Sometime in 2000 I had a discussion with 2 friends on the Asian Financial Crisis and the strength of the US market then (Greenspan's 'irrational exuberance' was still very much alive then). There were people predicting that the Dow would reach 20,000 where the average PE would be 40. That seemed odd to me as PEs in Asian markets were reportedly less than 10 - for me the obvious thing was for money to flow into Asia but that was not happening.
But my 2 friends assuredly explained my observation by saying that the Asian Crisis was caused by corruption and bad management of Asian companies, and people were willing to pay a 'premium' for American stocks because they had better management practices. One said that American companies for example know when to cut loses if investment returns were bad but Asian management do not. But I said that I didn't believe such 'west is better than east' stuff (to me people are the same everywhere).
This was despite the fact that a lot of people were already warning about the 'unreal' economics behind the internet boom. Although I could not explain it, I said that I suspect the strength of the US economy could also have something to do with the US dollar. This is on top of the benefits accrued to it by whacking Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War and getting $90 billion payments from the stupid Arabs, Japan and Europe (for expending all of America's old armaments on Iraq! In accounting lingo, it was deriving income from fully depreciated assets).
Some months later I received the below mail from one of them who happen to be an economist.
In subsequent discussions with this friend, I suggested that the 'USD advantage' may also explain why the Europeans had created the Euro (I was still quite 'blur' about this topic then), and why the US wants to whack Iraq (there were already 'speculations' that it was partly because Saddam Hussein was asking for oil payments in Euros).
But this friend told me that he does not think the above 'advantages' are real as the market is 'free'.
Hi,
I remember your question about the advantages the US enjoys because of the special status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency. One such benefit is called seignorage - though it is a benefit accruing not exclusively to the US government. The Americans simply could benefit from it more than any one else on earth.
Rgds,
Yin Sze
Seignorage
Seignorage is the difference between the value of money and the cost of its production. In the classic example, the sovereign holds the exclusive right to create money and thus profits from minting coins that cost him less to produce than their face value. He himself spends the coins into circulation. How does this differ from seignorage in our fiat money system?
Seignorage from Federal Reserve Notes
The U.S. government has the exclusive right to issue Federal Reserve notes. As of November 2000 a total of $550 billion in notes were outstanding with an annual replacement cost of about $450 million. The present value of those costs, continued indefinitely and discounted at 5%, is about $9 billion. The seignorage resulting from the monopoly on note issue is therefore worth about $550 billion - $9 billion = $541 billion. Is this a true windfall for the U.S. government? In order to understand the answer to this question, we need to look first at the details.
Acquiring the Notes
The Fed buys the notes from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at the Treasury at a cost of about 4 cents each. It sells them at face value to banks on demand. The Fed is required by law to pledge collateral at least equal to the amount of currency that it issues. Most of that collateral is in the form of Treasury securities owned by the Fed.
The term collateral here is only symbolic. Treasury bonds do not represent a claim on the real assets of the government. They are merely interest-bearing IOUs that are guaranteed to be repaid at maturity in legal tender, more Federal Reserve notes.
Effect of Cash Withdrawals
Consider what happens when a bank buys Federal Reserve notes from the Fed. Its deposit at the Fed is debited accordingly. However the Fed's reduced liability to the bank is balanced by an equal increase in its note obligations. The sale of notes is a reversible transaction. Banks can sell notes back to the Fed and regain deposits at any time. The Fed simply swaps two liabilities as it buys and sells notes to banks.
Now consider what happens when the public increases its cash holdings by withdrawals from banks. Since a bank's vault cash is a part of its reserves, net withdrawals of cash reduce the aggregate banking system reserves. In order to support the Fed funds rate as set by the FOMC, the Fed must replenish those reserves. It does so by buying Treasury securities in the open market, thereby restoring deposits to the banking system.
In effect, the public trades some of its Treasury bonds to the Fed for the additional cash. The public foregoes interest earnings on those bonds in proportion to the cash it holds. Those bonds become assets of the Fed, and remain as obligations of the Treasury. The Treasury must pay the Fed to redeem the bonds when they mature.
Maturing Treasury Bonds
How does the Treasury cover the redemption of maturing bonds? If it has a budget surplus it retires them with the available surplus. Otherwise it rolls them over, i.e. sells new issues to pay for the old.
If the Fed owns the maturing bonds, there are two options. The Fed can simply debit the Treasury's account at the Fed in exchange for the bond. In that case the Treasury must replenish its funds by selling new bond issues to the public. The purchase of new T-bonds would result in a loss of banking system reserves if the Fed did not replenish the reserves by buying more bonds from the public. Thus the Fed must replace the bonds in its portfolio as fast as they mature simply to maintain its control over short term interest rates.
The second option is for the Fed to roll over its maturing bonds directly with the Treasury. The new bonds are paid for out of the proceeds of the maturing bonds. Whether the public or the Fed owns the maturing bonds, the total supply of T-bonds outstanding remains unaffected by the redemptions.
Reducing the Treasury's Interest Cost
When the public increases its cash holdings, the Fed's portfolio of T-bonds increases while the public's ownership of T-bonds decreases. This reduces the interest cost on government debt because the Fed rebates most of the interest earned from its T-bond portfolio to the Treasury. Other things equal, the more cash the public holds, the lower is the cost of servicing the national debt.
