3. Faith

An unreasonable faith in reason

In a global human conscience that is being stimulated by Hollywood and enlightened by a steady, ubiquitous stream of 24 hour news cycle and celebrity endorsements that conditions our world-view, 'reason' stands guard at the gates of our minds like a bouncer outside a nightclub, letting in only what it deems 'reasonable' and discarding what is not. We take it for granted that capitalism and the free-market is the best economic policy available to us. It seems quite reasonable to believe that politicians that get elected by popular vote would hold the people and their best interests at heart. Statistics that indicate an ever increasing polarisation in the distribution of wealth and increasing levels of poverty in free market economies and facts that expose the blatant disregard for democratic values by politicians have yet been unable to unseat our entrenched beliefs or survive the onslaught of propaganda. Not so long ago, It was quite reasonable for rational and otherwise intelligent people to believe that the Earth was flat and that the Titanic was unsinkable!

It was possible for intelligent people to deduce that the Earth must be flat because 'reason' is merely conjecture that seems arguably true but not factually proven to be so; often because it is practically very difficult to prove with the available technology. It was reasonable to assume that the Earth must be flat as long as we lacked the means to find out for sure or prove otherwise. Indeed, it was logical to assume that if the Earth was anything but flat, people would fall off if they ventured too far! It was not until we could circumnavigate the Earth that the facts could be established that the earth could not be flat. Perhaps it is no accident that the fact had to be first established for the sharpest minds of the time like Sir Issac Newton to search ever harder to bring observed facts back within the borders of reason.

For centuries, science has been synonymous with 'reason' but the two actually have always had very little in common. True science can only deal with the measurable and the quantifiable, whereas reason is most often the process by which we attempt to quantify what is qualitative or practically immeasurable. It is important that we differentiate between the two because science in its essence is a strict discipline that relies fundamentally on facts and data that have been gathered by careful measurement and unbiased and meticulous observation. Indeed it would have been tempting for Johannes Kepler to doubt his measurements and ignore deviations in the data that did not fit into existing hypothesis, but it was his stubborn faithfulness to observation and measurement that led to the discovery that planets revolved around the sun in elliptical orbits. It was a bold and courageous move away from 'reason' and towards quantifiable facts that inspired the forefathers of the scientific revolution and gave credibility to the scientific method that they pioneered.

Early in the 19th century, Albert Einstein advocated the most unreasonable proposition the world had yet encountered. He argued that time is another dimension of space. His argument seemed so 'unreasonable' that, even though he managed to define the relationship between 'space' and 'time' in clear mathematical terms, it took the scientific community many years and experimental proof before the theory was accepted and the genius of Einstein was widely acknowledged. It is often the ability to peal away what commonly seems 'reasonable' and 'intutive' to uncover deeper truth that has been the halmark of genius. Marking an equally significant discovery that remains one of the most brilliant insights about our understanding of the universe, Werner Heisenberg showed in his principal of uncertainty that there is a calculable limit to how accurately we are able to measure the fundamental units of space and time. It is perhaps the most honest admission that science has yet made about its own limitations.

The theory of relativity and the principle of uncertainty are critical in the way they define how the scientific method is reliable only to the degree to which its observations are objective and its measurements are accurate. However, Messrs Einstein and Heisenberg have successfully argued that it is impossible to observe the 'relative' universe with absolute objectivity nor measure it beyond a calculable level of accuracy.

Practitioners of science, myself included, have no choice but to take it on faith that there must be some underlying order to the universe. When we learn about matter for example, the lessons eventually lead to molecules, how those molecules are made up of atoms and how atoms are made up of charged particles called electrons and protons that move, behave and react in predictable ways. These in turn, we are taught, are made up of sub-atomic particles. The tools we have built to observe the universe however are not sophisticated enough to accurately see - let alone measure - at the atomic scale. Neither our present limitations in the way we try to comprehend our immediate environment nor the scale of the cosmos has diminished our faith, in our own ability to understand 'how the universe works' - as indeed they should not. However it is humbling to remember that atomic theory - like the rest of science - has been revised many times in the past and there is no good reason to rule out the possibility that it may be completely overhauled in future. Observation has led us to admit that at the atomic and sub-atomic scale, we cannot clearly differentiate between particles and waves. Niether can we calculate of determine how they move or behave - all we can come up with is the probability that a certain particle would be at a certain point of region at a certain time.

Of course, the model we have established according to the atomic make up of matter and the space-time continuum of the universe is capable of explaining and predicting (with reasonable accuracy) most observable phenomena. It is also able to provide 'reasonable' answers to some of the philosophical as well as practical questions about the universe. It is reasonable to believe in a 'big bang' today, as it was reasonable to believe in a flat Earth a few centuries ago. Yet, all we have is 'strong evidence' at best and 'hypothesis' at worst - not proof - of the big bang or the existence of atoms and their sub-atomic particles for that matter. No one has actually "seen" any atoms or sub atomic particles - but only evidence for their existence. The truth is, what we know about the material make up of the universe is hinged on the 'probabilities' calculated at the atomic scale. The immensity of the number of atoms in most visible chunks of matter magnify those probabilities to the extent that the chaotic behaviour of individual atoms average out and the 'average' of their behaviour seems predictable and determinable.

It is not heresy to admit that there is an element of 'faith' in science. Faith has always been a cornerstone of science and will continue to be so. It is a controversial claim to make in the apparently deterministic world where reason and logic is hailed supreme, but it is demonstrably and irrefutably true. Science in its very core, is based on the 'faith' that their must be consistent laws laid out evenly across the whole universe, which we should be able to decipher using the cycle of hypothesis, experiment and observation.

