The Community of Prayerful Love

Have been reading Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy for devotion e past couple of months.. here's one recent insight into the nature of the spiritual reality that prayer brings us into.

What happens when we pray for others? As we pray for others, we participate in a spiritual community of love. Instead of relating to each other directly, we go through the mediator Jesus Christ. Instead of simply going on our own wisdom, tell others what's "good" for them, telling them to change this and that, doing things to them "for their good" as we judge it, we come to Christ.

This takes us into the deep nature of life together in the kingdom of God. This life is shown in its horizontal (human) and vertical (divine) dimensions. As we wish for the good of others, we do not simply tell them, criticize them, or help them simply on our own terms. As Dallas Willard puts it:

Among those who live as Jesus' apprentices there are no relationships that omit the presence and action of Jesus. We never go "one on one"; all relationships are mediated through him. I never think simply of what I am going to do with you, to you, or for you. I think of what we, Jesus and I, are going to do with you, to you, and for you. Likewise, I never think of what you are going to do with me, to me, and for me, but of what will be done by you and Jesus with me, to me, and for me.

Thought that was a beautiful way of putting it. As we pray, we walk hand in hand with Jesus for the good of others. We ask Him for others as we intercede. That is the best way to truly help someone. Not on our own unilateral terms, knowing how fallible and oft-mistaken we are.

And as Dietrich Bonhoffer says,

As Christ can speak to me in such a way that I may be saved, so others, too, can be saved only by Christ Himself. This means that I must release the other person from every attempt of mine to regulate, coerce, and dominate him [or her] with my love... Thus this spiritual love will speak to Christ about a brother more than to a brother about Christ. It knows that the most direct way to others is always through prayer to Christ and that love of others is wholly dependent on the truth in Christ.
(Life Together)

Indeed, how often we have the temptation to simply "straighten others out" for their own good. How often have we tried to give them our "pearls of wisdom" without so much as talking to God about it first! And how many times have we been frustrated by our efforts on how people don't seem to change, to break through their problems, even after we have pointed them out. How frequent have we tried to offer "solutions" to people's predicaments without truly understanding their position, empathizing with them as only Jesus, the Great High Priest, can.

Let us not forget that the primary way to help others is to pray for them first. Bring them to the throne of grace, and then together, with Jesus, reach out to them. Not that we don't do anything concrete or say anything edifying to them, but that we do not neglect - as we are so prone to - the quiet but indispensable ministry of prayer. Carry them to Jesus always, presevere in prayer, don't give up, look to God, and see how He works.

Sometimes the effect is almost immediate, sometimes it takes time, at times we find that God brings us into a new understanding of that person's situation; other times we learn that we are the ones who need to change, yet other times we learn to trust that God has better plans of which the present reality is already a part.

Whichever way it is, let us continue to intercede for the good of those around us, and then those who are not so near, but nevertheless are instantly reached by a request to God.

heck tick wick. hack tig wic. hag tic wig. heg teak whig. haak tik weak.

hectic week...

first, got to teach everyday..

second, got to do up my thesis final submission - need to do some minor changes, get all the formatting correct, print a few copies plus binding, then bring to school to submit at some office... quite troublesome.. and just found out that i have to pay like 200 plus for thesis examination!

third, ministry stuff like revival camp stuff, CC worship song planning, meeting people, etc. finally, trying to keep up with my exercising routines.. but looks as if the running might have to go for this week, unless i find some other day besides today..

well, thank God that although i havent been getting enough sleep, i dont really feel that tired. (apart from really wanting to sleep in the office...). and im getting the hang of teaching... and a bit better at controlling the class.. hopefully i can keep more in focus on Him and not just handle one thing after another thru the week..

oh ya, and i've got a job interview on fri.

sleepyhead.

im getting up before sunrise this week in the name of education.

having to wake up before 6 is a challenge, really. but the real challenge, actually, is sleeping early enough. managed 11 plus last night - the earliest for a long time... but still, my head feels like lead today. think it's from the sleep debt the day before, when i slept at 1 plus..

they should put beds in staffrooms so that people can take quick naps. or at least, some sleep capsules.. haha.

The Fall of Practical Reason 3

As promised, here's part 3 of my thoughts on the issue of practical reason and how it relates to our fallenness as humans. But first, a recap.

In post 1, I highlighted the apparent tension between the biblical account of man's fallenness pervading his reason, and the phenomena of seemingly very smart people using their practical reason very well. Practical reason, as mentioned previously, is reasoning with respect to what to do; it has to do with the actions we perform. In part 2, I suggested a way to look at this problem by drawing a distinction within the realm of practical reason itself, namely, the distinction between

(a) how we should achieve our goals/desires/aims (instrumental reason), and
(b) the kinds of goals/desires/aims we should have (telic reason).

I suggested that there's basically not that much a problem with people with regards to (a) - that is to say, most people function not to badly with respect to their instrumental reason. Sure, there are those who are subject to conditions such that even with instrumental reason, they fail to act rationally. One might take for example, a person suffering from depression who actually desires to get well, and believes that the best way to do that is to seek medical attention, and somehow just cannot find the motivation to do it. (There is, of course, to a lesser extent, the same phenomenon whenever we just want to laze in bed despite all reason not to.) But these are the exceptions rather than the norm. For most of us, fallen as we are, we nevertheless function ok in being motivated to do the things to achieve our goals.

Now in this 3rd part, I want to say what has gone wrong with our telic reason. I wish to highlight just how fallen this aspect of our reason is, and also why it is a part of our reason as opposed to merely our desires. Consider first a simple case, The Incredible Sulk.