Seignorage vs Deficit Spending
In a sense the concept of seignorage in a fiat money system is incongruous. The government has unlimited spending power and thus has no need for seignorage. Normally it covers any shortage in tax revenues with the sale of bonds, paying whatever interest rate is demanded by the buyers. Under extreme conditions as in wartime, the Fed could be required to buy them. In effect deficit spending would then be funded from newly created money rather than recycled money. To avoid the obvious inflationary implications, special controls would be needed to restrict the amount of credit creation by the banking system.
A Case of Real Seignorage
Real seignorage exists for those Federal Reserve notes that have migrated overseas, an estimated 60% of the total issued, or about $300 billion. At a cost of a few cents each, those notes bought foreign goods and other assets at face value for the U.S. As long as the notes remain overseas, those purchases are virtually cost-free. An interesting question then is: who is the actual beneficiary of that seignorage?
Thursday, July 19, 2001
Wednesday, July 04, 2001
Another Exchange on God & Bible
(Below exchanges triggered by this other exchange
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2001_06_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html)
From: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com, bkjchua@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some interpretations needed
Hi,
I don't really know what this debate is all about, but I felt compelled to make a few points. We can argue till the cows come home but I don't believe science can ever prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science deals with what is observable and measureable, and has nothing to say about the spiritual world. I think even the best scientific minds have not been able to make any claims - based on science - about such questions as the soul, or life after death. Since God cannot be observed and measured, science shrugs it off and implicitly denies its existence. Is that the right approach? I don't know. If we think that the scientific method is our only valid window to the world, then I suppose we will just have to wait until science has something to say about the spiritual world (we may have to wait a long time). Some people choose to believe that there is a God and some don't, and I believe there are highly intelligent (ie, scientific) people on both camps. I have met highly articulate, well-read, knowledgeable people who happen to believe in God, and vice versa. What has science got to do with it? Nothing. Has God discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development? Not that I know of.
And about that 2,000-year old book. What can people who lived 2,000 years ago teach us? We now have hand-held devices that contain more information than what all those guys had ever known. We may be a lot more knowledgeable than those guys back then but I believe "human nature" has not changed one bit (or byte) after all these years. Men still kill, rob, rape, plunder and lie as much as before, if not more so. Read the Bible as a scientific text and you are bound to be disappointed. May I suggest that you read it with an open heart - perhaps then the words would begin to come alive, and you would not miss the forest for the trees. You know how rapidly books of the past become obsolete and irrelevant. Karl Marx's stuff once has the whole world all worked up but now it's a joke - no one gives a damn. And that was no more than 150 years ago. But the Bible seems different. I do not proclaim to know much about the Bible, but it has already revealed to me enough truth about human beings that I begin to wonder about the people who wrote it more than 2000 years ago. The greed, fear, lust and treachery portrayed in those pages are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday. The way the Bible and belief in God has changed the lives of people I know is nothing short of amazing. These people might have been dumb, irrational, spine-less, can't-think-for-themselves -- and yet it is obvious to me that the outcome of their belief is ... good.
I know, in today's computer age, it seems ludicrous that some higher being (ie, God) would send his son down to die for us. And being the Son of God, he didn't really die anyway - as you know, he was resurrected. Superficially then, the Bible would appear to be no more than a consistent, well-written historical textbook. But suppose for a moment that there is God and He wants to save us from our sins. If He had not sent Jesus down to do the things he did, do you think there is any chance that anyone of us born-sceptics would ever believe in an unseen, unheard God? Not way! If God really want us to believe in Him (for whatever reasons), is there any other way He might have done so? Perhaps not. Anyway, I was struck by the fact that Jesus had a really difficult time convincing the people of his time despite all the miracles he performed. You may ask, why would God want to save us, why did He leave allow women and children be killed in wars and earthquakes, why did He let a cute 2-year old English boy be brutally murdered by a couple of ten-year olds, why did He allow someone like Hitler to kill so many millions before he ended his own life? I don't have answers to questions like that. I used to think that I must have satisfactory answers to such basic questions before I can believe in anything. But my ego has since been deflated along with the economic downturn. I don't fully understand how panadol can help bring down my fever, and yet I have been taking it faithfully each time I fall ill. Must I understand everything about God before I believe? Can I?
Thanks for bearing with my confused thoughts.
Rgds,
LYS
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some help for confused thoughts
Hi my friend,
Science does not attempt to and cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I don't think science like you claim denies God's existence. So I am not surprised that many scientists do believe that God exists. But it will be very difficult for most scientists to believe that one of the many religions practiced by humans is the only truth about and only way to God as some religions claim. This is a very important difference - as you will see below.
As we know very well, science is not the only window to the world. Like you alluded to, imaginations like that of many fanatics, lunatics, cheats, racists and writers like Hitler and Harold Robbins in this world are some other ways to view the world. But science is the only one we know of that has any credibility and has withstood the test of time. By science here I mean the broad approach of accepting a view as more accurately representative of nature than another if that view stands up better to observation, measurement, repeatable testing, and corroboration by other findings, as opposed to a particular scientific view or theory (the latter was what Richard Feynman was referring to in his quotes).
The scientific method has enabled us to piece together a knowledge base (not an individual theory or observation) that can help us make decisions on the following:
1. Believe in the existence of God(s) - may be we should not split hairs here.
2. Believe in a particular religion
3. Believe that that religion represents the only truth about and only way to God
Each of us may make a decision on some but not necessarily all of the above. But my view is that it is only reasonable to make our decision in the order above and not juxtapose them. For e.g. one can decide that one believes God exists but choose not to believe in any particular religion. Or one can believe in God and a particular religion but decide not to believe that that religion represents the only truth about and way to God. But one cannot believe that one's religion represents the only truth and way to God, but do not firstly decide for example that God exists.
