BLOGGER



Youngest kid of six with an inferiority and black sheep complex, but determined that God saves not just his soul to heaven but the remainder of his manic-depressive life, so others won't say he became a Christian and remained a jerk.


MAIN THEMES

On identity
i won't be transparent before i'm opaque. and you'll get to know me starting from the small things: who my favourite bands are. what kind of movies i like. who are my heroes.

On Christianity
I’m convinced that when confronted with sincere, real love, the Jesus factor will become obvious. But let’s not plant the cross before we carry it. I’m not trying to con you.

On dreams
Some dreams are meant to be achieved. I know that. But maybe other dreams are meant to drive us, privately. Never known to anyone but ourselves.


OTHER THEMES

On melancholy
It is a sadness that, when choosing between crying and sighing, will choose sighing. I'd almost say that melancholy is being sad about sadness itself.

On memory and nostalgia
It saddens me when life moves forward and people decide that certain things are worth forgetting.

On language
I've learnt that the word irregardless is filed as a non-standard word in the English language. That's a lexicographer's way of saying it's not a real word.

On politics
Crowds are fickle things. So when we stand in the thousands and cry against the present government, do we know who we're actually crying for?

On society
People always want the best for themselves. But I want to sometimes take second or third or fourth best, just so that the loser down the road doesn't always have to come in last. It must feel like shit to always come in last.

On growing old
Leasehold property make me feel sad. It doesn't matter how old the family photos are that you put on your wall. It's your family but it's not really your wall.

On philosophy
I ask you, if God loves everyone, and if God is also incapable of loving evil, how can there be such a thing as an evil man?

On a daily basis
One line quips, like this.


CHAT





Thursday, March 03, 2005
KUHN & CHRIST

Pre script: i had originally wanted to use a photograph of Thomas Kuhn himself to lead this blog. i went out into the fruitful world of cyberspace images, guns ablaze, and very quickly found a picture of him on the cover of a book. then, i studied the picture intently, eyeing mr kuhn's thick glasses, receding hairline, formal clothes and cheesy smile, and it struck me so hard that a) i am a geek, and b) it was the wrong picture to lead this blog. you will therefore only find mr kuhn's portrait somewhere down the middle of this blog. (it was later, in a triumphant state of geekiness that i tiled his picture as the wallpaper on my office computer!)

*

In The structure of scientific revolutions, kuhn talked about paradigms. a paradigm is the belief system, or structure, of a scientific community, the collective worldview, through which scientists interpret the world and practice. at the heart of these paradigms are usually paradigm theories that act as the core of the entire paradigm's beliefs. for example, the chemical atomic theory (the theory that everything is made up of single, undividable atoms with energy) forms the core of most of today's scientific worldviews.

but this has not always been the case. there was a time when people believed in "phlogiston", and this formed the core of an entirely different paradigm. phlogiston was a colourless, odourless "substance" that gave other substances, among other things, heat, metallic sheen, etc. when chemical reaction happens, the phlogistonist will attribute the reaction to phlogiston leaving one place and going to another. so, let's put paradigms in place: the phlogiston paradigm will interpret water boiling as phlogiston leaving water. the chemical atomic theorist will look at it and see water molecules at high energy, escaping the liquid form.

the interesting thing about kuhn is that to him, each paradigm by and large explains and justifies itself. the facts that are founded within a paradigm will usually be consistent with the core paradigm theories. most of scientific knowledge will be explainable via this paradigm's beliefs. a different paradigm will have entirely different problems, entirely different issues to deal with, and it will explain the world according to its own consistent justifications as well. in other words, the phlogiston theory helps me explain a range of things such as the burning of sulphur, the melting of ice, the spread of smells, etc. most of these explanations will relate to phlogiston, and therefore be consistent.

now the interesting thing is this - kuhn doesn't talk about absolute truths. the phlogiston theory may or may not be true, but all its explanations are consistent with each other. now this is where i want to pick up. my view of world religions and christianity is kuhnian in the sense that i see these religions as competing paradigms. the christian faith, for example, says (in a ridiculously simplified form) that there is a God who created man, man sinned, and God saved sinful man through Jesus Christ. from within this paradigm, almost everything from sickness to a guy striking the lottery to the natural phenomena of rainfall can be explained consistently with each other. likewise, the buddhist faith (again, simplified) says that there is life and death in indefinite cycles perpetuated by our karma, which needs to be overturned from bad to good through righteous living. this worldview will also be able to interpret to a high if not complete degree of internal consistency sickness, a guy striking the lottery, and the natural phenomena of rainfall. both (and more) paradigms will offer conflicting answers to experiences, and each will be able to back itself up with a web of interlinking "truths", most of which will usually be internally consistent.

