet would arrive to the target in as few as one or two hops, while some chains were composed of as many as nine or ten links. However, a significant problem was that often people refused to pass the letter forward, and thus the chain never reached its destination. In one case, 232 of the 296 letters never reached the destination.^[2]

However, 64 of the letters eventually did reach the target contact. Among these chains, the average path length fell around 5.5 or six. Hence, the researchers concluded that people in the United States are separated by about six people on average. And, although Milgram himself never used the phrase "six degrees of separation", these findings likely contributed to its widespread acceptance.^[1]

In an experiment in which 160 letters were mailed out, 24 reached the target in his Sharon, Massachusetts home. Of those 24, 16 were given to the target person by the same person Milgram calls "Mr. Jacobs", a clothing merchant. Of those that reached him at his office, more than half came from two other men.^[3]

The researchers used the postcards to qualitatively examine the types of chains that are created. Generally, the package quickly reached a close geographic proximity, but would circle the target almost randomly until it found the target's inner circle of friends.^[2] This suggests that participants strongly favored geographic characteristics when choosing an appropriate next person in the chain.

Moral Relativism

2008-07-18T07:04:00.000-07:00

Fundamentalist Christians and other religious fanatics have this tendency to feel superior over other people when it comes to the issue of morality. They are usually deluded into thinking that their so-called “righteousness” sets them apart from the rest of the sinners. They think that their moral codes are divinely promulgated, absolute, and beyond question. This feeling of moral ascendancy is strong enough to make them numb of the reality of things. Their world view is over-simplified and always based on the template imposed by their faith. It is a faith that is not based on facts but merely on arbitrary hunches. Morality for most religious fanatics is absolute and has no cultural dimension.

This confident assertion of moral absolutism only leads to bigotry. Religious fanatics are sometimes too narrow-minded to realize that majority of human actions or behaviors cannot easily be classified as good or bad, moral or immoral. Cultural differences should be taken into consideration. Culture varies across time and space. Culture is a primary determining factor of people’s mindset and behavior. Even religion is culturally-based. Hence, morality cannot absolutely be dictated by one particular religion. The sense of right and wrong varies from one culture to another, from one generation to the next.

Take for instance the case of slavery. Even within the Christian religion, the moral concept about slavery has changed over the centuries. Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians has this to say about slaves:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling…”

Saint Paul never explicitly condemned slavery as something that is immoral. He instead counseled slaves to be simply submissive to their masters. This same idea of submission has been invoked by slave traders and owners as justification for their involvement in slavery. In the US, it took a civil war and a century of struggle to completely grant citizen’s rights to the black people.

Today, however, no right-thinking Christian preacher would publicly assert that slavery is morally right or even tolerable. Why the change of view? The truth is that Christian values also evolve over the centuries. Most Christians today would cringe on some of the moral predispositions of their forebears. Hence, morality is not absolute. If you were going to retrace the history of Christianity, you will realize that it has radically changed its moral stand on certain issues. How can now Christians preach moral absolutism if Christian doctrines are evolving?

Religious Addiction

2008-07-09T09:43:00.000-07:00

If you get addicted to drugs, a drug treatment center can help you. However, if you get addicted to religion, no formal institution is conveniently available. Religious addiction is as destructive as drug addiction or alcoholism. The big difference is that society tolerates religious addiction even if it leads to financial and psychological ruin. Society even has this bias for former religious addicts who decided to go “cold turkey.” Most people do not even realize that religious fanaticism or fundamentalism is a form of addiction. It is an addiction that is being sustained by the strong conviction in believing in something that is not really based on facts.

Religious addiction that is tantamount to fanaticism is far more dangerous than mere drug addiction. If illicit drugs cause hallucinations, religions cause delusions. It causes the delusion of righteousness – the sense of superiority over other people. In the case of the Christian religion, it is the idea of being “saved” that sustains the addiction. For the sake of the idea of “being saved”, people are willing to abandon their rationality. On the other hand, for those who manage to be free from the society-imposed delusion find it hard to truly recover their sanity. If drug addicts can rely on a drug rehab center, religious addicts cannot expect to have the same support. If a drug treatment program is readily available for those who want to be rehabilitated, no similar program can be availed by former religious addicts.

The Problem of Evil

2008-05-28T00:46:00.000-07:00

In 1944 the Nazis decided to exterminate the children of the orphanage La Maison d'Izieu. Forty-four little children were deported to Auschwitz and murdered immediately upon arrival.