I think that to make a decision on each of the above, one has to rely not only on one's own personal feelings and experiences alone but also on empirical observations and knowledge about the world around us. It is the latter where science has contributed much - everything about science is empirical. Thus an empirical observation that there are no more good people who are Christians than there are good people who are Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists may not be a scientific discovery but is nevertheless scientific in that we can subject that observation to measurement and corroboration with information we gather through our daily life (if we bother to observe beyond our little circle).
We must also appreciate that humans may make decisions subconsciously based on very selfish and less objective reasons. For example, one may think that a religion is closer to the truth because that religion happens to fit in to his believe that he is more special than everything else in this universe. Or that the religion happens to address his fear that he may end up at the wrong end of the world. I think you alluded to those human tendencies in your note.
Although none of the decisions above is necessarily less important than the others, it is nevertheless simpler to disprove any claim to the latter ones than the first using empirical evidences available to and in a way not dissimilar to that employed by science. (added later: That is because the first claims only that God exists while religious texts usually claim that and more. The more a religion claims the more opportunity we have to verify those individual claims and by extension the voracity of the whole text - by association. For example, a religion may claim that the world is of a certain age, that humans are created in the image of God, or that a certain event had happened. If any of those claims is found to be unreasonable or inconsistent with the knowledge we gathered through science or through our increased knowledge of the world made possible by the many inventions of science, then by association we have some basis to doubt all its remaining claims. For example, that its words are the words of God or that it is the' ultimate' truth.)
If we appreciate the considerations above we would be better able to address some of your views:
- you claim that God has not discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development.
You are not incorrect. For we see that happening around us everyday already (empirical observation). But that claim does not in any way help us in making any of the 3 decisions above.
- you seem impressed with the Bible because it seems different as it has revealed to you enough truth about human beings that are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday.
Well, I do not disagree that humans had not changed much in instinct in the last couple of thousand years. That would be the same with all other animals. Scientific findings indicate to me that if someone had lived 100 million years ago, had known and was willing to document the basic instincts of sharks, you would be impressed with how accurate that would have been with what you can learn today from the Discovery Channel! For that matter if you had bothered to find out, you would learn that Sun Tze's Art of War's and the Tao Te Ching's documentation of the behavior of humans and more had remained largely relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. I will not be surprised if it is the same with many other texts from other cultures. You would also find the Kamasutra extremely accurate and relevant in depicting human sexual acts despite the years. That Harold Robins' books are as accurate in capturing lusts as any book except that his books will not last as long for the reason that it offers no other psychological rewards like the promise of a better life at the end. The fact that the Straits Times can also document human behaviors as well as the Bible also goes to show that it is no miracle to be able to do so. So does the above help one make any of the above decisions? I don't think so.
- You observed that the Bible and belief in God had changed the lives of people you know is nothing short of amazing and it is obvious to you that the outcome of their belief is good.
I do not disagree that there are many good Christians and many lives were changed by the Bible or by believing in God. It is just that I had come across and read about many good non-Christians throughout my life too. Some of them will undoubtedly claim that their lives were changed by a different experience than yours. For me, they are also beacons of hope for the human race. I do not notice any statistical difference between good Christians and good non-Christians. To me that is uplifting but not amazing. It is consistent with statistics on religious followings around the world and so can be scientifically proven.
I also read about dogs and dolphins that saved lives. Birds that remain faithful to their partners for life. Animals that do not kill or consume other animals in their whole life. Animals that don't lie. To me that is goodness no less than that any human can lay claim to. Are they religious in the way as to believe in one of man's religions? Are they also blessed by the Bible? This bit I do know: they can't read our books and I'm not sure they will be that impressed with those well-documented human behaviors. You see, your observation that humans still kill despite all the godly attempts you thought were made to change man proves all the more that we humans are not just not much different from other animals but we are worse. Other animals that kill do so only when hungry but we kill for that and more. If that is the case, are we closer to God as some religions claim? My empirical observations above make me think otherwise. If that is the case, should I believe in those religions?
If, as you claimed, your religion's believe that God had tried so hard to change man (the mechanics of how that is done is not important) but had so far failed, does that raise some questions about your belief?
- you said you don't fully understand how Panadol can help bring down your fever, and yet you have been taking it faithfully each time you fall ill.
I do the same too. Both of us know that there are enough empirical evidences that Panadol works better in curing fever than many other methods - you may not know why but that is still a scientific approach. But that does not mean that other generic Paracetamol pills do not have the same effect. Neither does it mean that we should not be conscious of the possibility that an overdose of Panadol will kill us.
Does that say anything about faith? Yes, a lot: be careful where you place your faith. You would be better placed if the faith is better supported by empirical evidences and you take a broader consciousness. For depending on which 'pill' you happen to try, your faith may be on a different 'brand' from others. That does not mean your 'brand' is any more effective or closer to the truth.
- Lastly, I also do not understand everything. But that does not stop me from making the following decisions: that I tend to believe that God exists. But I also believe that believing in a religion and believing in God are not the same. I am willing to make a decision on one but not the other. I also believe one decision comes without an expectation of reward while the other may, and that it is dangerous and arrogant to believe (as some religions claim) that one religion has the sole right of way to God.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. I don't think the economic downturn has anything to do with our above topic but you are free to make any correlation you wish.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Making decisions on incomplete information
My friend, my comments in blue italics below. Rgds CCK
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Making decisions on incomplete information
Hi Chee Khiaw,
It's good that we have broad common agreement on the role of science in our lives.