The practice of science is a humbling experience because science already understands the limits of what is knowable. Even as the 20th century dawned, Max Plank had already derrived what seem to be fundamental units of space and time beyond which nothing would be measurable. Even though we are yet far from reaching the theoretical limits of what we can and cannot know, science indicates that space and time itself may not exist beyond the scale of plank units. We do not yet know of any technology that would enable us to observe space and time at the atomic scale and beyond. What we think we know about atoms and the movement of planets is at least in part conjecture because our measurements at both the inter-planetary scale as well as the atomic scale are crude and only vaguely accurate. Light does not shine on atoms, so we cast beams of electrons and observe their murky, poorly defined shadows. We use simple mechanics and classical geometry to measure or derive inter-planetary distances over which we already admit that space and time itself could be warped and subject to violent distortions within miniscule time intervals.

The fact that we are able to predict the motion of planets and predict the tides may yet leave room for us to ignore the level of tolerance that has been allowed for the inaccuracy of those measurements or the general assumptions that has allowed for intricate - but unnoticeable - details to be ignored. In being able to harness the enormous power of the atomic nucleus, we are tempted to over-estimate our understanding of its inner workings. As we bask in our mastery of the elements and the glory of our technological achievements, it is increasingly becoming ever easier to loose sight of the degree of faith that has enabled those advancements in technology.

The story of human evolution is unique among all the species on Earth because the success of our evolutionary enterprise so far has hinged on our superior cognitive ability to solve practical problems. History bears witness that the rate of our technological advancement is a reflection of our ability to solve practical problems. yet, this capacity to solve problems has been somewhat proportional to our willingness to subject our natural intuition, or 'reason' to the scrutiny of a process we now call the 'scientific method'. The fundamental requirement of faith in the practice of science and the employment of reason adds even more emphasis to the fact that our 'capacity to know' is overwhelmed more often than not, by a far more compelling 'need to believe'.

2. Faith

The tyranny of dogma

The stagnation of a culture or civilization, is often described by historians as its 'dark ages'. It is the inevitable outcome when the outflow of new ideas is stemmed by a slavish attachment to old ones. The shadows of time lengthen as the illuminating evolution of thought is driven to a standstill by tradition, where civilisation itself is held hostage by out-dated perceptions. This strangulation of a civilization's creative output has often coincided with - because they have often been the result of - dominance of religious or dogmatic faith within the political power structure.

A religion's demand of an unquestioning belief in its doctrines, in itself, is not only acceptable but may even be necessary for a person's spiritual growth; the same way that a training routine and a rigorous coaching regime is necessary for athletes to hone and improve their skills. Yet, religious doctrines which have enjoyed monopolies in satisfying our 'need to believe' has been exploited by politicians who had a keen interest in exercising total control over their subjects. Religious faith, where it has been used to claim political power and justify its execution, has enabled rulers to enforce their demand for compliance on a broader population. In most - if not all - of the present and historic examples we have, leaders who had both a religious backing to claim and maintain political power, have had far less incentive to be tolerant of those who dared challenge the political and religious dogmas they sponsored.

Political oppression that was sponsored by religious dogma has done much more to destroy our trust in religion than it has done to tarnish our trust in politics. The reformation, which was a religious movement both in its inception and at its core, when it swept through Europe and much of the world, has been unseating monarchies and dictatorships and establishing republics in its wake since the middle ages. Centuries on, the questioning spirit of the reformation has not only been democratising the political sphere of humanity, but has also led to the resurgence of the human intellect in the creative arts as well as the pure and applied sciences.

Ironically, this spirit of free inquiry that was borne out of the religious reformation, which actively encouraged subjecting dogma to reason, has led our threads of logic and reason on a collision course with the very foundations of what constitutes all 'faith'. Though aided and enabled by the manipulative power of religion, the oppression of free inquiry, the violent punishments meted out to those who exercised the innate curiosity of their human intellect and the discouragement of all intellectual pursuits is essentially a political exercise. These political practices may have evolved over the years to take different forms such as media censorship, the curtailment of public funding for education and the subjugation of research and knowledge creation processes to political and commercial interests. Limiting the efforts of their intellectual resources to only meet political or commercial interests has plunged constituencies around the world at different ages, into cycles of stagnation by stifling human creativity and expression.

The political power and influence of religion over their subjects has often been used by tyrants of history to justify their persecution of those who questioned the state by alluding a direct link between political action with religious doctrine and the claim of sovereignty by the ruling classes with a Divine ordination. The collusion between religious leaders and politicians that enabled the oppression of entire civilizations across many generations has eroded our trust in religion. The practical obstacles that stand in the way of separating religion from the state that are evident even today, continues to undermine any trust that is left in both religion and politics, even after centuries of constitutional and legislative reform of the political process.

The ability to manipulate the faith of its subjects is still an essential tool for every form of government. Some politicians do so by aligning themselves with what their constituencies believes to be just and acceptable systems of distributing the wealth of a nation; be it socialism, communism or capitalism. Societies that believe in the Divine anointment of their rulers may be prone to accept dictators or monarchs while those who believe in their own sovereignty would demand democracy. The people's choice of economic and political systems is therefore based on what they 'believe' to be fair and just. No political or economic system can be absolutely fair and just, yet we accept them because of our persistent 'faith' in the ideals they espouse. Therefore, because our political choices are also based on ‘faith’, the ability of laws and processes to separate the religious influence from politics will continue to be a significant challenge as far as most of what constitutes our faith is seen to be heavily concentrated and structured within a religious framework.