Eleven-year-old Liliane Gerenstein was sent to her death a few days after she wrote this letter to God:

Dear God,

God? How good You are, how kind and if one had to count the number of goodnesses and kindnesses You have done, one would never finish.

God? It is You who command. It is You who are justice, it is You who reward the good and punish the evil.

God? It is thanks to You that I had a beautiful life before, that I was spoiled, that I had lovely things that others do not have.

God? After that, I ask You one thing only: Make my parents come back, my poor parents protect them (even more than You protect me) so that I can see them again as soon as possible.

Make them come back again. Ah! I had such a good mother and such a good father! I have such faith in You and I thank You in advance.

Love,

Liliane

The letter was found in April 1944 in the abandoned home in Izieu. Liliane's mother had been deported and was already murdered. Her father, Chapse, miraculously survived the horrors of the Holocaust and emigrated to the United States after the war. He died in 1979, never knowing the fate of his children.

Liliane was just just one of the millions of children who fell victims under the Nazi-enforced genocide during World War II. Some were experimented upon while others were directly sent to the gas chambers and their bodies incinerated or left to rot in shallow graves.

If God is indeed good, why then he allows such atrocities to happen to innocent children? God is supposed to be the father of all but he seems to be a negligent father. I am a father myself. I do not pretend to be a perfect father but as much as I can, within the boundaries of my ability, I never let any harm befall on my child. God is supposed to be more loving, powerful, and perfect, yet he allows his children to suffer senselessly.

The presence of evil in the world -- both man-made and natural -- is a strong argument against the existence of an all-powerful and benevolent God. The reality of senseless suffering negates the possibility of a perfect God who cares about his creation. If we mere mortals do all that we can to protect the welfare of our loved ones, what can we expect from an omnipotent being? A responsible and loving father will never allow his children to suffer senselessly if it is within his ability to do so. Hence, the characteristics of being omnipotent and omni-benevolent cannot simultaneously be present in God. He is either not capable of protecting the innocents or he simply does not care. In either case, the Christian concept about God becomes questionable.

Beyond Freedom and Responsibility

2008-01-15T04:00:00.000-08:00

Is there such thing as freedom or are we mere puppets on strings? In a purely deterministic, uncaring universe, where the laws of physics are applicable to all, freedom as we define it is impossible. In a universe where a supreme, all-knowing, all-powerful God exists, freedom is also equally impossible. Well, the more accurate term to use here is freewill. Freewill can be defined as the ability to choose without intimidation or compelling force. Freewill presupposes deliberation. Hence, a person with freewill can be fully held responsible for his or her actions. It is on the idea of freewill on which the judicial system, particularly criminal law hinges. How can you punish someone if he or she does not have the ability to contemplate the consequence of his or her actions? Hence, insanity is a mitigating circumstance when it comes to criminal jurisprudence. However, even insane persons still have some degree of contemplation.

The universe, as we know it, is governed by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are applicable to everything that exists – from the smallest particles to the grandest galaxies. The laws of physics are deterministic. This means that for every effect, there is a traceable series of causes. For instance, if you are familiar with playing billiards, you will notice that the path of a ball can be guided depending on the force, angle and direction of the pole hitting that particular ball. The level, surface contour and stability of the billiard table are also determining factors. The same deterministic principles also apply in the way our brain works. Our consciousness, thought patterns and sense of identity are all determined by the biochemical and electrical reactions that are occurring in our brains. If you change, any of these parameters, the brain processes also change. This can readily be observed in people who take mind-altering drugs or people that suffer from brain injuries.

On the other hand, the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful God is also incompatible with freewill. For a God to be all-knowing, everything must be predestined. Otherwise, God will not know in advance. Ironically, the concept of God and a purely deterministic universe are logically agreeable with each other. In order for God to know everything from beginning to end, it would require everything to be pre-programmed and scripted as if God would simply watch a film that he directed and written.

If you ask me if I personally believe in freewill, my answer is yes. This is because I do not believe in a deterministic universe that is purely governed by the laws of physics or by a supreme God. I believe in a probabilistic universe – a universe where probability or chance exists. The theory that supports this idea is the Chaos Theory, which I think deserves a separate blog post.

O Little Town of Bethlehem

2007-12-26T22:31:00.000-08:00

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." --Micah 5:2 (777-717 B.C.)