Your last paragraph summarises quite neatly your views on religion and God. Your views are obviously well thought out, consistent and extremely logical. Your caution about misplaced faith is certainly worth noting, as men had so often killed or condemned others in the name of God. I fully agree that blind faith is not only stupid, it is also downright dangerous.
Allow me to summarise your views/beliefs: It seems you prefer to watch from the outside rather than to get involved or closer to God since you do not know which is the correct way.
(What makes you think that not choosing a religion or following the Bible is watching from the outside and not getting closer to God?)
Empirically, as the end result (judging by the actions of various religious people) is similar, there are no obvious reasons to favour one religion over the other. You do believe there is a God (or Gods) somewhere out there. And He happened to create man among other living things, and the man he created is no different from or better than the many other creatures that walked the face of this earth.
(How do you define better? Who decide what it is better? Is that you or God?)
The best you can do under the circumstances is to use your head and live life the best you can: in a nutshell, you do your own thing while God does whatever He does. Period. There is nothing wrong with that - or is there more to it?
(I'm not very sure of that as I do not fully understand how He works. I am quite certain that the way I live now is what He wants me to. And may be everyone else too. Just that some just don't get it, like you said about others who do not believe in the Bible. Just wonder what makes you think that what I am doing has no relationship with what God does? Everything I do has something to do with Him. Don't forget: He is God. So, are you talking for Him or something else?)
If you do believe in God, then it begs the question of the connection between man and God. Morality issues aside, the very fact that man is able dominate his environment like no other living creatures on earth suggests that we are not in the same category as the other animals. The intellectual capacity of man is a quantum leap compared to other living things here. I find it difficult to accept the argument that man is no different from the other animals.
(Not sure what you mean by 'dominating his environment' although I'll disagree. Man may be better able to manipulate or adapt to the environment but not dominate it. God dominates it not you or me - by definition. Thinking it is the reverse may be too arrogant and presumptuous about man's ability especially with respect to God's. Also, what makes you think being able to manipulate or dominate the environment as you claimed is God's wish and not the Devil's? You see, God may not mean for man to egoistically think that they can dominate His environment. That may actually mean the end of the beautiful world He has created. Even if that is the case, is that domination and possible eventual destruction possibly meant as a curse for everything else and man is just the means to do so? If that is the case, man may be special but definitely not in His image. Also, could your claim that man is 'quantum leap ahead of other living things here' be because man had killed off our closest competitors against God's wish. Could that be the Devil's work? What makes you think that having the relatively higher intellectual capacity than other living things 'here' says anything about man being closer or special to God? Arrogance? What makes you so sure 'here' is of such significance to God's scheme of things? What makes you think that man's level of intelligence is anything to be proud of or amazed about? May be in His cosmos i.e. 'here' and EVERYWHERE ELSE, something else is right now looking at you and arrogantly saying that you are no better than an ant with respect to its ability. Well, may be not because it probably knows better not to be as arrogant as man.)
As you noted, man may even be evil when compared to many animals. That is true, and because of our sin we cannot "see" or get close to God. Christians believe that Jesus is the bridge between man and God. The only bridge. And the fact that man is a sinner in no way suggests the "failure" of God. Man can choose to do good or evil and many men had chosen the latter, despite God's attempts to reach out to them. I suppose God can just wave His hand and all the evil doers will simply vanish into thin air - but I am not privy to the reasons why God chose not to do that.
According to the Bible, God sent Jesus to save us from our sins so that we may again be one with God. It does not mean that Christians do not sin. But it does mean that the ball is now in our court, and it is up to us to respond to Him, and He will take it from there.
It is of course most comfortable to do nothing. We live our lives the best we can and we do not need to be apologetic for any of our actions. The downside to this strategy is that you may well miss out on your one and only chance to be with God. I'm sure, as you have done very well on your own so far without needing God, not being with God may seem like no big deal. But how do you know? Can you be sure of that? An adopted child would surely long to know who his biological parents were.
(What makes you think that I do not need God or am not already with Him? What makes you think that I am doing nothing about it? Remember I started these mails. Simply because I disagree with you? Are you speaking on God's behalf or could it be something else you are speaking for? What makes you think that it is God's intention for you to know who He is? What makes you think he has given you the capability to do that? May be He doesn't care one hoot about you. But that does not make you feel good. So you decide on the opposite. For Him.)
What are your downside risks should you decide to accept Jesus as your Saviour and later discover that the whole thing is no more than a hoax? Well, you simply walk away. A bit embarrassed perhaps, but definitely wiser for it. But, on the other hand, you might discover things you otherwise might not have known.
(My downside risks should I accept Jesus as my Savior is clearly documented in your views and presumptions. I just discover it and I walked away wiser a bit earlier. But I am not sure God cares about that either)
The 3 decisions you have spelt out concerning God may not be mutually exclusive. (Of course they may not be mutually exclusive - especially if you don't care to differentiate them) If there is a God who created you, it is entirely possible that He may have some plans or instructions for you that may preclude you from practising other religions. (Why should you doubt that God have some plans or instructions for you when Everything IS His Plan? Now, you are not so sure who He is or what?) Seen in this way, religion is inseparable from God. We only get to know God through prayer (ie, religion). A religion, believing in Jesus Christ for instance, is a way towards God. And as you know, Jesus said that he is the only way to God. So there is this rather inflexible nature of Christianity - Jesus is the only way to God - which you find intellectually disagreeable. (That is a contradiction you must reconcile, not me. I have already done that.) But whoever said God has to make His ways agreeable to man? (For the same reason, what makes you think that man can only get to know God through prayer or through Jesus? To be able to state that with certainty you have to know everything about Him. God's creation knowing everything about Him? Isn't that arrogance and a contradiction?)