The Case of The Incredible Sulk:
Tommy (5 years old) is unhappy that his mother did not buy him the $3 million Ferrari he saw zooming past on the street. As a result, he wants everyone around him to be unhappy as well. So he tries to sulk for the whole day, knowing that his parents do not like it. He also knows that by doing that, he would have to miss his favorite dinner as punishment. Moreoever, it is pretty tiring to sulk the whole day and pretend no one else exists. Yet, he simply wants to do it to spoil everyone's mood.

Here, it seems that Tommy prefers his own unhappiness as long as others around him can be made unhappy as well. We might say that he was rebellious, recalcitrant, or incorrigible, even. But at the same time, it seems that his desire is irrational, unreasonable. One might want say to Tommy, "Hey, look here boy. It's silly to do that!" And by "silly", we don't just mean something that is morally wrong, but rather that there's something intellectually, rationally deficient about him. And this is the point I wish to highlight here. It's downright foolish of Tommy to have such desires. What good might be gained from making everyone, including himself, unhappy?

But on further reflection, don't we do that all the time? We desire temporal comfort more than eternal security - many would rather laze around on Sunday than go to church when invited. We desire things that we know would lead to short-lived pleasure and long-term consequences. We do and say things that hurt others and don't benefit ourselves. Our desires are directed to the immediately pleasurable rather than the ultimately good, to convenience rather than right principles. Our goals become the mere satisfaction of current desires, without reflection on whether these are worthy, righteous, honourable, commendable desires. Indeed, these words have been rendered almost 'out-of-fashion' by the relativistic, do-whatever-you-want, respect-my-rights (including my right to be downright stupid, we might add) culture of today.

In fact, the whole question of life's purpose, or teleology, is swept aside under the carpet. (Only to re-emerge in the angst of teenage life, the stark reality of mid-life and the quiet desperation of old age.) Ask the question today, "what kinds of goals/desires/aims should I have?", and you are likely to get a strange reply along the lines of, "do whatever you really want. Follow your heart." Which sounds oh-so-nice, until you realise the question hasn't been answered at all. Phrased another way, the original question is simply "What should I want? What should my heart desire?", and the reply becomes just "Want what you want, and desire what you desire." Some help that gives.

The modern world is particularly prone to this paralysis of purpose. And it is not surprising, because we have lost the ability to reason properly with ourselves what is best. We either think that there is no best, that the best is unknowable, or that everyone's best is up to them. We are blind, in fact, to the all-surpassing worth of Christ, to the glory of the eternal God, to the satisfaction of our deepest needs in Him. At least, until He does a special work in us.

And that, I think, is the crux of the fallenness of practical reason. We can diagnose it in many ways, we can identify it's failings as we did above; we can also sum it up in 4 words: we don't desire God. And that is the worst kind of answer one could give to the question in (b): what should I desire?

The one object that is supremely good, righteous, loving, glorious and worthy, we have failed to seek Him and want Him. We have irrationally rebelled against Him, to our own detriment. The telic aspect of our practical reason is found sorely wanting. Of course, this is inseparable from the moral dimension. But it is also a matter of reason. So then, the Biblical writer reminds us,

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10

The Fall of Practical Reason 2

In my last post, I raised a potential problem: The Bible tells us that we are fallen. This surely includes our reason, in particular, our practical reason. But looking at many people around, they seem to be using their practical reason perfectly well. (see examples in last post.) Now i suggest a way to look at this that resolves the problem.

First, we must be more precise. Practical reasons, as I said, are considerations in favor of us performing certain actions. What then, counts as a reason, or gives us a reason to act in a certain way? Standard examples in philosophical literature consist of beliefs and desires combined in a relevant way. Consider:

1. Arthur desires to have a cold Ribena.
2. Arthur believes that to have a cold Ribena, he needs to walk to the fridge.

Most people agree that the truth of 1 and 2 gives Arthur a reason to walk to the fridge. (Of course, Arthur might not necessarily walk to the fridge as a result of 1 and 2, for this reason might be trumped by stronger reasons (e.g. He is actually a surgeon perfoming a delicate operation at the moment, and so on.))

If Arthur is rational, he would acquire a motivation to walk to the fridge (again, this motivation could be overridden by other considerations). He is, in a way, responding to the reason provided by the truth of 1 and 2. (Of course, this example is so simple that most of us don't even consciously reason this way. But it is nevertheless very plausible.)

This sort of practical reasoning is called instrumental reasoning. It helps someone to achieve his/her desires, or more broadly speaking, his/her goals. I want a car. Instrumental reasoning helps me to think of how to get one (rent? buy? earn more money? loan?), depending on the beliefs I have about cars and so on. I want to get A for my module. Instrumental reasoning tells me (via my beliefs) that I should study hard and practice exam papers. And so on.

I want to submit that there is nothing very wrong about our practical reason, insofar as it pertains to instrumental reasoning. (There could be other things wrong, such as lack of willpower to achieve the goals, etc.) But on my view, that is not all there is to practical reason. In particular, a truly rational person should not only know what he should do to achieve his desires/goals, he should also know what kinds of desires and goals he should have.

In other words, a truly rational person should desire the right things, the good things, the best things in life. And by the right things, I obviously don't just mean what an individual thinks is right to do. I mean it in an objective, absolute sense. I mean it in the sense in which rightness is not a function of a person's desires and beliefs, but something that is independant of whether people think it as right or want to do it.

(The philosopher David Hume was famous for denying this. To him, all practical reasoning was instrumental. Thus, according to Hume, " 'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. 'Tis not contrary to reason for me to chuse [choose] my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me." I don't buy Hume's view, but I will not argue against it here. I simply assume that it's false.)