now if you're shaking your head and thinking "but that's just relativism", we're on the same page. yes, (now back to the man) kuhn was criticised for being a relativist. he denounced it, saying that there were supra paradigmatic criteria that judged which paradigms were "better" or "more efficient". but that is science. and while kuhn argues that a latter paradigm replaces a former when it solves the descrepencies of the former. kuhn never says that the latter paradigm is closer to the truth. it is just more efficient and useful. this is around where kuhn ends and i begin.

while kuhn shies away from absolute truths, i come before you a christian, sold out to Jesus because i have felt the reality of His saving power. my testimony is a testimony of God's reality. it is the testimony of God's truth. it is interesting to note now that to kuhn, when a scientist moves from one paradigm to another, s/he doesn't do so by being proven wrong. rather, the switch is more akin to the religious experience of conversion, a move inspired by persuasion and convincing. i believe the same is quite true for religious faiths. i would find it a mighty task trying to debunk buddhism (or hinduism or islam or anything!) simply because these paradigms are usually tightly knit and have a high value of internal consistency. put differently, they will be able to answer and account for most things without internal loopholes.

if my worldview has little or no internal loopholes, and neither does yours, and both of our worldviews say different things, then one of ours is wrong. is there an absolute truth? i argue that my testimony of its reality is sufficient, but a buddhist or hindu or muslim will argue the same. i still maintain that there is an absolute truth that can be felt because God is real. but you see the deadlock building up here. therefore, i go back to kuhn.

kuhn argued that there are supra paradigmatic criteria (criteria that exist above the competing paradigms) that judge how efficient different paradigms are. he has a complex list of criteria, but never mind that. i believe that if you wanna put absolute truths aside for a moment, kuhn's model can still work here. let's talk about supra paradigmatic criteria that judge how efficient a religious paradigm is! now, i'm in no place to say what this criteria absolutly constitutes, but i do know it must include

a) internal consistency
b) hope
c) love

(i say hope and love because these are, i dare say, fundamental and primary human desires that NEED to be addressed by any self-respecting "religion")

without going into a), let me flat out say that the christian faith is the most hopeful one i've ever come across. to begin with, the karmic religions are all depressing (ok, i'll resist using such value laden words) because the nature of the karmic system is one of crime and punishment, good deeds and reward. the christian doctrine of grace is one of crime and forgiveness, confession and blessings. this makes christianity infitely more hopeful than buddhism (and all its permutations), hinduism (ditto) and the bulk of eastern religions. i also dare say that christianity is a more loving religion (gosh i hate that word) than, say islam, because the doctrine of a God who is a Father and an intimate relationship-driven God is a much more loving idea than the islamic God whom one cannot attempt to fathom (excuse me again, if i simplify). again, the theology of Jesus as the messiah is more hopeful than the judaistic one, where the victory of grace over sin is yet to be won. and lastly, and most importantly, christianity is by far a more internally consistent paradigm than religious pluralism and multi-faith-ism. unlike christianity, which posits one truth, religious pluralism accepts all truths - even conflicting ones. for this alone, it fails the test of internal consistency.

yet, in spite of these arguments, i maintain that the supra paradigmatic criteria is not enough. call me one who loves to overkill, i say that on top of these points, God is real because i gave Him a chance and He showed me. i say salvation on the cross is real because i believe the words of the Bible and i have personally experienced God's salvific joy. i say that Jesus Christ is alive and real because i know Him - He is with me day and night. if you feel the same way about your god then let's go back to kuhn's supra paradigmatic criteria. and if you don't have a god (or if it is, in fact, science) then allow me to persuade you, to convince you (as kuhn argues is how it's done) that there is a God who loves you, who created more than human scientists can ever fathom, who wants to get partnered with you in your day-to-day life and make sure it heads down the best direction possible! if you're thinking that your worldview holds up as it is - well, lots of other worldviews hold up as well. but not all worldviews are good news. i can't say which is better or worse but the life and death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ is good news. it is news that is actually positive and hopeful. can i persuade you? can i convince you?

*

thomas kuhn said that when a paradigm switch happens, it happens like looking at those gestalt switch pictures shown here. once you see the other paradigm, you can't not see it anymore. you can't ignore it. and when you see it, you see it fully, all at once. can you see this good news paradigm? this hopeful and positive paradigm? this is the paradigm of Jesus Christ. the paradigm theory is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to make life good for you, and then, to cap it all off, to give you eternal life in heaven. and all you have to do is believe. it's theo-philosophical anarchy! it's the overthrowing of the old office! kuhn called it scientific revolution. christ calls "i love you so much".

Labels:



Genusfrog [ 1:31 pm ]

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home