This is a story that has been told countless of times in various languages, modes, places, cultures and generations. There might be several versions of the story but the basic message has remained the same. If the biblical story were true, then, the first Christmas was indeed a pivotal event in the history of the human race. For Christians, it was a defining moment that heralded the greatest gift of all. Although the gift did not come in fancy wrappings, its value was more than the entire wealth of the world. The first Christmas was a moment when the divine was manifested in the flesh. The first Christmas was the beginning of a love story that had its fullest expression on Calvary.

Well, that is as far as the Christian doctrines are concerned. The story of Christmas is powerful not because of the details regarding the singing choir of angels or the visiting magi. The Christmas story is powerful because it touches the heart. What could be more touching than a story about the birth of the son of God in a very humble place? How many would have had expected that the messiah would be born in a manger? The Jews had anticipated that the messiah to be of royal descent. Being born in a lodging intended for domestic animals hardly described a royal birth. Nonetheless, for Christians, the baby that was born in that manger was more than a king. That baby was the savior of mankind and was God incarnate.

I might not believe in the historical validity of the Christmas story and I might not even believe that the event was of divine origin, but I am impressed by its basic message. The debate on whether the Christmas story was just a myth or a legend is beside the point. Even myths and legends have the capacity to inspire, but none has made the greatest impact than the story of Christmas. I might doubt Christmas as an actual historical event, but I cannot deny the fact that it is more than a story. It is a cultural phenomenon -- a patchwork of different stories of people who were touched by its message. As a cultural phenomenon, Christmas has great influence over believers and non-believers alike. Some of my fondest and earliest memories are connected to Christmas.

Christmas has always reminded me of the really important things. I do not want to make this sound cheesy or cliché, but more than the gifts, parties, foods, and drinks, Christmas is really about family. There are no other holidays that have the same unifying spirit as Christmas when it comes to family.

Like the family that was stranded in Bethlehem more than two-thousand years ago, we must also able to find hope even in the most dire of situations and even in the most humble of places. If it were only for this merit, I would be willing to believe in miracles…

Ghost in the Machine

2007-12-01T04:14:00.000-08:00

If your car breaks down, you go to the mechanic to have it fixed. However, if it is a total wreck and beyond repair, you relegate it to the junkyard and buy a new one. If you are sick, you typically go to the doctor for treatment. However, if your ailment is beyond medical remedy and you are sure to die, you may either accept your fate without question or you may entertain the popular delusion of an afterlife. Most people have this wishful thinking that their consciousness can still survive even after physical death when all the cellular metabolic processes cease to function. This belief is tantamount into believing that the speed, torque, power and mileage of a totally wrecked car can still exist even without the car itself.

You might say that I am committing the logical fallacy of wrong analogy. You may say that human beings are different from cars. Inspiring as it is, the belief in the afterlife or the soul is just a belief. It is not founded on any verifiable scientific evidence. Its widespread popularity can simply be explained by our egocentric tendency to give too much importance on ourselves. This belief is fueled by the psychological need for purpose and reinforced by the social conditionings that are instituted in religions. Depending on the particular religion, there are actually different views regarding the existence of the soul. In Hinduism, for instance, the soul is believed to be reincarnated into different forms until it achieves perfection. In Buddhism, the idea of the immortal soul is more vague. Nirvanna is not really heaven in the Christian sense but a state where the sense of self is completely annihilated and become part of the cosmic consciousness. It is a state between being and non-being.

On the other hand, the Abrahamic, monotheistic religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity and Islam) generally assert that the individual souls will face divine judgement either immediately after death or on an appointed time. This appointed time is known as the final judgement where all the souls of the dead will be resurrected and will either receive eternal reward or eternal punishment. There are actually different doctrines concerning the idea of the immortality of the soul. Even the closely-affiliated Christian sects have different doctrines regarding this. Some sects support the idea that it is only during resurrection that the immortal soul becomes existent. On the other hand, there are sects that believe that the immortal soul is already incorporated in the physical body at the time of conception and will automatically face judgement after bodily death.

The different religious doctrines about the soul only prove that this belief is only arbitrary and culturally-determined. The overwhelming scientific evidences point out to the fact that the soul does not exist and cannot possibly exist. The so-called human soul or spirit can be reduced in terms of brain activities. These brain activities are determined by physical parameters such as biochemical reactions, synaptic or neural connections, and electrical impulses. If you change any of these parameters, the brain activities will also change. Hence, personality and state of consciousness can actually be manipulated. If the soul does exist, it is dependent on the physical existence of the brain. Without the brain, the soul is nothing. The idea of the soul is directly connected to the phenomenon of consciousness. Since we, human beings, as self-aware organisms, tend to disassociate our consciousness from physical existence. Consciousness is intangible. It cannot be seen or touched but it can be experienced. Hence, most of us think that consciousness is a non-physical process.

