We stopped dreaming

These videos are made with audio quotes from Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the NASA budget cuts. I'm obviously not American but the core message applies everywhere -- it's worth a listen.

PZ Myers - Science Ed: Science vs Religion

Yea, this is old stuff. This is PZ Myers at Skepticon 1 back in 2008. It's kinda sad considering that it still applies after more than 2 years.

Enjoy!

Secularism, what is that really?

Okay, let me put it upfront that the article I'll be referring to is old news, really old news, like 2009 old news. Unfortunately, the nonsense in the article is not unnecessarily old. It does seem that Christians in Singapore are importing American Evangelical nonsense. I will use this opportunity to clarify what secularism is and is not.

There seems to be few sources that have the interview of Thio Li-Ann archived. So I'll be using this one archived by AWARE. It should be sufficient for my purposes since I'm not going to be deconstructing the whole interview. If you want that, then I would recommend this other blog's post - it's quite well done I think.

Historically, ‘secularism’ originates from the Latin ‘saeculum’, meaning ‘temporal’, worldly affairs, rather than ‘spiritual’, other-worldly matters. The word ‘secular’ is an emblem of intense historical conflict.

Today, in some circles, ‘secularism’ connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man.

......

In 1989, Foreign Minister George Yeo observed the Government was ‘secular but it is certainly not atheistic’. This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism.

Here is a truncated quote from the interview. Notice the attempt to confuse and conflate atheism and secularism?

Guess what? Secularism and atheism are two completely different things. This attempt to confuse the issue is a dishonest ploy to evoke feelings of opposition to secularism from religious folks.

For the record, if the state/government endorses atheism or antitheism, it is by definition, NOT secular. As such, there is NO such thing as an "atheistic version of secularism". Secularity of the government only means that the government just remain neutral in matters pertaining to the religious beliefs of its citizens.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: ‘It is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.’ Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion.

Again, an attempt to conflate secularism with atheism, this time, as well as Secular Humanism.

It's important to go through this point by point to clarify the confusion about Secular Humanism.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view.

Secular Humanism is atheistic in nature though not necessarily antitheistic.

Here is the Minimum Statement on Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Secular Humanists themselves may be antitheistic but it is not a dogmatic requirement of the stance. In fact, Secular Humanism rejects dogmas.

Some courts recognise it as a religion.

The recognition of Secular Humanism as a "religion" is for functional reasons in the eyes of the law.

It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence.

No, it doesn't. That has it ass backwards.

Precisely because there is no empirical evidence FOR the existence of god(s), Secular Humanists do not believe there is/are god(s). The distinction between "do not believe in the existence of god" and "believe there are no gods" is subtle but still important! We simply do not pretend there is one (or more gods) - instead we believe only we, humans, can help ourselves (hence the humanist aspect).

We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

Gee, except that's not what we're claiming - we haven't disproved god nor can we.

While we can't prove (in correct usage of the word) the existence of god(s), we should be able to demonstrate IF he/she/it exist. But we haven't; Still waiting for those people with the burden of proof to bring in the evidence.

And now we'll move onto the rest of the nonsense.

Secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations.

What in the world is "modern religions with atheistic foundations"? Some forms of Buddhism is atheistic but that sure isn't modern.

Again, it seems that this is yet another attempt to claim that atheism somehow constitutes a religion. Well, it isn't. Being an atheist effectively means having no religion. Lacking belief in god makes you an atheist; No rational atheist asserts that god(s) do not exist and even those who do make that assertion are not organising a religion!

But let's move straight to most important part, the biggest "misunderstanding",

Thus, Singapore secularism is 'agnostic' and 'thin'. The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise 'accommodative secularism' described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one's choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate.

Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a 'framework' which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions.

Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states.

Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.

The distinction between "accommodative" and "millitant" secularism is fucking nonsense.

Okay, I won't be quoting anymore. Here on is my explanation for secularism.

Secularism is one of the constitutional devices that sought to protect the people from the state (government) and vice versa, in this case, from religious discrimination. It means that the state must remain neutral towards religion, that is, the state cannot endorse any religions (no preferential treatment, no favorite or state religion) and cannot discriminate against any religion. This guarantees freedom of religion (as well as from religion).

Maybe it would be clearer if I used hypothetical examples.

It means the government cannot come out tomorrow and announce that Buddhism is the state religion of Singapore and its temples will now enjoy tax free status that other religions are not entitled.

It means the state cannot proclaim that we have amended the Singapore Pledge and it will now read:

We, the citizens of Singapore,
accept our Lord Jesus Christ as our one and only savior,
regardless of race, language or gender,

It means we cannot write into our law that all pork and pig related products shall be banned and no non-halal stalls will ever be permitted.

It means the Prime Minister cannot proclaim that we will now endorse state atheism and will now print "One Nation under No Gods" on our dollar bills.

Clearer now?

Secularism also means that members of the government cannot inject their religion into our constitution, our laws or anything endorsed by the government.

We may not inject Creationism into our national Science curriculum at our public schools.