This last aspect of practical reason can be referred to as telic reason. (Kant calls it the categorical imperative, but we shall not go there in this post.) Now think about it. Is the telic aspect of our practical reasoning gone astray? I would say yes. Try thinking of some examples, before the next post comes out. :)

The Fall of Practical Reason 1

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10

Practical reason refers, roughly speaking, to whatever counts in favor of us performing certain actions. For example, I might say that you have reason to save a drowning person. You might have reason not to cheat in an exam, or to go get some food at the hawker centre. (There is also theoretical reason, which are also known as reasons for us having certain beliefs. But I will not discuss that here.)

Now the Bible tells us that we are fallen, and in Reformed theology, the understanding is that a proper reading of the text entails that the 'fallenness' affects all aspects of the person - the emotions, the desires and the mind. So then, this implies that there must be something very wrong with our rationality. And if our rationality includes practical rationality, then there is something very wrong with our practical rationality.

Now the problem is, this last part might not seem apparent to many. Consider, for example, the fact that many brilliant scientists, philosophers and politicians are non-Christians. Or the fact that my neighbour can very well perform actions rationally - when he is hungry, he goes to the fridge to get food, and not to the wardrobe. Our non-Christian classmates might know how to score on an exam better than we do. The upcoming entrepreneur whose business is growing fast due to his innovative products might not believe in God at all. All these people seem to be using their reason rather well. In particular, the latter examples seem to be examples of good usage of practical reason. And since Christians are on the road of sanctification and having their fallenness, so to speak, redeemed in a sense, shouldn't Christians be doing much better than non-Christians in terms of acting in accordance to reason? What's the difference?

How then, is our practical reason fallen? I suggest a possible way of looking at this in the next post.

surplise!

haha... against all odds, I am actually posting something for the first time this year... at the behest of a couple of pp who have been politely clamouring for a post, i had resolved to post sometime back. However, due to forseen circumstances (like busyness, laziness and just pure procrastination), the resolution has not materialised till now...

Till now. So wat's so special abt now? Nothing, indeed. Except that I've been engaged in a fierce battle of wits with my supervisor the past few weeks, and I'm tired. Trying my darndest, via various arguments, to show that "reasons cannot be reduced to natural causes."

w-w-what's that again? u ask. don't even get me started. (the short answer: it's part of my thesis)

anyway, as i was saying - each time i produce what i think is a fool-proof, water-tight argument, he manages to give a clever objection to it. And this has happened the last 3 or 4 times. it's like Sasuke finally learning the Chidori, only to find it rendered totally useless against Itachi when he tried it against him. It's like finally capturing your opponent, having trapped him on all sides, only to realise that you're the one caught in his genjutsu. It's like taking an M2O3 and... and... ok, i think i've made e point.

So here I was, this past week, lying in the wake of another minor defeat, my arguments in tatters - the pieces falling past me and blown away like leaves in the wind - thinking on whether to go for something less ambitious in my thesis. Or to keep fighting for the big one.

It's a funny thing, really, this whole business. U're chipping away at a huge wall (read: very significant opposing views), and each time u think u've made the crucial blow and wait for the rock to crumble and the stones to fall, the wall stays there somehow. And u don't know how thick it is. At the same time, u also know that there's a thinner wall (less significant opposing views) beside you, which is easier to break through. Why not just chip away at that wall instead? Well, for one thing: if the huge wall falls, u're in for a pot of gold. The thin wall? Maybe a plate of chicken rice. Nice chicken rice - but not very nice after u swallow it.

And all the time, the water's rising around you and come july/august, u'd better break thru some wall if u want to survive. So, tough choice man. What would u choose?

For now, I'm gunning for the big troll, not the irritating little orcs running about. Stubbornness, courage, or stupidity? I don't know. I just don't like giving up so soon. (How soon is too soon? Again, i admit it's subjective.) Maybe through this I'll learn some lesson from God. Maybe I'll learn whether it's worth it for me to try for a Ph.d next time. Maybe I'll learn that arguing for a view which I think I know is true is harder than I thought. Come what may, it's in His hands. What I need to keep in mind is to do all this with the right motives.

In the meantime, the small piece of good news is that i managed to come up with something this week in response to my supervisor. at one point, i really wondered whether the present arguments were leading to a real dead end. well, thank God i managed to modify 2 arguments, and they look promising (though it's true that they always do, at least before I discuss them with him).

hopefully, i'll be meeting up to discuss them with my sup tomorrow. and if i do get around to blogging again soon, i'll give an update... but that's a big IF... :)

a post out of nowhere

somehow, thought i'd post something on this as-good-as dead blog. boredom, perhaps...

anyway, i just gave my last tutorial of the year today. it was a make-up tutorial, cos of last week's deepavali holiday. nice to see the people turn up for this tutorial, so near the end of the sem (well, perhaps it's for fear that i'll deduct their participation marks). jason and a girl from another class came too, presumably to soak in the philosophical ambience, whatever that is...

before the lesson, jason took it to be his task to point out that this would be my last time teaching EVER in nus, if I don't take a Ph.D and come back in years to come. not that this made the tutorial more significant, since i'm just a regular tutor - not as if it was Plantinga's last time teaching or something. now if that happened, it'd be an event worth witnessing, a tale worth collecting for posterity.

so, i launched into the problem with customary glee - the zombie argument against physicalism. after some conceptual groundwork, i presented the argument in it's full glory and did the usual - split them into groups and await their bemused/pained responses. haha-at least that's what some of their expressions conveyed.