Perhaps there has always been a political and evolutionary imperative therefore, to find a counterbalance to the power of religion in human society. Perhaps there was always a necessity to find something visible to believe in, that is not a deity; and be able to seek its help without having to rely on the intercessions of an organised priesthood. But we are no longer merely sentient beings. We are cognitive beings; so why ‘believe’ when we have the power to ‘know’? Our ‘recently’ acquired ability to create machines and manipulate the environment in ways that previous generations may have thought impossible, has inclined us to underestimate the existence of a greater power than ourselves or a greater knowledge than what we already know (or more modestly put; what we think we can know). Technology seems to have empowered us to believe that we are in control. Therefore it is no coincidence that the twentieth century witnessed a significant shift in the balance of power away from the religious path of spiritual inquiry into the scientific path.

On a fundamental level therefore, religion and science share these common values despite their distinctively different approaches to uncovering 'higher truth'. For all the common ground that science and religion share however, our limited comprehension of both processes have pitted them in a fierce battle by placing them at opposite ends of our intellectual pursuit of knowledge about the world and of ourselves and a meaningful justification of the role we play in it. In the absence of absolute knowledge about anything, we still have no choice but to believe in good faith, much of what we think we know; regardless of whether they are based on logical experiments or reasonable theoretical assumptions about the nature and evolution of the universe.

For centuries, our 'faith' has been monopolised by religion, but now, notably in the realms of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology, science is fighting to posses the awesome power of this singularly most essential and uniquely human, cognitive tool. Though distinctly different in their approach, they are both borne out of our propensity and need to know the unknown and make believe the unbelievable.

1. Faith

The battle to own our minds 

The word "faith" is often associated with religion and mystic beliefs. It generally implies a blind acceptance or unquestioning belief of an idea or a set of ideas and therefore the opposite of 'skepticism' and 'doubt'. Faith forms the link between what we perceive to be 'known', and that which we admit as "unknown". The word itself is often used synonymously with "religion", but that has been primarily because religion has always been the exclusive domain of everything that we did not or could not know; and therefore required "blind acceptance" or "unquestioning belief" to subscribe to. Our conscience however, is a complex web of beliefs that are continuously changed and enhanced by the thoughts we bear and ideas we entertain. As much as humanity is characterised by our curiosity, skepticism and ability to doubt even what seems apparent, there are two distinct forces raging deep underneath our questioning skepticism; one a rational desire to know and the other an irrational need to believe.

Each of us have a varying capacity to distinguish between what we know and what we do not know. It is the ability to identify what we do not know, combined with the curiosity to discover that drives us to acquire new knowledge; to make the unknown; known. Sometimes we feel threatened when an idea we hold to be 'true' is challenged by evidence to the contrary. At one extreme, we are be driven to feel insecure when certain beliefs we hold close to our hearts are challenged, while at other times taking much delight in being presented with new discoveries that may revolutionise our understanding of certain matters. Either way, our 'faith' is defined both by what we have chosen to believe as much as that which we have chosen not to believe; both without the support of reason or logic. Our faith either directly or indirectly becomes the dominant influence on all our preferences, choices and decisions. Therefore, the unique make up of each individual is defined more by their faith than perhaps any other factor.

Our irrational need to believe, has conjured divine forces with promises of heavenly rewards or threats of eternal suffering to make those beliefs compelling. Much of our behaviour and judgements are influenced by our conception of heaven or nirvana or hell - entities we believe to exist even when there is no logic or reason to support such beliefs. But faith drives our secular lives as well. Because of the dominant influence that faith has on our commercial decisions and political preferences, it has always been coveted by those who have any political or commercial interest in us. It is only natural therefore that commercial product advertisers seek to brand their products and link those brand images, not directly with the needs that would require us to buy them (because need would compel us to buy the product anyway), but with our beliefs which in turn influence our preference for one brand over another.

The authority to govern people is always derived from the ability to control their beliefs. Organised religion has not only given structure to our irrational beliefs, but also a sense of security in holding on to them by assembling a vast community that would share those beliefs with us because holding on to irrational beliefs in isolation would make us seem delusional. By virtue of having such an emotional hold on us, religion has been able to dictate how we should behave and sometimes even what we are allowed to eat and the way we ought to groom ourselves. Therefore it is equally unsurprising that those who assumed religious leadership throughout the ages has always been courted and pandered to, or have been in conflict with, those who assumed political leadership. The unmistakable evidence lies in the history of the Papacy and the mistrust between Protestants and Catholics that has been transmuted for centuries stemming from a chiefly political conflict that was triggered by the protestant revolution. The protestant revolution itself, though inspired by religion, has had far more political rather than religious repercussions on societies all over the world. Similar trends can be identified in the conflicts between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists sects which competed for political patronage for centuries in Sri Lanka and the influence that unelected religious leaders still exercise over democratically elected secular states in all parts of the world. The desire of those who assume political power to monitor the ideas and thoughts of their subjects is fuelled merely by their concern about how those thoughts and ideas may ultimately influence or change their subjects' beliefs.

Our curiosity and the rational desire to know has, in the meantime, driven us to explore and discover reasons to justify our beliefs. The word we use to describe this exercise is "science". There would have been a time when a vast majority of humanity would have depended on their religious faith to answer their most fundamental questions about how things are and how they came to be the way they are, including questions about life and death. Indeed there would have always been skeptics too.