However, the overwhelming scientific evidences point to the opposite direction. Consciousness or soul is just a purely physical process that is governed by the laws of physics. If the brain is the hardware, then the soul is the software. The software cannot operate without the hardware. Even the so-called Near Death Experience can be duplicated in the laboratory by using strong electromagnets, electrical stimulations and introducing certain types of drugs into the blood stream of the subject. If the soul does exist, then the brain is unecessary. Nonetheless, it can easily be demostrated that the brain is the center of human identity, personality and consciousness.

Moments of Weakness

2007-11-06T07:07:00.000-08:00

It has been barely two months since I fully committed myself to the philosophy of atheism. As a recent convert, I still have emotional attachments to my former beliefs. Although I am intellectually convinced of the atheistic world view, there are still some vestigial religiosity left in my system. There are moments of weakness that I am tempted to pray to the imaginary God of my credulous former self. Am I reverting to superstitious theism? I do not think so, and I do not want to.

Perhaps the feeling is comparable to the "phantom limb" phenomenon felt by amputees. However, there is a big difference. There was actually nothing amputated from me except for my former delusions. Nonetheless, I cannot deny the emptiness that I feel. Losing faith is comparable to losing a love one. This feeling is similar to the grief that I felt when my mother died. This feeling of grief was reinforced when I recently visited my mother's tomb. There are moments between sleep and waking that I struggle to come to terms with reality. I try to call God only to realize that he is not there. Well, he was never there anyway. Unlike my mother, God never embraced me, talked to me, or sang me lullaby to put me to sleep. God never got worried about me whenever I get sick. He never got his hands dirty washing my clothes. God never bought me toys. God never went to the "sari-sari" store (a common neighborhood mini-grocery store here in the Philippines) just to beg the owner to lend him canned sardines and a kilo of rice so that my siblings and I could eat our dinner. However, my mother, with all her limitations, did all these things and more. Hence, mother was more real to me than God ever was.

Am I angry with God for taking my mother away? Not by any means! How can an imaginary god has anything to do with my mother's death? How can this supposedly omni-benevolent deity allowed by mother to suffer lingering pain all those years and suddenly end her life? I am totally insulted whenever somebody would say that that there was a divine purpose for the suffering that my mother endured. A god that who allows any type of suffering is demented and can be psychologically diagnosed as sadistic. It seems to me that the Christian God enjoys the suffering of humans. He even prepared hell for the purpose of torture. On the other hand, deity who submits himself to be tortured and executed can be perceived as masochistic. I simply find it absurd that Christians worship a sadomasochistic deity. A deity such as this is more fit to the lunatic asylum.

Although it has been more than a decade since my mother died, there are still moments that I feel grief-stricken. I miss my mother so much. If there is a heaven, I surely would wish that she is there. However, I do not think heaven does exist for the same reason that I do not think that God exists. The existence of God is as improbable as the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The internal contradictions about the concept of God are enough proofs that he is just a product of imagination. Although I recognize the merits of religion in providing hope for many people, this hope is meaningless simply because it is false.

Rationalizing Religion

2007-10-29T02:25:00.001-07:00

If religion, in general, is not founded on truth, then, why is it widely popular? All cultures throughout human generations, from prehistory until today practice one form of religion or another. Does this necessarily entail that there is indeed something that exists that can be considered as divine or at least mystical? Can the widespread belief in the supernatural be considered as direct proof of the existence of the supernatural? Is there really something more than what we can scientifically perceive, measure and speculate? Is there really a spiritual realm that is beyond the physical universe? Is is really true that the physical universe with all its laws, matter and energy is just a subset or subject of a bigger supernatural reality? Are the so-called miraculous and mystical experiences of some people can be considered as proofs of the direct interaction of the divine with us mere mortals? The simple logical answer to all of these questions is NO!