You seem to think that being a Christian is a rosy experience that ultimately leads one to eternal life in Heaven. Far from it. That's why there are many backsliders - people who kind of dropped out after a while. Essentially, to accept Christ means to submit your will to Him - and that's not an easy thing to do.
(Where did I say or imply that being a Christian is a rosy experience that leads one to eternal life? I only said that being one may be driven by the expectation of eternal life. Now you are also speaking for me. But that's OK - as long as you are not speaking for God)
As for myself, I have finally decided to take the plunge, based on the above considerations and the experiences of other people. I told myself that I have limited time in this world. It is not possible for me to find out and compare different approaches and religions before deciding on one. (Why must you decide on one religion? why not decide that any or no religion is fine as long as the end result is good? Isn't that more good than just good? Oh, but the Bible says otherwise? Is that bad, good or more good?) I will simply have to make a decision based upon incomplete information - something that happens to us all the time in our daily lives, like taking panadol (the right dosage, of course). Have I done the right thing? At this point, I don't know. But I do know that I do not want to regret in the twilight of my life for not taking that initial step when I had the chance, and the life to live it. (That shows that you may be no different from the other animals. You see, they also make many decisions in their lives with insufficient information - actually they have less since their intelligence is lower than man's as you claim - and I don't know of anything that shows that they lived their lives with regret or they did not live it in life! Isn't that more amazing? Other animals living with less information but still no signs of regret or of not living life to the fullest? But they don't count? Or you know damn sure they do have regrets in not believing in your religion?)
My friend, You are right that we make decisions with incomplete information for we can never have complete information. That is by definition available only to God (I am actually quite surprised you, a believer in God, seem to be a bit unsure if that is the case). But whatever little reliable information I do have allow me to see what I shared with you above. I hope you live a good life but I don't wish you to think that others (animate or not, here or elsewhere) have less right to that than you do. That is what I hear from my heart. I would like to think that it is God's message for me but I am not sure. Although I have no one 2,000 years old paperback book to corroborate with, I however find that this whole existence is an open book much more beautiful than the one you seem to only take from. And if God is to be better understood, will one paperback that revolves only around man be the answer or will it necessarily have to be through His entire creation? As you said in your first mail, to see the forest and not the tree? To see His whole creation in context and not with man in the centre?
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Thanks for your considered views
Hi Chee Khiaw,
Thanks for your spirited response. I apologise if I had put words in your mouth or appeared to have belittled your convictions. I was merely trying to clarify things for myself. As you can see, I have a lot to learn about such things and my faith is tiny. Those are some of the issues I have been struggling about and it is good to hear your more considered views, which I hope will help me understand these things a bit better.
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
Subject: Re: Thanks for your considered views
Hi mate,
Same here. We learn everyday - even from those (and I don't mean only humans) we think are insignificant.
Rgds
CCK
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2001_06_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html)
From: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com, bkjchua@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some interpretations needed
Hi,
I don't really know what this debate is all about, but I felt compelled to make a few points. We can argue till the cows come home but I don't believe science can ever prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science deals with what is observable and measureable, and has nothing to say about the spiritual world. I think even the best scientific minds have not been able to make any claims - based on science - about such questions as the soul, or life after death. Since God cannot be observed and measured, science shrugs it off and implicitly denies its existence. Is that the right approach? I don't know. If we think that the scientific method is our only valid window to the world, then I suppose we will just have to wait until science has something to say about the spiritual world (we may have to wait a long time). Some people choose to believe that there is a God and some don't, and I believe there are highly intelligent (ie, scientific) people on both camps. I have met highly articulate, well-read, knowledgeable people who happen to believe in God, and vice versa. What has science got to do with it? Nothing. Has God discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development? Not that I know of.
And about that 2,000-year old book. What can people who lived 2,000 years ago teach us? We now have hand-held devices that contain more information than what all those guys had ever known. We may be a lot more knowledgeable than those guys back then but I believe "human nature" has not changed one bit (or byte) after all these years. Men still kill, rob, rape, plunder and lie as much as before, if not more so. Read the Bible as a scientific text and you are bound to be disappointed. May I suggest that you read it with an open heart - perhaps then the words would begin to come alive, and you would not miss the forest for the trees. You know how rapidly books of the past become obsolete and irrelevant. Karl Marx's stuff once has the whole world all worked up but now it's a joke - no one gives a damn. And that was no more than 150 years ago. But the Bible seems different. I do not proclaim to know much about the Bible, but it has already revealed to me enough truth about human beings that I begin to wonder about the people who wrote it more than 2000 years ago. The greed, fear, lust and treachery portrayed in those pages are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday. The way the Bible and belief in God has changed the lives of people I know is nothing short of amazing. These people might have been dumb, irrational, spine-less, can't-think-for-themselves -- and yet it is obvious to me that the outcome of their belief is ... good.