Yet the fact remains that religion espouses 'faith' or actively demands it, while science has despised it and sometimes ridiculed those who gave priority to their faith over reason. It was perhaps an inevitable coincidence that the foundations for the glorification of 'reason' and the vilification of 'blind faith' were laid down in the religious reformation which was set off by the devout German monk - Martin Luther. But why would our desire to know and the need to believe - both of which spring from the same deep cognitive recesses of the human mind - be in conflict and fighting one another to prove the other wrong or typecast them as inferior? If the domain of religion is 'faith' and the domain of science is 'reason', how can there be a conflict between the two since they are totally independent of each other?

Some may argue that the conflict between science and religion is actually a battle to establish which is more superior between 'faith' and 'reason', but that would be to unfavorably compare 'faith and reason' as well as misunderstand the nature of 'science and religion'. As pointed out earlier, authority to govern is derived from an ability to control people's beliefs. The relationship between religion and science does not have many parallels with the previously discussed uneasy relationship between religion and the State, because this is a more fundamental battle. The interests of those who seek authority to governs and those who define and interpret religious doctrine are often complementary, because they often have to work together to gain political authority by manipulating peoples beliefs. Science and religion on the other hand are fighting a more fundamental battle - to actually posses faith itself and gain outright ownership of our most basic and fundamental beliefs. It should be an even battle, but science is currently doing considerably better - but that is because it is cheating!

Transcript of a prayer

What I really want to write about is 'faith'. However, I somehow feel I need to begin with my own beliefs. My faith consists of both what I choose to believe and what I choose not to believe. They lie outside the realm of what I can comprehend using my own reasoning and logic - because I don't need faith to 'believe' in what I can 'know'. So faith constitutes what ever that is left after I have separated the known from the unknown. So it follows that we all 'believe' in what we do not 'know'. God, Karma, Nirvana, Rebirth, Reincarnation - are all articles of faith. We can choose to believe in them - and I think it is perfectly rational to do so - but we cannot yet 'know' for sure that they exist. I believe in God, but I am also aware of the nature of my faith to be honest enough to admit that I don't actually know for sure whether God really exists. I don't find it a paradox, perhaps because I understand 'faith' and 'reason' to be mutually independent. This is where my personal faith in God differs from most established religious doctrines. I am acutely aware that my faith is not 'reasonable', because faith - by definition - cannot be reasonable

Therefore my belief - my chosen faith in God - do not conform to any theological doctrine outside of my own conscience; and I suppose it is only natural that my prayers don't either. Perhaps for that same reason, I am not overtly religious. In fact I surprise myself by publishing this. But I am keen to separate my beliefs from the few things I know or hope to know. I do not subject my faith in God to be dissected by reason because I think it is a useless exercise. Neither do I want to substitute my faith in God where I should rather apply logic and reason, or opt to 'believe' things which I should rather seek to understand. Reason and logic has never lead me to, or away from God.

So yes, I believe in God, but I don't pray to God nearly as often as I ought to. Then again, I don't know anyone who does. When I do pray though, my prayers usually go like this one which I penned many, many, many many (four) years ago.

I hope you don't get too distracted and assume it's all about a girl; because it is not. It is more about 'life' itself and the need I have to include 'God' and 'prayer' in it.



Me: Lord, can you spare a minute for me?


God: Hey… it’s been a while… how's life?


Me: What do you mean "it's bean a while"? I was in church this morning!


God: Oh… yeah... right... I should have remembered… sorry! (Grins…)


Me: Do you ever pay attention to anything that goes on in church...?


 God: No… I mean YES... of course... What is it you want to talk about?


Me: Well… it's a bit complicated… there's a fair bit to explain. That's why I asked you whether you are free… are you sure you've got enough time?


God: Well, I am ok with time I suppose… but why don't we get started and see how far we can go… if we run out of time, we'll do the rest some other time. Does that sound ok?


Me: Well, that's fine… how have you been holding up?


God: Not too bad… not too bad at all… a bit busier than usual, but I am not complaining. I mean… I do like my job, ‘I find it exciting and challenging’ (smirk)… so ‘the hard work usually is its own reward’ (grin). Now tell me what's bothering you.


Me: Nothing is bothering me… well… then again, maybe something is… I mean… as I said, it's complicated.


God: Ok... just go on… spill it out. I am not going to interrupt you


Me: Thanks! And another big "THANKS" for sticking with me during the past couple of months… Getting the thesis out of the way took quite a bit of work – and you know… I couldn't have done it without you. I mean… you were really awesome.


God: Gosh… you are welcome man!


Me: Hey… you said you won't interrupt!


God: But I didn't… (And turning to Cherubim beside him) did I interrupt him?


Cherubim: Technically you didn't, but…


Me: Hey… sorry… nothing personal Cherubim… just that this is about something a bit personal… so I would appreciate some privacy…


Cherubim: Sorry... you should have said so earlier…


Me: No it's ok… honestly! I didn't mean to be rude. Shall I continue please?


God: Yeah… you are not going to be here all night…


Me: Thanks for reminding me. Anyway, as I was saying, it's not really a problem… it's actually this little puzzle… I mean… I don't even know whether it's a puzzle in the first place… that's sort of why I came to you… to find out for sure whether it's a puzzle in the first place… Do you get what I'm saying?


God: Is that a trick question?


Me: Hey, don't play dumb with me… I know that you know exactly what I am talking about!