Although there are limits to our intellects and scientific inquiries, we can logically conclude that there is no such thing as supernatural or divine; well, this is at least in the sense of what the different religions claim. The proof for this assertion is actually very simple. Compare and contrast the beliefs and practices of the different religions in the world and you will realize that all of these are mutually contradictory if not totally antagonistic. Even within the same religious systems such as Christianity, there are many factions. How is it possible that contradictory beliefs be simultaneously true? if there is really divine revelation, then, the revelation should be universally applicable regardless of culture, language, ethnic background, time and geographical locations. If the physical laws of the universe are less important than the so-called divine laws, then, the divine laws should be more universally confirmed. There should be no room for any doubts. How come the Newtonian Laws of Motion are more universally applicable than the so-called laws of God found in different scriptures? If you examine these laws, you will realize that they are arbitrary,fallible and culturally-determined. Hence, they are debatable. Are we prepared to accept that the source of these so-called divine laws is also fallible? On the other hand, the basic laws of physics are not debatable. For instance, who in their right mind argue against the existence of gravity?

Generally speaking, religion is arbitrary. Chances are, the religion that you are practicing is imposed upon you by the society where you belong. Then, what could account for the widespread popularity of religion? Well, there are several scientific explanations for this phenomenon that are more logically convincing than the popular divine notion.

One common explanation got to do with the basic psychology of human beings. We, as conscious beings, are generally afraid to die. Death is a mystery to us. Most of us are uncomfortable with the thoughts that we would cease to exist. We are also equally uncomfortable with the thoughts that we will never see our love ones after death. For most people losing a love one is unbearable. Religion is appealing to people simply because of its general message of hope. Religion offers immortality and eternal bliss. However, this does not necessarily prove that the message of hope that religion bring is true. This simply means that religion answers a basic psychological need for comfort. Religion is our way of coping with the reality of death. Furthermore, as a psychological coping mechanism, religion offers a sense of universal justice. The concepts of heaven, hell, karma and reincarnation all fall within this category.

Another more reasonable explanation for the wide-spread popularity of religion is its arrogant but ignorant claim of the ability to explain everything from cosmology to human existence. Pre-scientific humans try to understand the world by means of religion. They resorted to creating legends, myths and deities to explain the forces and phenomena in nature.

Lastly, the popularity of religion can be explained in terms of sociological and political concepts, Religion is culturally-based and socially-enforced. Religion is a means whereby societies are formed and glued together. The ancient theocratic monarchies such as the Egyptian Pharaoh-centric governments are based on religion. Even today, there are nations that try to enforce the theocratic form of government, a government that is beyond question or accountability.

In the final analysis, religion is completely man-made. It has no divine or supernatural origin simply because it is arbitrary. In the beginning, man created God in his own image and not the other way around. The author of Genesis had got it all wrong!

The Philosophy of Socrates

2007-10-21T01:32:00.000-07:00

“The unexamined life is not worth living...”
-- Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.)

The above quotation had been uttered by that great Greek philosopher more than two-thousand years ago. It is true today as it was true then. Socrates died poor, rejected and misunderstood. He chose to drink the extract of the poisonous hemlock than to give up his principles. He had the chance to escape but he chose to stay and face martyrdom. Hence, he can be considered as one of the first martyrs for the cause of rationalism.

Socrates was not executed but he was ordered to take his own life. It was the reward of the city-state of Athens to a man who simply encouraged critical thinking. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth and he was condemned accordingly. If questioning the established order was a crime, then Socrates was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Socrates taught his students to question the validity of virtually everything. He never claimed to be a teacher of truth but just a learner himself. His method of teaching was dialectical. It was a method whereby he posited questions and his students tried to find the answers on their own through discussions and debates. Hence, syntheses of ideas were formed from theses and anti-theses.

One of the many things that Socrates questioned was the polytheist religion of his time. The rich Greek mythology that we know today was formerly a religion that was believed by many. Socrates doubted the existence of the Greek gods and the many stories related to them. He asked if the gods really do exist or they were mere personification of the forces of nature invented by humans and given human attributes.