I know, in today's computer age, it seems ludicrous that some higher being (ie, God) would send his son down to die for us. And being the Son of God, he didn't really die anyway - as you know, he was resurrected. Superficially then, the Bible would appear to be no more than a consistent, well-written historical textbook. But suppose for a moment that there is God and He wants to save us from our sins. If He had not sent Jesus down to do the things he did, do you think there is any chance that anyone of us born-sceptics would ever believe in an unseen, unheard God? Not way! If God really want us to believe in Him (for whatever reasons), is there any other way He might have done so? Perhaps not. Anyway, I was struck by the fact that Jesus had a really difficult time convincing the people of his time despite all the miracles he performed. You may ask, why would God want to save us, why did He leave allow women and children be killed in wars and earthquakes, why did He let a cute 2-year old English boy be brutally murdered by a couple of ten-year olds, why did He allow someone like Hitler to kill so many millions before he ended his own life? I don't have answers to questions like that. I used to think that I must have satisfactory answers to such basic questions before I can believe in anything. But my ego has since been deflated along with the economic downturn. I don't fully understand how panadol can help bring down my fever, and yet I have been taking it faithfully each time I fall ill. Must I understand everything about God before I believe? Can I?
Thanks for bearing with my confused thoughts.
Rgds,
LYS
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Some quotations - some help for confused thoughts
Hi my friend,
Science does not attempt to and cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I don't think science like you claim denies God's existence. So I am not surprised that many scientists do believe that God exists. But it will be very difficult for most scientists to believe that one of the many religions practiced by humans is the only truth about and only way to God as some religions claim. This is a very important difference - as you will see below.
As we know very well, science is not the only window to the world. Like you alluded to, imaginations like that of many fanatics, lunatics, cheats, racists and writers like Hitler and Harold Robbins in this world are some other ways to view the world. But science is the only one we know of that has any credibility and has withstood the test of time. By science here I mean the broad approach of accepting a view as more accurately representative of nature than another if that view stands up better to observation, measurement, repeatable testing, and corroboration by other findings, as opposed to a particular scientific view or theory (the latter was what Richard Feynman was referring to in his quotes).
The scientific method has enabled us to piece together a knowledge base (not an individual theory or observation) that can help us make decisions on the following:
1. Believe in the existence of God(s) - may be we should not split hairs here.
2. Believe in a particular religion
3. Believe that that religion represents the only truth about and only way to God
Each of us may make a decision on some but not necessarily all of the above. But my view is that it is only reasonable to make our decision in the order above and not juxtapose them. For e.g. one can decide that one believes God exists but choose not to believe in any particular religion. Or one can believe in God and a particular religion but decide not to believe that that religion represents the only truth about and way to God. But one cannot believe that one's religion represents the only truth and way to God, but do not firstly decide for example that God exists.
I think that to make a decision on each of the above, one has to rely not only on one's own personal feelings and experiences alone but also on empirical observations and knowledge about the world around us. It is the latter where science has contributed much - everything about science is empirical. Thus an empirical observation that there are no more good people who are Christians than there are good people who are Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists may not be a scientific discovery but is nevertheless scientific in that we can subject that observation to measurement and corroboration with information we gather through our daily life (if we bother to observe beyond our little circle).
We must also appreciate that humans may make decisions subconsciously based on very selfish and less objective reasons. For example, one may think that a religion is closer to the truth because that religion happens to fit in to his believe that he is more special than everything else in this universe. Or that the religion happens to address his fear that he may end up at the wrong end of the world. I think you alluded to those human tendencies in your note.
Although none of the decisions above is necessarily less important than the others, it is nevertheless simpler to disprove any claim to the latter ones than the first using empirical evidences available to and in a way not dissimilar to that employed by science. (added later: That is because the first claims only that God exists while religious texts usually claim that and more. The more a religion claims the more opportunity we have to verify those individual claims and by extension the voracity of the whole text - by association. For example, a religion may claim that the world is of a certain age, that humans are created in the image of God, or that a certain event had happened. If any of those claims is found to be unreasonable or inconsistent with the knowledge we gathered through science or through our increased knowledge of the world made possible by the many inventions of science, then by association we have some basis to doubt all its remaining claims. For example, that its words are the words of God or that it is the' ultimate' truth.)
If we appreciate the considerations above we would be better able to address some of your views:
- you claim that God has not discouraged men from improving his quality of life through research and development.
You are not incorrect. For we see that happening around us everyday already (empirical observation). But that claim does not in any way help us in making any of the 3 decisions above.
- you seem impressed with the Bible because it seems different as it has revealed to you enough truth about human beings that are no different from the stuff you read in The Straits Times yesterday.
Well, I do not disagree that humans had not changed much in instinct in the last couple of thousand years. That would be the same with all other animals. Scientific findings indicate to me that if someone had lived 100 million years ago, had known and was willing to document the basic instincts of sharks, you would be impressed with how accurate that would have been with what you can learn today from the Discovery Channel! For that matter if you had bothered to find out, you would learn that Sun Tze's Art of War's and the Tao Te Ching's documentation of the behavior of humans and more had remained largely relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. I will not be surprised if it is the same with many other texts from other cultures. You would also find the Kamasutra extremely accurate and relevant in depicting human sexual acts despite the years. That Harold Robins' books are as accurate in capturing lusts as any book except that his books will not last as long for the reason that it offers no other psychological rewards like the promise of a better life at the end. The fact that the Straits Times can also document human behaviors as well as the Bible also goes to show that it is no miracle to be able to do so. So does the above help one make any of the above decisions? I don't think so.
- You observed that the Bible and belief in God had changed the lives of people you know is nothing short of amazing and it is obvious to you that the outcome of their belief is good.
I do not disagree that there are many good Christians and many lives were changed by the Bible or by believing in God. It is just that I had come across and read about many good non-Christians throughout my life too. Some of them will undoubtedly claim that their lives were changed by a different experience than yours. For me, they are also beacons of hope for the human race. I do not notice any statistical difference between good Christians and good non-Christians. To me that is uplifting but not amazing. It is consistent with statistics on religious followings around the world and so can be scientifically proven.