God: Maybe I do know what you are talking about, maybe I don't. But what do you expect me to do?


Me: Hello… I would appreciate a few clues here… I mean… please…


God: Heh… heh… if it's a puzzle, its up to you to solve it and find out the answer for yourself isn't it?


Me: So are you saying that it IS a puzzle?


God: I didn't say that!


Me: Here… seriously… I don't need this… You know I have had enough of this… you tempt me with these puzzles and I end up spending a lot of time and energy and emotional capital on them… and it has all been a total waste of time… not to mention the disappointment. All I am asking is to know whether this is real. Isn't it only fair that you at least tell me whether this is real or not?


God: "Emotional capital"? Hold on… don't tell me that this is just one big business proposition for you!


Me: You know what I meant by that! Don't twist my words… I would never expect you to twist my words. I take your point though… but the thing is it's quite an accurate description of the situation. I mean, you know I am quite a sucker for these things… but as I mature, and with every harsh experience, I feel like I am gradually becoming insensitive to my own feelings. I don't want to be like that. I want to be able to empathise with others and feel and appreciate my own emotions. But that's beside the point. I want you to tell me if this is my real puzzle.


God: What makes you so sure that I know? As I said before, maybe I do… maybe I don't…


Me: Are you kidding me… you know everything!


God: Who told you that?


Me: Actually a Lot of people say that.


God: They also obviously told you a lot of other crap that they had no freaking clue about. I am surprised to see that you have just taken their word for it. How convenient for you!  It all depends on how you act out of your own free will… you know that!


Me: Fine… but I sort of like these arguments. I really miss having someone around who could sustain an engaging argument with me.


God: Well… I am always around if you want…


Me: Yeah right! (Laughs)… Well, thanks… I know that… and I always appreciated that. But what I meant was…


God: (Laughing) Yeah... I know what you meant. So this girl you like… do you think she could "sustain an engaging argument" with you? (Still laughing…)


Me: What girl…?


God: Now you are kidding me!


Me: But even I don't know whether I like her. I mean… we barely know each other! Besides…


God: Are you giving excuses… trying to cover up your feelings…


Me: You just interrupted me again!


God: Sorry… but I had to… and now you are trying to avoid my question.


Me: You know… its amazing how you always turn these conversations around.


God: What do you mean?


Me: I came to ask you whether this is the real puzzle this time. You know very well that I am not in the mood for any silly games or decoys… but before I know it, you are asking me whether I think this girl is the sort who could "sustain (an engaging argument with) me"… if you didn't understand me the first time, let me be a bit more blunt – how about you tell me whether she'd be able to sustain an argument with me? How about you tell me whether she's the centre piece of the puzzle we are talking about?


God: Loosing the temper are we? Besides, is that what you want from a relationship – someone to argue with?


Me: You know I never loose my temper… and you also know that I know when you are avoiding my questions. But the answer to your question is a complicated "yes"!


God: A "complicated yes"?


Me: Yes. I mean… the fact that you can sustain an engaging argument with someone tells you a lot about your relationship doesn't it. I mean, to sustain a meaningful argument, both parties have to be mature enough to understand that an argument is not a fight and that it's ok to disagree. They also have to have a great deal of respect for each other. And when an argument heats up and some of the words seem harsh sometimes, you should know enough about each other to trust… no, not just trust, but know for sure… never doubt each other’s love… you need to know that the argument itself is secondary and that the love you share is unconditional… disagreements open up opportunities to really get to know each other… They are like stepping stones to a deeper understanding. But you also need trust, to know that the other person is speaking the truth… and respect the other to be truthful yourself. You need to be able to rely and depend on the other never to get judgemental or personal. So in a way, I guess there's a good chance that I could have a healthy relationship with someone whom I can argue with. (Smiling…) Besides… an argument can be a real turn-on… (Laughing…)


God: Hmmm… interesting point of view… and come to think of it, we could take it for granted that this relationship is a good example of that! (Laughing…)


Me: Don't get your hopes up. You don't have a hope of ever turning me on… (Laughs…) Now I have answered your question… but you haven't answered mine!


God: So is that what I am here for now… just to answer your questions?


Me: No… ok… I'm sorry. But I told you I need your help with this. I mean… I need your help most of the time… but especially with this.


God: But you like puzzles. No, you Love puzzles… so why can't you solve this and find out for your self… I will help you if you like. We have done this before haven't we?


Me: Sure we've done this before. But I am the one who's got anything to loose!


God: Don't say that!


Me: But isn't that the truth? I am the one who always suffer. And for what? I mean… why should I bother to find out anything when all I've found out so far is what a sad excuse for a man I can become when I open up myself to be so vulnerable? All I have found out is that it's not even worth trying to find out. I have never progressed beyond "finding out" anyway. I have tried to be noble about it, and never rationed the out pour of my heart, yet all I have ever found out was that everything I have earned so far is for my own keeping – that I will never have the joy of sharing them with anyone.


God: "Anyone" or "Someone"?


Me: Is ‘semantics’ all you care about? Or do you care at all?


God: I do care. I know you know that I do. But you make it sound as if your whole life has been nothing but miserable and lonely... and that all that you have achieved amounts to nothing.


Me: So it's my fault now?


God: Nobody is at fault. But, you have no reason to feel sorry for yourself - if only you learn to appreciate how much courage it takes to let yourslef become so vulnerable. I hope you don't give up the fight because I want to know you have what it takes to pick yourself up and take those risks all over again. There is no other way to face life! If that's not 'being a man about it' tell me what is?