However, Socrates was far from being an atheist. Nonetheless, his religion was more rationally-based and morally superior than the polytheist religion of his time. He was a Deist. He strongly influenced Aristotle’s idea of the “transcendent unmoved-mover.” Socrates hinted the idea of a supreme being who created the cosmos. On the other hand, when it comes to ethics, Socrates’ adhere to the principle of the summum bonum or supreme good. This principle is sometimes corrupted to the idea of greatest good for the greatest number. Socrates religious and moral philosophy were more akin to the Christian philosophy. In fact, a significant number of theological ideas of Christianity were based on the teachings of Socrates and other ancient Greek Philosophers. The great triumvirate of ancient philosophy was composed of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

Socrates’ assertion quoted above has a corollary. If it is applied to religion, the corollary would be: “The unexamined faith is not worth having.” How many religious people have made honest examinations of their faith? Faith is meaningless if it is only based on mere subjective feelings or delusions. Christian faith, for instance, hinges on the supposed historical resurrection of Jesus Christ -- as Saint Paul has written: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith..” (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Now, if you are a Christian, have you ever asked yourself the basis of your beliefs? Have you ever wondered if your religion is valid? Do your beliefs merely rely on feelings and hearsays? Is your religion unshakably founded on truth or it has no rational foundations whatsoever? If you haven’t yet tried examining your faith, then, it is a faith not worth having.

Hate Messages

2007-10-12T02:22:00.000-07:00

This is probably a waste of time, but I will blog about it anyway. Lately, I have been receiving hate messages posted on my Meebo Box. Those messages are not even fit to be posted here. Obviously, whoever posted those messages has read this blogsite. From the clear ad hominem attacks that the reader or those readers have made, I would presume that I have hurt someone's religious, self-righteous senses. I only hope that it was not some berserk mujajeden or fundamentalist fanatic trying to avenge his or her cosmic father in the sky.
What can I say to whoever posted those malicious messages? Well, for one thing, he or she is a coward who does not even have the decency to identify himself or herself. This is not an ad hominem attack but just a mere statement of fact. Secondly, whoever posted those messages was clearly incapable of any rational and civil debate. Well, this only proves what kind of God this person is worshipping.

This blogsite was created without the intention of pleasing anyone. On the other hand, this blogsite was also created without the intention of hurting anyone. This blogsite was created to simply express my views as an atheist. I do not even intend to convert people. Honestly, I am depressed about my atheism; it is hardly an inspiring philosophy but it is the most convincing philosophy that I have ever encountered. I would not be an atheist if I had a choice, but the force of reason compels me.

If somebody reading this blogsite is abhorred by its contents, well, stop reading. However, if civil and rational discussion is what you want, you can simply post sensible comments and I will reply accordingly.
Finally, to whoever posted those hate messages, stop doing it or at least have the courage to make it public. You are only worsening the already damaged reputation of your God or gods by posting those senseless messages. You are only demonstrating your ignorance and fanatic delusions.

Christian Fundamentalism

2007-10-08T02:30:00.000-07:00

You might not be aware of it, but you might already be suffering from a hard-to-cure, common malady known as Christian Fundamentalism. Generally, this malady may not have any adverse effects. At best, it may only cause occassional mutterings of words called prayers. But at its worst, it may cause sudden convulsions that may send you rolling on the floor like an epileptic patient. Sufferers from this worst case are sometimes called "being slain in the spirit". Here is a list of top ten signs that indicate that you might be suffering from this psychological malady:

I. You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

II. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

III. Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!

IV. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

V. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

VI. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”

VII. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.

VIII. You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

IX. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

X. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

The Five Ways of Aquinas

2007-10-07T02:44:00.000-07:00

Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the best scholastic philosophers of the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas provided logical grounds for significant number of Catholic dogmas. Hence, he is considered as a doctor and one of the early fathers of the church. Like other scholastics, Thomas Aquinas used the Greco-Roman philosophy, particularly the Aristotelian logic, to provide rational foundation for faith. Aquinas greatest work was the voluminous Summa Theologica. In this work, Aquinas presented five logical proofs about the existence of God. These proofs are more commonly known as the quinquae viae or five ways.

Here is the summary of these so-called proofs:

I. First Way: The Argument from Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:

1) Nothing can move itself.

2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.

3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God

II. Second Way: Causation of Existence

This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the argument this way:

1) There exist things that are caused (created) by other things.

2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)

3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.

4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.

III. Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects

This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:

1) Contingent beings are caused.

2) Not every being can be contingent.

3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.

4) This necessary being is God.

IV. Fourth Way: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

V. Fifth Way: The Argument from Intelligent Design

The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer.

At first glance, the proofs of Saint Thomas seem very convincing. However, these arguments are full of logical loopholes and inconsistencies. Saint Thomas was guilty of jumping into conclusions without any empirical support. Hence, it was comparable to jumping from an airplane without a parachute. However, he cannot be totally blamed for this. His way of thinking was just the predictable product of Medieval Catholic Church theological and psychological conditioning, which during that time was the most reliable form of "science."