I also read about dogs and dolphins that saved lives. Birds that remain faithful to their partners for life. Animals that do not kill or consume other animals in their whole life. Animals that don't lie. To me that is goodness no less than that any human can lay claim to. Are they religious in the way as to believe in one of man's religions? Are they also blessed by the Bible? This bit I do know: they can't read our books and I'm not sure they will be that impressed with those well-documented human behaviors. You see, your observation that humans still kill despite all the godly attempts you thought were made to change man proves all the more that we humans are not just not much different from other animals but we are worse. Other animals that kill do so only when hungry but we kill for that and more. If that is the case, are we closer to God as some religions claim? My empirical observations above make me think otherwise. If that is the case, should I believe in those religions?
If, as you claimed, your religion's believe that God had tried so hard to change man (the mechanics of how that is done is not important) but had so far failed, does that raise some questions about your belief?
- you said you don't fully understand how Panadol can help bring down your fever, and yet you have been taking it faithfully each time you fall ill.
I do the same too. Both of us know that there are enough empirical evidences that Panadol works better in curing fever than many other methods - you may not know why but that is still a scientific approach. But that does not mean that other generic Paracetamol pills do not have the same effect. Neither does it mean that we should not be conscious of the possibility that an overdose of Panadol will kill us.
Does that say anything about faith? Yes, a lot: be careful where you place your faith. You would be better placed if the faith is better supported by empirical evidences and you take a broader consciousness. For depending on which 'pill' you happen to try, your faith may be on a different 'brand' from others. That does not mean your 'brand' is any more effective or closer to the truth.
- Lastly, I also do not understand everything. But that does not stop me from making the following decisions: that I tend to believe that God exists. But I also believe that believing in a religion and believing in God are not the same. I am willing to make a decision on one but not the other. I also believe one decision comes without an expectation of reward while the other may, and that it is dangerous and arrogant to believe (as some religions claim) that one religion has the sole right of way to God.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. I don't think the economic downturn has anything to do with our above topic but you are free to make any correlation you wish.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
bcc: friends, family
Subject: Re: Making decisions on incomplete information
My friend, my comments in blue italics below. Rgds CCK
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Making decisions on incomplete information
Hi Chee Khiaw,
It's good that we have broad common agreement on the role of science in our lives.
Your last paragraph summarises quite neatly your views on religion and God. Your views are obviously well thought out, consistent and extremely logical. Your caution about misplaced faith is certainly worth noting, as men had so often killed or condemned others in the name of God. I fully agree that blind faith is not only stupid, it is also downright dangerous.
Allow me to summarise your views/beliefs: It seems you prefer to watch from the outside rather than to get involved or closer to God since you do not know which is the correct way.
(What makes you think that not choosing a religion or following the Bible is watching from the outside and not getting closer to God?)
Empirically, as the end result (judging by the actions of various religious people) is similar, there are no obvious reasons to favour one religion over the other. You do believe there is a God (or Gods) somewhere out there. And He happened to create man among other living things, and the man he created is no different from or better than the many other creatures that walked the face of this earth.
(How do you define better? Who decide what it is better? Is that you or God?)
The best you can do under the circumstances is to use your head and live life the best you can: in a nutshell, you do your own thing while God does whatever He does. Period. There is nothing wrong with that - or is there more to it?
(I'm not very sure of that as I do not fully understand how He works. I am quite certain that the way I live now is what He wants me to. And may be everyone else too. Just that some just don't get it, like you said about others who do not believe in the Bible. Just wonder what makes you think that what I am doing has no relationship with what God does? Everything I do has something to do with Him. Don't forget: He is God. So, are you talking for Him or something else?)
If you do believe in God, then it begs the question of the connection between man and God. Morality issues aside, the very fact that man is able dominate his environment like no other living creatures on earth suggests that we are not in the same category as the other animals. The intellectual capacity of man is a quantum leap compared to other living things here. I find it difficult to accept the argument that man is no different from the other animals.
(Not sure what you mean by 'dominating his environment' although I'll disagree. Man may be better able to manipulate or adapt to the environment but not dominate it. God dominates it not you or me - by definition. Thinking it is the reverse may be too arrogant and presumptuous about man's ability especially with respect to God's. Also, what makes you think being able to manipulate or dominate the environment as you claimed is God's wish and not the Devil's? You see, God may not mean for man to egoistically think that they can dominate His environment. That may actually mean the end of the beautiful world He has created. Even if that is the case, is that domination and possible eventual destruction possibly meant as a curse for everything else and man is just the means to do so? If that is the case, man may be special but definitely not in His image. Also, could your claim that man is 'quantum leap ahead of other living things here' be because man had killed off our closest competitors against God's wish. Could that be the Devil's work? What makes you think that having the relatively higher intellectual capacity than other living things 'here' says anything about man being closer or special to God? Arrogance? What makes you so sure 'here' is of such significance to God's scheme of things? What makes you think that man's level of intelligence is anything to be proud of or amazed about? May be in His cosmos i.e. 'here' and EVERYWHERE ELSE, something else is right now looking at you and arrogantly saying that you are no better than an ant with respect to its ability. Well, may be not because it probably knows better not to be as arrogant as man.)
As you noted, man may even be evil when compared to many animals. That is true, and because of our sin we cannot "see" or get close to God. Christians believe that Jesus is the bridge between man and God. The only bridge. And the fact that man is a sinner in no way suggests the "failure" of God. Man can choose to do good or evil and many men had chosen the latter, despite God's attempts to reach out to them. I suppose God can just wave His hand and all the evil doers will simply vanish into thin air - but I am not privy to the reasons why God chose not to do that.