as it turned out, most of them could not figure out a way past the argument, despite valiant attempts. one group was particularly amusing, as they started off their answer with something like:

them: We can conceive of a round circle! [and thus you can conceive of impossible things, denying one of the premises of the argumet]
me: oh..... (feeling surprised that they could conceive this)
them (smiling): well, we can't honestly conceive of it, actually...
me (with a straight face): ah.... (pause) well, your, erm, honesty is... admirable.
(laughter around the class)

good to see some good old honest answers, though. as it were, they seemed rather convinced of the argument's conclusion - that consciousness cannot be logically reduced to physical states. and I was happily giving more examples and taking my time to round up the tutorial, thinking that there probably wasn't going to be a next class, when the tutor for the next class popped in with the customary, "hello, sorry, i have a class..."

argh. and so i ended in kind of a rush. no dramatic flourish, no earth-shattering pronouncements, just a simple remark on the significance of physicalism being false. 5 short and hurried tutorials for a whole sem, on something as deep as philo is just too little.

as we streamed out of the class, some students stayed back to talk further outside class, one student raised a good suggestion about the argument... after which i headed back to the philo grad room via a longer route, in order to avoid a lethal and dangerous creature which was on the normal path - in fact, a creature than which no worse can be conceived... a GIANT M---! well, that's another story for another time...

finally....

FINALLY....

.... a new post after months of inactivity.

.... 4 years of university education have passed. Doesn't feel like a dramatic thing though. It's more like I'm just glad that I got through all that engineering stuff. And feeling that I'm growing old too fast too soon. But I guess I should really be happy - because all that I've achieved is by His grace. Thinking back, there are countless times where I could have gotten things messed up due to last minute work or simply forgetting deadlines and submissions, sometimes rather important deadlines actually. And really thank God that i managed to go through all the tedious stuff and never really get too sian to continue. Guess I dont really deserve a lot of the things I got - which also means that there really is a good reason why God let me graduate with a good degree, with the opportunities to further my studies in a totally different field. Must pray that I can make good use of all these for His glory. That's the real test.

.... I wear a gown. As usual, I only found out the night before the ceremony that I have to wear shirt and tie underneath the gown. Thank God i managed to get a nice white-based shirt with a nice tie to go with it. Anyway, someone has suggested that I upload e photos, so I will select a few lah... here goes...

With Zhiliang...

With my mum at the UCC Foyer

FAmily photo (wei en and xin en @ home - not enough tickets)

Fellow Travellers to Finland

what we can do is pray

Christians in India are facing unprecedented persecution at the moment. We know that underneath the human conflict, is an ongoing spiritual battle for souls, and the only way we can be victorious is through prayer. Let's give time to pray for the missionaries and Christians in India. We know that God has His own people chosen among the Indians, and that He will draw these people to Himself for His glory and their joy.

As Jesus Himself said,“Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16). Knowing this, let us pray with confidence and faith that nothing can deter God's pleasure in rescuing His own people and giving them strength and grace in this difficult time.

Below is the update from GFA website on the situation:

02/21/2006: Behind the Wave: A Perspective on Persecution
From K. P. Yohanan, President of Gospel for Asia:

In my homeland of India, we are facing more persecution now than at any other time in our history. Our leaders on the mission field tell me that it has become such a regular, daily event that they now report only the worst cases.

In the last six weeks I have sent out numerous reports over email, spoken dozens of times on the radio and been quoted in print and web interviews. My purpose in all this public communication has been to encourage God’s people to pray about this situation. And that is my desire today as well. In providing a larger picture of what is behind this growing wave of persecution, I trust this will further enable the Body of Christ to deal with it prayerfully and powerfully.

Today, a battle for economic power and control rages in India—all under the guise of religion. Hindutva, literally, “Hindu-ness,” is a growing Hindu supremacist ideology that has a purely Hindu nation as its goal. To be Indian is to be Hindu, this dogma declares. Those who hold to this philosophy are part of a small but powerful group of extremists attempting to control the Dalit (“Untouchable”) and low-caste majority for their own gain.

When we look at the history of the human race, we see this is not an uncommon occurrence. The Crusaders who attempted to control the Holy Land by means of violence did not represent Christianity as a whole nor the teachings of Christ. Before and during World War II, a relatively small group of fascist leaders following Hitler—not the vast majority of the German population—were responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews. In countries ruled by Communist governments, it is not the masses but the minority that holds to a totalitarian ideology

You see, without Christ, the human heart never changes—it is always hungry for power. The Taliban used force to exert five years of stringent control over the entire nation of Afghanistan. And that is exactly what is happening in India—a radical minority is attempting to Hinduize a nation of over a billion people. This kind of thinking ultimately leads to ethnic cleansing, such as we have seen in Rwanda and Bosnia—and also in a mild form in the Indian state of Gujarat, where thousands of Muslims were massacred in 1992 and again in 2002.

These are the opposers and persecutors of Christians reaching out to the nearly 300 million Dalit and 400 million lower caste population. They accuse Christian workers of forced conversion and cultural destruction. Yet they are the wealthy landlords who oppose the establishing of educational centers for the children of these oppressed peoples.

Why persecute Christians? Because, just like in England and America in centuries past, believers in Jesus are the ones today working and praying toward the liberation of millions of “slaves” on the Indian subcontinent.

These slaves—the Dalits and other lower castes—make up the vast majority of the Indian population. Yet they are the ones harassed, abused, denied the right to worship, forced to live on the outskirts of villages, maltreated and even murdered—simply because of their social position. And today their desire for freedom is being threatened by the greed of a powerful minority . . . all for economic gain.

Indian newspapers repeatedly confirm this. The country’s national newspaper The Hindu printed an account of three Dalit college students who were beaten up simply because of their social status. According to The Telegraph, a Dalit woman was stripped and beaten to death by two men whose path she mistakenly crossed. A Dalit man was killed after attempting to pray at a local temple, said The Times of India.