Me: But I don't have time to waste. Tell me when the real thing comes by and I will do it all over again. Untill then, I can't be bothered.


God: What you fail to admit is that if ever you are able to appreciate the real 'puzzle' one day, it is because you know what the fakes are. You have lost nothing. You may have not yet got what you wanted, but that doesn't mean you've lost anything. But it will be sad if you cannot appreciate the things you've gained out of each experience.


Me: But I think I would have been able to appreciate the 'real puzzle' anyway. I didn't absolutely need all this rubbish to "heighten my appreciation" of all the things I don't have.


God: Looks like hindsight has made you wise. I know you are smarter than to actually believe what you just said. So I won’t argue with you for the sake of an argument. If we are to gain anything from this, we both have to respect each other enough to be honest like you just said. You know that I am only trying to make you find the answer for yourself. I am not asking for much… just admit what you already know so that we could have an honest conversation here! How difficult is it for you to admit that your life has been full of deep satisfaction and an abundance of good things all the way. Even despite the fact that you had to bear those joys and a few tears all by yourself?


Me: The point is, I don't know what to think. That's why I came to you in the first place. I mean, this is a whole new experience for me this time. I am confused. But I feel this connection… the amazing bond between our souls that I have never felt before…


God: You are over dramatizing this…


Me: Ok... maybe I am making it sound too dramatic… but would you care to explain how all the dots connect with this one? I mean… look at what's been going on… the shear coincidence of meeting her in two different places when the odds are so remote – not to mention the facts that made me notice her. Then I find out that we are not so far apart in many ways after all.


God: Yeah… But you placed all those dots on the board and you yourself connected them. I can imagine what a pleasant surprise the picture would have been! (Grinning…) But what makes you think I have been conjuring a secret plan "behind the curtains"? (Laughs…)It's all in your mind.


Me: Is this one big practical joke for you? I am sorry, but I am not amused. Whose genius was it then to give me hope of a chance to meet her again? What sort of coincidence is that?


God: I thought you of all people would know that there is no such thing as coincidence!


Me: Actually, I don't know that. And I am not going to speculate anything at this time. That's precisely why I decided to ask you. And please, you owe me an honest and straightforward answer this time.


God: I don't owe you anything. And you don't owe me anything either.


Me: No… I didn't mean it that way… I don't come to you to settle debts – you know that. But if I may borrow someone else's words, why can't you just "tell me and end this torment"? You know very well that I can't afford to speculate. I can't afford to be hopeful about the hopeless. I don't think I can survive that anymore. I am scared… I really am. Sometimes I doubt. For once, I just want to know. It doesn't matter what the truth is, I just want to know.


God: Do you really? But you don't… I know that about you. You never wanted anyone to tell you how things are or how they are going to be. You always wanted to find out on your own, in your own time, by your own methods.


Me: Hmmm… why are you doing this? I mean… how is it that you know precisely where my weaknesses are and exactly when to strike them?


God: Is that what you think I am doing?


Me: No… I mean... I suppose they are actually my strengths and you sometimes turn things around so that I can focus my strengths instead of my weaknesses on the problem.


God: Was that a "Thank you"?


Me: You are a sucker for appreciation aren't you?


God: Don't insult my modesty.


Me: Hey… tell that to the people who are obsessed with the idea that the whole point of their lives is to "sing your praises" and "worshiping" you. They are the ones who are insulting your modesty!


God: This conversation is not about them. It's about you.


Me: Yes. Forgive me for that. I didn't mean to look down on any one. I mean, I am quite sure each individual is free to think and do as they please and it's not for me to judge them. But getting back to the point, I don't think I have found the answer that I was looking for.


God: Are you sure you are asking the right questions?


Me: Give it up. If you are trying to sound like the Dalai Lama, you suck at it! (Laughing…)


God: (Laughing…) Geezzzz… I didn't mean to. Can't you be a bit more subtle with your insults! But seriously, what's your problem anyway. I think you should be more than happy to go all the way and find out for yourself. I mean, keep an open mind. Try not to get infatuated with the idea… I mean… you got to go with your instincts… and just be yourself. I am sure that's good enough.


Me: The problem is… I'm not sure anymore. I mean, I used to trust my instincts and I sure thought I had this sixth sense about people, but I don't know that anymore. I am not sure whether I can trust my instincts because I have been wrong on occasions. I realise that there's a chance that I may be wrong this time as well… that even when my assessment of certain things is accurate, there is so much I simply do not know, and those things can reverse everything I do kno.


God: I know what you mean. But the thing is, if you don't trust yourself, how can you expect someone else to?


Me: Well… actually, I don't expect anyone to trust me per se.   What makes you think I expect that?


God: Ok, let me rephrase. Do you think your family and friends trust you?


Me: Hmmm… I suppose so. At least some of them trust me… as for some; I am not sure if it is trust they have in me or just expectations. I mean… I like the fact that people expect a lot from me… and I realised that I want to live my life in such a way that people will always expect the highest and the best from me.


God: It doesn't matter whether it is trust or expectations… have you ever let them down… have you betrayed their trust or disappointed those who expected much of you?


Me: I honestly don't know the answer to that. I honestly think I may have sometimes. I have tried my best to do what I thought was right. I often tried to follow my heart… but sometimes I have sacrificed what I wanted so that I could please someone else… I have sometimes tried to fill the gaps between people's expectations and my responsibilities. There are times I have been selfish too. But I don't know whether I have let them down in any way. You will have to ask them about that.