Let me briefly discuss each argument:

I. First Way: The Argument from Motion

This argument has committed the logical fallacy known as begging the question. This argument posited more questions than answers. Aquinas concluded that the first mover must be God. However, what motivated God to make the first move? Although motion cannot have infinite regression, this argument assumed that God had been either not moving from infinity or he has been moving ever since. What then is the source of his energy? If nothing can move itself, how then God was able to move himself?

Cosmologically, it can also be equally valid that an impersonal, unconscious force or energy was the first unmoved mover. For instance, according to the Big Bag Theory, all motions, space, energy and matter can be traced back to a singularity at the beginning of the universe. This theory is supported by measurable and verifiable parameters such as the rate of expansion of the universe and the distances between galaxies.

II. Second Way: Causation of Existence

Saint Thomas Aquinas was partially right into thinking that anything that exists is caused by another. In this argument, he again used the assumption that there could be not infinite regression of causes. However, if this assumption was correct, then what caused God to exist? If nothing can cause itself to exist, how was God able to cause himself? If God has been in existence from infinity, what is the problem with a universe that has been in existence from infinity? This latter assumption is equally logical but much simpler and more probabale. Remember the basic equation of Einstein?

E=mc²

This equation implies that matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted to matter. It is logical to suppose that matter and energy have always been in existence. The universe as we know today might just be one of the many manifestations of the changes in matter and energy. On the other hand, apparent self-causation has been observed in sub-atomic particles in laboratory settings.

III. Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects

In this argument Saint Aquinas made the distinction between contingent or potential beings and necessary or actual beings. However, modern physics has demonstrated that there are really no strict definitions of such things. In a universe of probability and chaos, things may exist without necessarily being dependent of other things. On the other hand, as demonstrated by Einstein's equation, matter and energy are mutually dependent from each other. Hence, their contingency and necessity are reflexive.

IV. Fourth Way: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection

In this argument, Saint Aquinas attributed all positive absolutes to God as the standard for all things. But it can also be logically possible that God is the absolute perfection of evil. For instance, if there are degrees of cruelty, then God must be the cruelest being. If there are degrees of insanity, then God must be the perfectly insane being. Hence, the so-called standard of "perfection" can be applied to both good traits and bad traits simply because these traits have gradations or degrees of perfection.

V. Fifth Way: The Argument from Intelligent Design

This argument is also known as the teleological argument. This argument is also expounded on the watch-maker argument. The argument from design is used by theologians and fundamentalist preachers as the best argument for the existence of God. This argument has even taken the form of the so-called "creation science." However, this argument is scientifically and logically false.

Although the universe is admittedly complex and intricate, it does not necessarily mean that it requires a designer. Comparing the universe and biological systems to human-made objects such as a watch is committing a logical fallacy known as false analogy. The way the universe and biological systems operate is very different from the way man-made objects operate. If a complex object needs a creator or designer, what could be more complicated than a super-intelligent, all-powerful God? Who then created God?

Contrary to the assumption of an intelligent and purposeful designer, the universe and biological systems exhibit randomness and probability. If the universe and biological systems were purposely designed, then they must not have any superfluous traits.

This fifth argument is addressed and refuted by the Theory of Evolution. This argument deserves more detailed discussions. Hence, I will post a separate article for this.

Coming Out of the Closet

2007-10-06T19:05:00.000-07:00

If atheism is a religion, then, I am a recent zealous convert. I was born in a Catholic family but got married as a Mormon. I have never been passionate about any belief system as I am now passionate about atheism. I even created this blogsite to express my atheist views. Atheism is the most rationally convincing philosophy that I have encountered. Atheism has freed my mind from the bondage of superstitious religion.

Atheism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in the supernatural, particularly belief in gods (including the Christian god). My conversion to atheism was a long and difficult process. My atheism is ironic, considering that I was brought up in a particularly religious family and I was educated in a Jesuit-run school. My father, although a policeman by profession, is a minister of a charismatic Christian group. My grandmother was a devout Catholic. She was an active member of the CWL (Catholic Women's League). My mother was also a devout Catholic. My mother kept all sorts of statues of saints and would regularly pray the rosary. Although father was tolerant about all these, he sometimes had some religious but sober arguments with mother. However, father was never able to convince mother that praying to saints for intercession was a form of idolatry.