It is a relatively common fact in India that some politicians who espouse Hindutva are agnostics and atheists. These are the same men who speak out against education in English—saying it destroys Indian culture—while enrolling their children in colleges and universities in Europe and North America.

So you see, the issue is not a primarily religious one, although proponents of Hindutva would lead the public to believe so. No, the issue here is much more sinister; it exposes the dark side of human nature. And while there are many other issues and variables involved in the struggle for spiritual freedom, this is a significant one that deserves much attention and prayer.

Today, India is at a crossroads. And we as believers in Jesus have the opportunity to help make an impact on this nation that will last for eternity.

Let us not forget that Indians are perhaps some of the most religious and sincere people in the world. They seek peace and the way of God—but without the knowledge of Christ there exists a huge vacuum in the land. These are people made in the image of God, people He loves just as much as He loves you or me.

“Other sheep I have which are not of this fold,” Jesus said, “them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

Let us pray with compassion, love and faith for these millions to understand Christ and His love. And let us pray that the Church in India will demonstrate the love of Jesus in such a way that they will want to know the Jesus of the New Testament.

When Gladys Staines extended forgiveness to the men who burned alive her husband and two sons, her action captured the hearts of millions—and many turned to the Lord as a result. In my experience people often reject Jesus because of what they encounter in Christians, not because of what they encounter in the Word of God. If the Church in India authentically represents Jesus Christ, I believe the whole nation will follow Him.

As we grow in our understanding of the issues behind this persecution, we must also understand our responsibility in this situation as Christians. We must be willing to give of ourselves through prayer and fasting until we see a breakthrough. We must be willing to “dig in our heels” and not give up.


And through our sacrifice and willingness to identify with our suffering and oppressed brothers and sisters in Asia, I am convinced we will someday have the joyful privilege to welcome millions of men, women and children into heaven. The blessings we will experience then will be far greater than any discomfort or inconvenience now.

glimpse of the heavens

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:

Who created all these?

He who brings out the starry host one by one,

and calls them each by name.

Because of his great power and mighty strength,

not one of them is missing.

Isaiah 40:26

Hubble Captures a Perfect Storm of Turbulent Gases

For more awe-inspiring works of creation, see http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/nebula_collection/

Why is grass green? (Or The Pleasure of God in His wise creations)

How many are your works, O LORD!

In wisdom you made them all;

the earth is full of your creatures. (Psalm 104:24)

If one day you were walking along a path, and all of a sudden you notice something strange about the field next to you. The grass is blue. What would you think? I guess it would be: "Wow, amazing how the grass is blue!" or "Wah, how come got blue grass one?!" Something to that effect.

But think about this. Why is grass green in the first place? There's no logical reason for it. It's not like 2+2=4: we can see that this is a necessary thing. But why is grass green? It does not have to be, but God made it so.

And today we have taken it for granted. We have forgotten the sense of wonder that we used to have. Look at babies. Mere life is interesting to them. The fact that I have two legs and five toes on each of them - wow! What a joy! The fact that different things feel so different, look so different, and smell so different, and taste so different! Look at the sparkling eyes of a child - they shine because of wonder and delight in life itself. They do not take things for granted.

God was wise to make grass green, to give it that particular smell when freshly cut, and to give it that little shine off each blade. It doesn't have to be like this. What is colour anyway? Why make the world in a thousand different shades and nuances, blends and tones? Oh, that poignant sunset of red, gold and countless shades matching between, that glorious sunrise of yellow dawn, the azure, blue sky and fluffy white clouds floating by. The shimmering face of water, a million sparkles of reflection, the good brown soil and the great green trees that tower beside.

Or think of the roar of a lion, the crashing of waves, the chirping of a bird, the excited bark of a dog, the shattering of thunder, the whistling of the wind, the richness of a baritone singing, the grace of a soprano, the soothing words of comfort, the giggles of a child, the whispers of a close friend, the sigh of a loved one. What if there were no sounds at all? What if everything sounded the same? What then, of your favorite music, of your friends' laughter, even the sound of the tap dripping?

Think of your favorite food, ah - the hot and spicy, the sour and tangy, the salty and sweet, the bitter and vinegary, the luscious and the succulent, the creamy and the smooth - ahhhh. What would life be without taste? The crisp bite into a fried chicken wing, that crunchy munch into a potato chips, the simple fragrance of rice, the juicy watermelon - have we taken all these for granted? What a wonder that these things should even exist!

And we haven't even mentioned touch and smells... come up with your own examples... But lose not your wonder. May God grant us the eyes of a child, that we may delight in the manifold wisdom displayed in His creation.

But is enjoying created things idolatry? Not if we enjoy it because of God. Enjoy it, and glorify God by enjoying His wisdom in the universe, His power in the storm, His creativity in millions of plants and animals, His artistry in the human form, His goodness in providence in nature, His sustenance in natural laws, and ultimately His glory in all. See beyond nature to the Creator of nature. And never cease to wonder at the greatness of such a God.

Biologists spend whole lives trying to understand how a cell works, taxonomists scratch their heads over how to classify the vast variety of created things, chemists marvel over the patterns and connections of molecular structures, physicists blow their minds on the sublime activity of the subatomic realm, philosophers argue endlessly over the relation of the body to the mind, psychologists struggle to comprehend the individual, cosmologists discover vast regions of space and marvellous galaxies further than our mind can conceive, and artists and poets die trying to capture the beauty that the world displays. How little of creation we understand after thousands of years.