According to the Bible, God sent Jesus to save us from our sins so that we may again be one with God. It does not mean that Christians do not sin. But it does mean that the ball is now in our court, and it is up to us to respond to Him, and He will take it from there.
It is of course most comfortable to do nothing. We live our lives the best we can and we do not need to be apologetic for any of our actions. The downside to this strategy is that you may well miss out on your one and only chance to be with God. I'm sure, as you have done very well on your own so far without needing God, not being with God may seem like no big deal. But how do you know? Can you be sure of that? An adopted child would surely long to know who his biological parents were.
(What makes you think that I do not need God or am not already with Him? What makes you think that I am doing nothing about it? Remember I started these mails. Simply because I disagree with you? Are you speaking on God's behalf or could it be something else you are speaking for? What makes you think that it is God's intention for you to know who He is? What makes you think he has given you the capability to do that? May be He doesn't care one hoot about you. But that does not make you feel good. So you decide on the opposite. For Him.)
What are your downside risks should you decide to accept Jesus as your Saviour and later discover that the whole thing is no more than a hoax? Well, you simply walk away. A bit embarrassed perhaps, but definitely wiser for it. But, on the other hand, you might discover things you otherwise might not have known.
(My downside risks should I accept Jesus as my Savior is clearly documented in your views and presumptions. I just discover it and I walked away wiser a bit earlier. But I am not sure God cares about that either)
The 3 decisions you have spelt out concerning God may not be mutually exclusive. (Of course they may not be mutually exclusive - especially if you don't care to differentiate them) If there is a God who created you, it is entirely possible that He may have some plans or instructions for you that may preclude you from practising other religions. (Why should you doubt that God have some plans or instructions for you when Everything IS His Plan? Now, you are not so sure who He is or what?) Seen in this way, religion is inseparable from God. We only get to know God through prayer (ie, religion). A religion, believing in Jesus Christ for instance, is a way towards God. And as you know, Jesus said that he is the only way to God. So there is this rather inflexible nature of Christianity - Jesus is the only way to God - which you find intellectually disagreeable. (That is a contradiction you must reconcile, not me. I have already done that.) But whoever said God has to make His ways agreeable to man? (For the same reason, what makes you think that man can only get to know God through prayer or through Jesus? To be able to state that with certainty you have to know everything about Him. God's creation knowing everything about Him? Isn't that arrogance and a contradiction?)
You seem to think that being a Christian is a rosy experience that ultimately leads one to eternal life in Heaven. Far from it. That's why there are many backsliders - people who kind of dropped out after a while. Essentially, to accept Christ means to submit your will to Him - and that's not an easy thing to do.
(Where did I say or imply that being a Christian is a rosy experience that leads one to eternal life? I only said that being one may be driven by the expectation of eternal life. Now you are also speaking for me. But that's OK - as long as you are not speaking for God)
As for myself, I have finally decided to take the plunge, based on the above considerations and the experiences of other people. I told myself that I have limited time in this world. It is not possible for me to find out and compare different approaches and religions before deciding on one. (Why must you decide on one religion? why not decide that any or no religion is fine as long as the end result is good? Isn't that more good than just good? Oh, but the Bible says otherwise? Is that bad, good or more good?) I will simply have to make a decision based upon incomplete information - something that happens to us all the time in our daily lives, like taking panadol (the right dosage, of course). Have I done the right thing? At this point, I don't know. But I do know that I do not want to regret in the twilight of my life for not taking that initial step when I had the chance, and the life to live it. (That shows that you may be no different from the other animals. You see, they also make many decisions in their lives with insufficient information - actually they have less since their intelligence is lower than man's as you claim - and I don't know of anything that shows that they lived their lives with regret or they did not live it in life! Isn't that more amazing? Other animals living with less information but still no signs of regret or of not living life to the fullest? But they don't count? Or you know damn sure they do have regrets in not believing in your religion?)
My friend, You are right that we make decisions with incomplete information for we can never have complete information. That is by definition available only to God (I am actually quite surprised you, a believer in God, seem to be a bit unsure if that is the case). But whatever little reliable information I do have allow me to see what I shared with you above. I hope you live a good life but I don't wish you to think that others (animate or not, here or elsewhere) have less right to that than you do. That is what I hear from my heart. I would like to think that it is God's message for me but I am not sure. Although I have no one 2,000 years old paperback book to corroborate with, I however find that this whole existence is an open book much more beautiful than the one you seem to only take from. And if God is to be better understood, will one paperback that revolves only around man be the answer or will it necessarily have to be through His entire creation? As you said in your first mail, to see the forest and not the tree? To see His whole creation in context and not with man in the centre?
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: cheng_chee_khiaw@jpmorgan.com
Subject: Thanks for your considered views
Hi Chee Khiaw,
Thanks for your spirited response. I apologise if I had put words in your mouth or appeared to have belittled your convictions. I was merely trying to clarify things for myself. As you can see, I have a lot to learn about such things and my faith is tiny. Those are some of the issues I have been struggling about and it is good to hear your more considered views, which I hope will help me understand these things a bit better.
Rgds,
Yin Sze.
To: yinsze@jmsassoon.com.sg
Subject: Re: Thanks for your considered views
Hi mate,
Same here. We learn everyday - even from those (and I don't mean only humans) we think are insignificant.
Rgds
CCK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)