We may not criminalized abortion on the basis of any religious doctrine.

We may not discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of any holy text.

We may not allow state-led prayer in our Parliament or public schools.

And yes, those examples come from America where religious nuts are trying to destroy the secularity of the USA.

To put it simply, secularism means you cannot impose your religious views on others via the government but neither can the government tell you what you can or cannot believe/do because of someone else's religion.

I hope you can see that that's a good thing, otherwise, you might be a bigot or possibly a theocrat... just guessing...

Teaching Science

"You are doing it WRONG" is my conclusion when I look at Singapore's science education.

The science curriculum is evidently designed for application purposes only. Facts after facts, equations after equations is what science is depicted as to the children.

That's is why I have issues with it. Science is NOT JUST ANY body of knowledge. Science is the body of knowledge acquired by the scientific method. Yet the method itself never gets a mention when it deserves more.

Here's my thing: Teaching the future pillars of our nation that haemoglobin is a protein whose amino acid sequence is encoded in DNA which itself is a molecule housed in the nucleus of almost all of your body's cells is NOT as important as teaching them the Scientific Method, the method that scientists used to discover the fore mentioned fact.

Proper understanding of the scientific method is crucial for responsible citizenry in the age of science and technology. As far as I can tell, it is the ignorance and fear of science that causes the visceral hostile reactions to science and new technology where the general public is concerned.

Aside from a more complete understanding of the scientific method, perhaps the stories behind the central theories of the major branches of science could be presented as well. The basic idea is to expose students to the evidence that convinced the scientific community that those theories are valid.

I think such a class should be made to complement the current curriculum for all students.

For a better future.

Thou shalt not silence me

I think it's time Psalm 14:1 gets a proper reply,

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; The honest says it out loud.

The plight of unbelievers everywhere is the result of decades of silence. With "respect", the majority of the non-religious kept their noses out of religious idiocy and zealotry. Some may have held the belief that as humanity matures, religiosity will fade into the abyss along with other superstitions.

They were wrong. At some point, I was wrong.

As with any debate or discussion, sitting in the corner and letting your opponent unleash an all out assault isn't going to win you points. Keeping quiet for so long, the religious majority climbed over our heads and took the liberty of cleaning their feet with our hair.

Moderates and liberals aren't extremists like their fundamentalist counterparts but that doesn't absolve them from this issue. Even liberals make patronizing (if not condescending) statements like "they just haven't found god" or "they know in their hearts that there is a god".

This isn't a declaration of a holy war. While vocal atheists are frequently stamped with the "militant" label, there is literally nothing militant about us. The only "violence" we do is with words.

Respect is mutual. If the religious can and indeed do make statements like "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" (on a huge banner outside their church), then too can play that game.

I think religions are wrong.

I think the religious concept of morality is immature and weak.

I think god, as described by certain religions, is unjust if not evil.

I think the evidence points the other way.

I think the good done by religions does not even come close to justifying the bad.

I think you're better than your god.

I shan't just think, I shall speak my mind.

Thou shalt silence me no more.

Wait, "Militant Secularism"?

What's that? "Militant Secularism"?

That's a phrase used in a particular article in TODAY that caught my attention. See it here.

Right at beginning, it states,

WHILE Singapore’s secularism dictates that religion should not be mixed with politics, religion is “not separated from public life and culture”, law academic Thio Li-ann asserted in Parliament yesterday.

Well, sure, of course religion is part of culture and public life.

And those who engage in public debate cannot be expected to do so independent of their religious views, the Nominated Member of Parliament stressed.

To some extent, yes, certain issues will be tied to particular religious views.

Sounds fine so far. So what is the issue with "militant secularism"?

With the senior Thio looking on in the public gallery, Prof Thio argued: “Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously-informed convictions in public debate.”

Okay, what in the world is "secular fundamentalists"?

Consulting the dictionary for relevant defintions:

Secularism [sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

Fundamentalism [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. [Religious movement]
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

A person who has a strict adherence to the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. I don't see a problem unless someone can point out to me what is so bad about secularism.

They do so “by demonising a view as religious in attempting to make religious faith a cause for embarrassment, or to distract citizens from the merits of an argument by discounting a speaker whose values are shaped by a religious” faith.

I would have to disagree completely with this statement.

What kind of merits are there to an argument made from religious grounds?

"I am against gays because my invisible sky daddy said so."

"As a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/etc, I am against gays/abortion/etc."

"My holy book said so."

"My god says that infidels should die."

If the arguments sound anything like the above, in whatever shape or form, then it deserves "embrassment", scorn and ridicule.

If there are merits to an argument, it will stand on its own. Introducing "My god said so" in front of the argument is pointless if not offensive or just stupid.

Such militant secularism is “a recipe for social disharmony”, she added.

Hmmm, don't know what is militant secularism supposed to mean anyways.

In any case, I think it is reasonable to say that secularism is necessary for social harmony. If religions are allowed to inject their religious poison into law and government, it is only a matter of time before we have religious riots erupting.

So what is the issue anyways?