Be any of these if you want, but more importantly, know the One from whom all good things come forth. For if you choose to set your eyes only on the world, soon it will be dull and unsatisfying, and like Darwin, you'll wonder where your wonder went. But delight, above all, in God, seek Him, and you shall enjoy even the things He gives. That's the way it works, and may God help us daily.

Missionary Kidnapped - Do pray...

From Gospel for Asia:

Dear Friend in Christ,

It is my sad duty to share with you the news that one of our Gospel for Asia native missionaries has been kidnapped by terrorists in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh.

Pastor Subhash, a young single missionary who has already started five mission stations with 28 believers, was returning home in a taxi with five other people--but they never reached their destination.Yesterday, Subhash's parents received a letter that said he had been kidnapped by an extremist Marxist group known as the Naxalites. The letter did not mention any ransom or other demand, but did ask that Subhash's parents "help in order to secure his safe release."

This latest incident comes in a week in which we have received reports of more than two dozen of our native missionaries and Bible college students being badly beaten in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. It also comes as hundreds of thousands of Hindus are planning to swarm into a tribal area of Gujarat in order to persecute the Christians living there.

Please pray for Subhash's safe release. Pray also for his parents, that God will be with them through this ordeal.

And please join me and the rest of the GFA family in praying for all of our persecuted brothers and sisters across South Asia who are suffering at the hands of anti-Christian elements.

Yours for the lost of Asia,
K.P. Yohannan
Gospel for Asia

not very chinese new year?

phew... just finished typing a philosophy paper. Have been on it the past few days, and that perhaps explains my previous post. Anyway, I'm going to try to submit it to a couple of undergraduate journals. Though the chance of publication is scant, just thought i'd give it a try. I have a small problem at hand though... For whatever reason, i can't come up with a title that sounds nice and is relevant. Right now, the working title is rather dubious:

"From Logical to Epistemic Circularity: The Cartesian Circle Remains"

Hmmm. Ok. I'm sorry if that didnt make too much sense to you. It does make sense to me, but it just doesnt sound nice. Sounds a bit clunky (is there even such a word?) to me at the moment. Hopefully a good night's sleep will provide some inspiration.

Ok, on a totally different note, seems like Chinese New Year isn't really very chinese. But it seems to me that there are 2 things which are guaranteed each year. One which we are desperate for and the other which we just have to put up with. Make a guess?

Too late - the answer is here: Hong Bao and Very HOT weather.

Now I'm sure that we dont uphold the giving (or rather, the taking) of those little red packets because of some proud Chinese culture/tradition/spirit. You don't see other traditions being upheld as so sacrosanct.

Hot weather, on the other hand, seems to always go hand in hand with a picture of anything Chinese. Try it. Just imagine Chinatown in the afternoon in your head. Is it raining, snowing, cloudy, or scorching hot? I'd bet on the last one. Imagine those period dramas which are shown on television - e.g. those with justice Bao or some Emperor or some pugilistic kung fu show. 99% of those scenes give you the impression that it's really hot.

So, true to the above observations, this Chinese New Year has ushered in the merciless, searing, scorching, burning hot sun and chased away the rainy days. I wonder if there are statistics done on the number of people down with heat stroke. And as if it were not bad enough, every house is stocked up with those pseudo goodies like bak kwa and lots and lots of other heaty stuff. Eat at your own risk!

Even so, the visit to my grandma's place was lightened up today by Xiao Bai - Jing Yang's very own cute dog. Finally, the funny action it does - standing up on it's hind legs and waving it's front feet up and down - finds an appropriate time. This year, our entrance was greeted by this "gong xi, gong xi" action which made it such a darling to everyone. Xin En had a ball of a time throwing balls for it to fetch. Just highlights the difference between cats and dogs. Cats are so self-absorbed, nonchalant, indifferent, and well, boring because they're bored. They survive (as pets) just based on looking pretty. Dogs, on the other hand, are inquisitive, hyperactive, excited, ready to please, and interested in what's around them. As the book "Cat and Dog Theology" exhorts, let's be dogs and not cats. Maybe I should learn something from Xiao Bai, take a reminder from God's creation, and try to be less self-centred this year. :)

knowledge, epistemic circularity and presuppositional apologetics - part one

Consider the following: How do you know anything?

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), we seek to find a criteria for what counts as knowledge. Obviously, what counts as knowledge must at least be:

1. True
2. Believed

For example, consider the statement: "Grace Baptist Church is located at 17 Mattar Rd." If a person knows this, it means that it must first be true, and the person himself/herself must belief this statement.

But problem is that those 2 conditions are clearly necessary but NOT sufficient. There is something about knowledge, such that we distinguish it from mere lucky guesses. For example, a madman thinks that the address of every single church is at 17 Mattar Rd. Obviously, in the case of Grace Baptist Church, he happens to be correct. But so what? Does he really know anything? Isn't it just a lucky belief?

Thus, we need a third criterion - that something that makes a belief worth believing in. For the above example, we can say that a person only truly knows if he has a good reason for believing in the statement, such as checking the Singapore Street Directory.

The biggest problem in philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), is to find this elusive something that makes a mere true belief become knowledge.

Many suggestions have been put forward as to what something may be. The most obvious is simply good reason that the person has access to. But then comes another problem!

Let's say I tell you I believe something. Let that belief be represented by P (e.g. cats are mammals). You may then ask, why do you believe that P? I will probably give you a reason Q. But Q is just another belief you can question. I will have to give you another reason R, for believing in Q. But R itself is just another belief... and the process goes on.

So we have

P because of Q.

Q because of R.

R because of ...

.

.

.

indefinitely?