God: I think you have done a pretty good job so far.


Me: Am I having this conversation with my own ego-possessed conscience?


God: That was a compliment, but if you don't know how to take it, that's not my problem.


Me: But, I didn't come to you to satisfy my own ego.


God: I was just trying to show you that a lot of people in your life trust you, and that you have earned that trust well. So there's no reason for you, not to trust yourself.


Me: Should I trust myself just because others trust me?


God: No, it is almost always the other way round. But you just said that you are not sure whether you could really trust yourself. So I pointed out that there are many others who trust you… and therefore it must be because you actually trust yourself.


Me: Impressive logic! You are good.


God: I am not here to satisfy my ego either. (Grins…)


Me: Ok. Where were we?


God: We are right here. You don't have to back-track to find your answer. The point is that you need to trust yourself - because you can trust yourself. There's nothing wrong with your judgement. It's just that your mind sometimes gets cluttered and you fail to hear the little voice in the back of your head. Keep that in mind and just carry on. You should be fine.


Me: But I am still not satisfied, because you haven't answered my question yet.


God: Do you mean to say that you have found what you came looking for, even though I haven't answered your question?


Me: Sort of… actually, I don't think I could extract anymore information from you than I already have. Even if I bug you for millennia, you are not going to tell me what's to come.


God: You have better things to do with your time than interrogate me, expecting me to give you a horoscope reading. Trust me!


Me: Better things like what?


God: Like get on with life. Be enchanted by its mysteries, solve its wonderful puzzles, appreciates the precious gifts that life has to offer and embrace its laughter and tears with the same zest. Give it your best and see... after all, there's much to gain from all that.


Me: But what about her?


God: Which "her"?


Me: There's only one 'her'! Don't bother tickling my sense of humour… it's all but worn out.


God: What a pity. I liked your humour.


Me: Why are you trying to distract me? (Frustrated…)


God: Ok… help me out here… I mean… what about her? If you are asking me again, whether she's the one, well, I am sorry I may never know that because it's up to the two of you to figure that out. "It takes two" you know. You guys take chances everyday. Some calculated risks and some uncalculated ones. Each day brings you many moments that take a bit more courage than the rest… or moments that stands out because they are more joyful... or sorrowful than the rest…. or ones that make you doubt… others that are reasuring. Some moments are more memorable than the rest… your days and hers are strewn with such moments. Sometimes you create those moments and sometimes others do it for you. What you get out of them depends on how you react. So, what you do and how you both react will determine the answer to your question. You can't always make good things happen, but you can give it your best and see what happens. Remember this though; while you try to fulfil your own desires, you have no right to expect others to give up their own.


Me: Isn't this getting a bit too philosophical?


God: Why should that bother you? You told me you had all but lost your sense of humour! So I thought you'd be in the mood for a good dose of philosophy. Sad people like philosophy.


Me: I would have cracked more jokes if I knew that the lack of humour was going to make you get overly philosophical…


God: Is that what's left of your humour?


Me: Yeah… sadly! Anyway… thanks. It was nice talking to you…


God: Cut out the formalities…


Me: See, you interrupted me again! (Grinning…) No…I really meant it. The humour and the philosophy… all of it were just great… and I found it very meaningful…


God: Don't you find that all our conversations are meaningful?


Me: Err… no… I mean, kneeling through some of those "prayer meetings" used to be dreadful… and some of those songs were unbearable... Don't get me wrong, the choir and all was great... but then again, there were some nasty sermons you've made me endure… (Laughs…)


God: Oh please… don't get me started on those! Anyway... what are you complaining about? I am the one who had to listen through all those hours without ever getting a chance to utter a word in reply! (Laughs…)


Me: Is that why some of those prayers went unanswered?


God: None of those prayers went unanswered.


Me: None?


God: Why do you think we are having this conversation? What makes you oblivious to the fact that this very conversation is proof that every single prayer is answered and always has been?


Me: Honestly I don't get that logic.


God: Now who's playing dumb?


Me: I never got that mountain bike I prayed for. And so I rest my case.


God: I don’t own bloody Lumala, so go get one yourself! Court dismissed.


Me: But the attorney has not even entered the court yet.


God: She may already be in court for all you know… or on the other hand, maybe she will never come. Either way, you will be ok. What you need is a psycho therapist if you ask me!


Me: Well, you did make me in YOUR own image!


God: True, but I may have been a bit distracted by the donkey I had created a few minutes earlier.


Me: Ok… let's cut it out. I get your point. And hey… Thanks again.


God: Anytime Brother!


Me: Am I supposed to say "Amen"?


God: Amen.


Me: Amen. (Grins…)

To save human lives or save humanity?

Advancements in medical science in the last two centuries have saved billions of human lives. By improving the chances of the aged, sick and enfeebled to live on and survive, it has dampened the influence of external forces of natural selection on the human evolutionary processes. We have increased the chances of survival for all - not just the fittest. Advances in medical sciences have - generally speaking - given the weakest and less adaptable among us an equal chance of survival and propagation in the human gene pool. Together with standardised education systems and general social welfare, we have leveled the playing field a bit for everyone. Might and physical endurance are nor longer the only criteria that determine the dominating hierarchy within our species; making way for intelligence, dexterity and mental resourcefulness to also pack a heavy punch. Modern medicine is perhaps the best example of how we have been able to apply our intelligence to overcome physical deficiencies. We have invented a vast array of prosthetics, antibiotics and steroids to help us overcome our common physical ailments.