The minor religious debates between father and mother never led to animosity between them. They both had their “biblical reasons” and were firm in their beliefs. However, as little children, it was difficult and confusing for my siblings and me. Our sense or religious affinity became a bit schizophrenic. How was it possible that our parents were both Christians but have conflicting beliefs? This was the beginning of my doubt about the validity of religion.

It is also ironic that the subjects in moral philosophy and philosophy of religion that I took up in college further reinforced my religious doubts. Hence, I became a Deist. I still believed in a supreme being but I doubted all religions. Nonetheless, I still listened to various religious groups. There was even a time that I became a sympathizer (although not a member of Bro. Eli Soriano’s group). I was even persuaded by an Iglesia ni Cristo minister to be indoctrinated. However, I was never baptized in the INC. Then the Mormon missionaries came to our house. The Mormon missionaries were the most friendly and amiable religious missionaries that I ever met. Unlike Bro. Eli’s group or INC ministers, the Mormon missionaries never struck me as arrogant or self-righteous. To cut a long story short, I was baptized as a Mormon. I got married as a Mormon. My wife and I became devout Mormons, attending church worship services and actively participating in different activities. Superficially, I am still a Mormon. However, when I probed into the deeper doctrines and history of the Mormon Church, I discovered that the church is a fraud. It cannot even be considered as a Christian church! My religious confusion just got worst. I felt betrayed!

So, I became an agnostic. My agnosticism led me to atheism. Atheistic philosophy is the most morally and logically convincing philosophy that I ever encountered. I became free from the bondage of confusion and fear that religion brings. Although I still recognize the merits of religion, I am convinced that religion only offers false hope. Presently, my wife and church friends are still unaware of my atheism. Hence, to some extent, I am still a “closet atheist”. My conversion to atheism was difficult but it gave me the freedom to think.

Signifying Nothing

2007-10-04T19:04:00.000-07:00

"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
-- (Act V, Scene V, Macbeth) William Shakespeare

The belief in the afterlife and in the divine is as ancient as the human consciousness itself. Religion began as the first self-conscious primate came into existence. There are evidences that indicate that even the earliest predecessors of the modern Homo sapiens such as the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals practiced some forms of primitive religions. For instance, archeologists were able to find rich amount of fossilized pollen grains in ancient, Stone Age grave sites. The pollen grains were indicative that flowers were being offered to the departed love ones of these ancient hominid species. In much later cultures, potteries, ornaments and other worldly belongings were also found buried with the remains of ancient humans. What could be made sense out of these? These are clear indications that the ancient people believed in the afterlife. Most likely, these ancient people thought that they could still use their worldly possessions after death.

The belief in the afterlife is clearly evident in many ancient cultures. Even if these different cultures had not had any contacts with each other, they shared similar beliefs about the afterlife. Typically, the afterlife is thought to better than this world. For instance, the ancient Nordic people such as the Vikings believed in a heaven-like Valhalla wherein the departed ones could enjoy good hunting, endless feasts and a lot of sex. Later religions made the belief in the afterlife more refined and abstract. For instance, the Christian religion thought of the ideal afterlife as unimaginable bliss (that is if you happen to be one of the lucky ones will be rewarded with an entry pass to heaven). Hence, the Apostle Paul had quoted in 1 Corinthians 2:9: “However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." This was actually a misquotation of Isaiah 64:4 which originally said: “Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.”

I do not know if Apostle Paul deliberately misquoted the scriptures just to prove his point. However, that is beside the issue. Like other religions, the Christian religion firmly believes in the afterlife. Nonetheless, does this seemingly universal belief in the afterlife and its corollaries are solid proofs of the reality of the afterlife? Not by any means! A belief is not proven to be true simply because there are many people who adhere to it. Testing for truth is not a mere popularity game. For instance, there was a time when virtually all people in the world believed that the earth was the center of the solar system. Some enlightened few who dared to contradict this general notion were imprisoned, humiliated and even burned alive at the stake. However, this geocentric theory was ultimately proven to be totally wrong. Arguing merely based on popularity is a common type of logical fallacy that is more technically known as argumentum ad populum or argument appealing to popularity.

Hence, the virtually universal belief about the afterlife and the divine is not a logical proof that the belief is indeed true. Ancient people merely invented the concept of the afterlife as a psychological coping mechanism to deal with their grief and fear of death. Even today, many people still believe in the afterlife simply because they want to comfort themselves. Death is something that they dread. However, if you think of it, if death is the complete and permanent cessation of consciousness, what is it to fear about it?