Obviously the chain of reasoning has to end somewhere. There can't be an infinite regress of reasons backing up each previous reason, because our capacity for knowledge is obviously finite.

So, what can we do?

Some people propose that the chain ends with something that is self-evident, that does not need an explanation itself. For example, it is self-evident that 1+1=2. It is self-evident that reason does not allow for contradictions. So, when the reason comes to something that is self-evident, we can stop there and give ourselves a pat on the back. We have that as our foundation. Our knowledge is secure!

BUT IS IT?

Another question arises: what is our reason for supposing that something that is self-evident does not need reasons to back it up?

Clearly, I can think of examples when something appears to be self-evident to the subject and yet is false. Consider Neo in the Matrix. Neo thinks he's living in the 20th century in a metropolis, when in actual fact all that is just a simulated illusion caused by some very advanced computers. In reality, his body has been trapped in a machine since his birth.

In other words, it is not self-evident that self-evident beliefs can serve as the foundation of knowledge. In order to justify that self-evident beliefs can serve as a foundation, we need other reasons again! So are we condemned to not being sure of anything? It seems that if we just end at things which seem self-evident to us, then our knowledge tends to be arbitrary. How do we know that things are TRUE, and not just evident?

And as Christians, how are we to respond to questions regarding faith? Stay tuned...

question explained!

in response to the meagre amount of (highly appreciated) comments in response to the question I asked in my post (first hour in school), I shall attempt a better explanation.

(Those not interested, please skip, and remember that not all my entries (in fact, most are not) are about philosophy!)

in philosophy of mind, there are 2 main schools - physicalism/materialism and dualism. The first thing to bear in mind is that these are just terms that are used to refer to certain beliefs about the world and the nature of our minds. In order to be clear in discussions, the definitions of these terms tend to be a little technical, and that is why some people understandably find it difficult to understand.

Now this is (one way of defining) what physicalism/dualism holds:

Does the physical nature of the world logically necessitate its mental nature?

Ok. Just hang on and read on. I'm going to explain the terms, and then give a layman's description.

physical nature (of the world) - the objective world as discovered in the sciences, which can have several levels of description, eg. brains, cells, neurons, proteins, DNA, carbon molecules, atoms, electrons, stones, planets, and so on... Also includes the functions of such physical objects, their configurations, arrangements, interactions, etc.... You get the general idea.

mental nature - traditionally what we regard as the experience of our minds. This includes thinking, sensing, willing, feeling, and so on. For example, the sight of a blue sky, the feel of a velvet suit, the smell of freshly cut grass, the spicyness of chilli, the sound of waves crashing upon jagged rocks; emotions like the feeling of anger, the pangs of jealousy, the delight at seeing a loved one, the nostalgia while looking at old photos; the act of willing something, deciding something, or believing something; religious/spiritual experience of worship, praise, contrition and so on.

Physical nature tends to be regarded as objective. If E=mc2 is true, then it is true no matter who is investigating this fact, or whether anyone knows it. On the other hand, what characterises mental nature is the personal, subjective quality of experience (as Thomas Nagel puts it). Atoms can still be atoms whether or not there is a subject observing them. But the experience of the smell of a rose depends on there being a subject to smell it.

Next, what is logical necessity? When I say that B is necessitated by A, it means that B logically follows from A. It means that once I have A, I cannot deny B. Consider the following example:

P1. All triangles are 3-sided figures.
P2. S is a 3-sided figure.
C. Therefore, S is a triangle.

Here, we see that once we say that S is a 3-sided figure, it is logically necessary that S is also a triangle. There is NO WAY that S can be 3-sided without being a triangle.

Similarly, when we consider the above question:

Does the physical nature of the world logically necessitate its mental nature?

If you are a physicalist, you answer 'yes', and that means that all our mental experiences are FIXED by the physical structure of our bodies and of the world. It means that, given a certain configuration of your brain, there is a certain mental experience that you must have.

For example, if now you are having a visual experience of a red apple, and some scientist discovers that you current brain is in a state, say state ABC. Then the physicalist would say that whenever your brain is in state ABC, you MUST necessarily be having the exact same visual experience of a red apple.

What the physicalist says, in effect, is that in any possible world, if there were someone with the exact physical structure as you, which goes through the same physical changes and so on, then that person must necessarily have the exact same kind of mental life as you.

Ok, now on to the dualist position. As mentioned, the dualist answers 'no' to the question. Now, this means that the dualist thinks that it is possible in theory to have another world where everything physical is exactly the same as ours, down to the last atom, but where the mental life is different. For example, we could have a world of zombies, or machines, constructed exactly like humans, with the same chemical/biological make-up, but without consciousness.

In short, the dualist thinks that the mental is not completely determined by the physical. The dualist does not deny that the mental is caused by the physical, e.g. when I stub my toe, I feel a pain (because my nerves transmit the physical information to my brain, causing the firing of some neurons, etc). What the dualist denies is that mental life and experience is fully determined by physical life, not only in our world, but in any possible world.

Phew! Having said that, I hope I have not scared off my entire readership. For the brave souls who have read all the way and hopefully achieved a new level of understanding (and a headache), do feedback. :)

OOPS! Error in previous post

Hey... upon re-reading my post dated last monday, 9th Jan, I have discovered a mistake (which I have since corrected). Minor in quantitative terms, but grievous in terms of changing the meaning I inteneded.

Recall that I posed a question relating to philosophy of mind. I said:

"Does a thing's MENTAL nature necessitate its PHYSICAL nature?"
This is not the question I wanted to ask.

The correct question is:
"Does a thing's PHYSICAL nature necessitate its MENTAL nature?"