Long before the advent of modern medicine, we learned to apply our intelligence to build tools - and indeed weapons - that would multiply our physical strength in fights for domination. Since then, it was no longer sheer physical strength and endurance, but the ability to apply our 'intelligence' to solve problems and overcome challenges that determined our evolutionary path. Arguably, this is very much a part of the process of 'natural selection'. Given that the tools we have built far surpass our own power and capabilities in many ways, physical prowess have become less vital for our survival. Our ability to manipulate and design our immediate environment has all but removed the imperative for us to adapt to its changes. In fact, our ability to do so has become the most dominant factor in determining our survival.

So now, it is no longer a question of how capable we are of adapting to our environment, but how capable we are of changing it to fit our needs that matter - or so it seems. This reversal of the 'natural selection' process is a relatively recent phenomenon - only a few generations old - and therefore its long term effects are not yet evident. We do not yet know how it will effect our chances of long term survival as a species. In fact it could take centuries - if we survive that long - for us to find out. That is because the recent changes in our evolutionary priorities have not yet been tested. Indeed global warming and our growing population's increasing demand for scares resources are testing the sustainability of the global Eco-system that sustains us. The true extent of our ability to control the environment will be tested - probably for the first time - when our consumption levels tip over the ability of our environment to replenish it. 

The inconvenient truth that lies at the heart of most global issues such as border protection, the greenhouse effect, political conflicts and conflicts between humans and our environment however, is that they are all consequences of the human population level that is increasingly becoming unsustainable.


An instinctive aversion to death and sickness is shared by all beings. The tendency to care and nurture the dying and impaired however, is relatively rare and found only among the more intelligent species with complex social structures. Our ability to love and care for one another is a defining characteristic of the human condition and arguably one of our few endearing features. Yet they may also be the biggest obstacles in the way of opening up an objective discussion about the human over-population crisis facing the planet today. Could we prevent ourselves or anyone else from intervening to prolong the life of a cancer patient even when it seems inevitable that the decease would soon claim its victim? If a man and woman has twelve children, which one of them could we recommend that they rather shouldn't have had? Indeed our emotions get in the way. Death or abandonment of another human being in peril is impossible to advocate, and even the practise of  contraception has long been frowned upon.

It is one thing to be warned about the depleting natural resources and the question of human over-population in the 21st Century; but strangely at this point, even at the risk of contaminating the subject with an unintended religious undertone, I can't help but recall the words of Jesus Christ at the eighth station of the cross. On his way to Calvary to be crucified, the Gospel according to Luke in its 23rd Chapter, from verse 28 to 31 record the words of Jesus as follows;

28 But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.
29 For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’  
30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’  
31 For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

Centuries of civilisation and culture has conditioned humanity to glorify the fertile and denounce the barren, value life and creation over death and destruction - and for good reason. However, infant mortality, deadly decease and occupational health are modern metrics. They were not issues that the old world had to grapple with, because death and sickness should have been accepted as daily realities before the miraculous interventions of medicine. It is only in the past two centuries that medical miracles have created an impression that it is within human capability to fight death and sickness and expect to win more often than not. The wonder works of modern medicine reinforces our false perception of death and sickness as the result of negligence or human faults, rather than inescapable facts of life.

The pharmaceutical industry also feeds into the unyielding human desire to avoid sickness and prolong life, by feeding on the rich chemical resources of the natural world including protected plant and animal species for producing medicines. In less than a century, it has risen to become one of the most powerful commercial lobbies that dictate world politics and economics today with exclusive rights to exploit entire species of plants for profit.

Therefore, it is more likely that our efforts to avoid sickness and prolong life will continue with more vigour, empowered by further advances in technology. The sum result of the advances we have made in medical science has enabled an explosion in human population that has tilted Eco-systems out of balance. It is perhaps a failure of the socioeconomic model of capitalism, that the motives of our society and those of the economy need not be aligned for them to work together. Thus while the result of our advances in medicine is healing and the prolongation of life, the motive that drives the industry is primarily its financial rewards. In a democratic world order that is spurred on by capitalism, it is unlikely that anyone - least of all politicians - would be willing to advocate steps to stem the growth of human population and the rate of our consumption of our planets shared resources. It seems there is not a single notion in our moral make up that lets us objectively decide between a human life and the greater good of the human species, let alone choose between a human life and an entire species of plant or animals. The dominance we have gained by virtue of our superior intelligence and dexterity will always ensure that we prevail even at the cost of other species.

Medical marvels may have given us a false sense that it is within our power to dictate terms to death and sickness, but that false sense of security stands in the way of addressing the issue of human over-population which is critical to the long-term survival of the planet and many of its species, including - ironically - humanity itself. As much as it is nevertheless possible for the human population to increase exponentially still, it would also be inevitable that limits imposed by the natural ecological systems that sustain us will eventually rectify the balance. Studies of overpopulation in the animal world suggest that when this happens, it is more likely to be a sudden collapse in our population than a gradual wind-down. Sadly, a sudden collapse of the human population would inevitably result in the loss of the collective knowledge that we have accumulated over thousands of years. Given the volume of information we stand to loose in such an event, it will be like the burning of the library at Alexandria all over again - about hundred million times over.

Ironically, the process of natural selection generally favours the resilient and most adaptable. Therefore, it is intriguing to think about who will survive in the event of a sudden collapse of the global human population. Will it be those who are physically strong, those with the best immune systems, or will it be the most intelligent or educated, or the More resourceful, and adaptable, or a combination of the above?