So to those who have so kindly answered, my apologies for the mistake (which on hindsight, is rather glaring). Anyway, if anyone answers 'yes' to the wrong question, it means that you're an idealist. This philosophical position is very out of fashion and hence if you are an idealist, you're an endangered species.

Other than the question itself, the explanations I gave in the previous post were all correct and pertain to the right question. As mentioned, if you answer 'yes' you are a materialist, and if not, then a dualist.

trust

Trust in the LORD with all your heart

and lean not on your own understanding;

In all your ways acknowledge him,

and he will make your paths straight.

These familiar verses, taken from Proverbs 3:5-6, have been read countless times by myself. Even in my old primary school ACJS, I recall these words displayed prominently upon the walls.

But how difficult they are to live out.

I wonder how often we trust God, let alone with all our heart. Sometimes, it is hard to measure. But lately, I have realised that we can perhaps know through the second line - how much are we leaning on our own understanding? When a decision is to be made, when a crisis comes, when something we do not like happens, how do we react? So often, we take control ourselves. I dont mean that we take control of the situation or control the circumstances; what I mean is that we react out of our own will and understanding. We tend to grasp, to want to react our own way, to interpret the situation with our own understanding, and not pausing to let God come in.

Leaning on our own understanding doesnt refer to using the intellect and mind that God has given us. I think it refers to reliance. Do we ultimately put our reliance on our own understanding, our own 'wisdom', or in God Himself? Do we see Him as the totally sufficient, all-satisfying God, who is both sovereign and good? Many times, we may have a feeling that we should obey God in a certain thing, but we extinguish or ignore that notion by reasoning it away, using our own understanding of the situation. We either rationalize by being too practical, too idealistic, too emotional, too rational - whichever fits what we want. And when obedience goes against what we want, it is difficult to trust. It seems easy to trust God in games which you excel in, in subjects you like, in dealing with happy situations. But whether we have really that trust, only a crisis will reveal. Because when a crisis comes, the natural way, the fallen way, is to lean on our own understanding. It is only when we are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, and sensitive to Him, that we can stand a chance against our own understanding.

In all your ways acknowledge Him. See the unequivocal statement. All our hearts, in all our ways. There is no exception, no loophole to find. I doubt anyone who truly follows this will ever find it easy. In fact, it must be impossible but for the grace of God. I suppose God demands the humanly impossible, in part so that we have to acknowledge His divine strength, to plead for His grace and depend on it, to realise how small, how weak, how foolish we are. And if we truly trust and obey, there comes the straight paths, there comes the dawning realisation of our past foolishness, there comes the emerging delight of God's glory and His wonderful ways.

Because ultimately, all good things come from above. (Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. James 1:17). If we go down the wrong path, even the temporary pleasures will one day seem dull and terribly unsatisfying. But if we walk the straight path today, then even the pain and discomfort will be transformed into nuggets of His wisdom and grace, and the path shall lead ever-closer to true happiness.

lameness personified

"Good afternoon, I'll be your torturer-erm... I mean, lecturer for today." So began the lecturer for my sociology module today. (That's supposed to be a joke.) If you think that's as lame as you can get, the next 80 minutes were full other phrases that topped that. And the worst thing was, the lecturer took his jokes so seriously, keeping that obviously deadpan expression, pausing after each delivery to wait for the laughter, and treating all of us like some audience at a talkshow.

I appreciate his efforts, but I think the jokes were one too many and basically his humour was mostly superfluous. Come on, we're not secondary school kids who need 1 joke per sentence (he was close to that) in order to pay attention. Neither are we expecting to laugh our way through a sociology module. And I wonder whether he was doing this because the cohort comprised largely engineering students. If engineering students really need such patronising in order for them to learn, then they shouldnt be trying this module at all. And the lecturer doesn't need to talk as if we can't even understand simple concepts without a great deal of effort.

Well, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I shall assume his efforts are well-intentioned and not arisen from some self-constructed picture of his alter-ego as a stand-up comedian. To be fair, some of the examples he used to bring out a point were funny and made a point. So all i hope for is, please cut out all the unrelated jokes. And for goodness sake, give a break in the middle of the lecture...

take time and pray...

01/09/2006: Bangladesh Missionary Brutally Murdered

Gospel for Asia leaders in Bangladesh report that native missionary Laxman Das, 25, was murdered last Friday, January 6. He was found on the side of a highway near the town of Dangil, approximately 100 kilometers (62 miles) outside of the capital city of Dhaka. Police took his body to a hospital, where an autopsy revealed the cause of death to be a severe blow to the head.

Laxman is survived by his young wife and five-month-old child. He graduated from a GFA Bible college in 2001 and was working full-time as a missionary. He had already established a church in his village located in the northern part of Bangladesh. Laxman was returning home by bus on Friday when it was stopped. He was apparently singled out and forced off the bus, then killed. GFA leaders are still waiting for more details from the police investigation.

"This is the time of the Eid festival [when Muslims celebrate what they believe to be Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Ishmael]," one GFA leader commented. "There is no law and order in some places, and usually many incidents like this happen." The nation of Bangladesh is primarily Muslim, with more than 85 percent professing Islam. Less than one percent of the population is Christian.

Gospel for Asia is currently training 77 students in two Bible colleges in the country. GFA also has 98 full-time native missionaries in Bangladesh who have planted 75 churches and 100 mission stations. "This is not the first time we have faced such opposition to the work of the Gospel in Bangladesh," commented GFA President K.P. Yohannan. "As the Body of Christ, we must stand together in prayer for our brothers and sisters in this nation."

Please pray for Laxman's family and co-workers to know the Lord's comfort and strength as they grieve his death, and pray that much fruit will come from this "grain of wheat" that has fallen.