A Direct Response

This article, by MalayMail contributor Boo Su Lyn is arguably the first( to my knowledge ) popular atheistic wave to hit Malaysia in recent memory, and has managed to spark interesting philosophical/theological discourse over the past few days within the blogsphere. This article is also a follow up to a previous article titled " Why I left the faith ", in which many critics have effortlessly exposed it for its fallacious feminism( sorry for being redundant ). My response will be centered around her latest article, in which she tries to justify her atheism. It seems to me that from her justifications, she is either uninformed on the matter or a village atheist. I would propose the former to be the better conjecture, but would not rule out the latter.

This is where my refutation begins.

" Firstly, this assumes that time is linear and that the universe came into being at a certain point, popularly known as the Big Bang Theory. But another theory posits that time could be cyclical and the universe could have existed forever, without requiring a beginning. "

- This of course is the typical retreat atheists go to in hopes of salvaging the century old, empirically refuted ' Steady State Theory ' . With Einsteins equations of General Relativity, time is linear, with the speed of light moving from one moment/point to another in ONE direction at a given speed constant. This allows physicists to safely assume the adoption of the A-theory of time, whereby the past, present and future do in fact move in one direction and they do not coexist simultaneously or in other words, linearly. Using Einsteins's equations, George Lemaitre( a priest ) and his colleague Alexander Friedman managed to prove that the universe is indeed expanding theoretically. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble empirically verified this via the discovery of the red shifts of distance galaxies using the Hubble telescope. To briefly explain( because I'm not an actual scientist ), Hubble observed that the further away a galaxy is from his point of view( his observatory ), the ' redder ' it is, the nearer it is, the ' bluer ' it is. This is significant because based on the electromagnetic spectrum,the further away an object is from you, the wavelength increases, and the frequency decreases. Which means that the object( in this case the galaxies ) in question would become more red, given that speed of light is a constant. Hubble's empirical evidence also shows that the universe expanded from a point of infinite density, where the space-time continuum began to come into existence. This is known as the ' Big Bang ' . In 2003, a monumental study on modern cosmology put the ' static universe ' notion in the grave. This study was formulated by three scientist- Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin and Arvind Borde. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorum almost definitively shows that a universe cannot be past eternal, and have a beginning. The mountains of evidence available from modern cosmology points almost unanimously to a beginning of the universe, to not accept the scientific evidence is to display a deep seeded dogmatism in Boo Su Lyn's( BSL ) worldview. Unless she wants to be a bible-hating village atheist, she would do well to reconsider her views on cosmology.


" Why should God be the Uncaused Cause? If we can accept that there is something which doesn't need a causal origin, ie: God, then why not apply it to the universe itself? If God can exist on its own, so can the universe. "

- In the first segment, she proved herself to be scientifically inept. In this, she proves herself to be philosophically inept. Educated Christians don't argue that the uncaused first cause needs to be Yahweh. It could be any one of the Abrahamic Gods. Given that the beginning of the universe requires a cause, because it can't be self causal, whatever the cause is, it must be outside the space-time continuum. Which immediately opens up the possibility of God as an explanation. God may not be the only candidate for the uncaused first cause, but the logicality of this strongly implies that atheism is false and should not be taken seriously as an intellectual pursuit. In short, whatever you want to label the uncaused first cause, the universe itself can't be in your list possibilities, which immediately disproves the static universe( eternal universe ), which directly disproves BSL's version of atheism.


" A Christian friend told me that he could not accept the randomness of existence. He said he found atheism depressing as without God, there is no reason why we're here on this Earth. Of course, science can only explain the how, but not the why. For centuries, mankind has struggled to explain the purpose of our existence. But we cannot answer that question by inventing God just to resolve our existential angst. That is putting the cart before the horse. We like to feel special, like we are different from the other seven billion people on this earth. It's comforting to believe in a God who knows us personally to the extent that every hair on our head is counted (Luke 12:7). However, all the belief in the world cannot make God real. "

- But as BSL points out herself that her Christian friend is making an existential argument, not a rationalistic or empirical argument. Her friends challenge to her is not about truth, but meaning. What her friend says is true. If there is no God, and may a reiterate the importance of the ' IF ', then life is meaningless. Which means her feminism is meaningless, her atheism is meaningless, and ultimately her life is meaningless. We are but atoms and molecules awaiting the impending doom of the universal heat death . Which then begs the following existential question: " Why is she behaving as if this article is meaningful? "


" However, I have a problem when the bible tells a man to love his wife, while the wife is to respect her husband (Ephesians 5:33). This reflects a relationship with unequal power dynamics, akin to a parent-child or a boss-subordinate relationship. The woman is not of equal status with her husband; she is meant to “respect” or obey his authority. This notion can be easily misused in abusive relationships, in which the man claims that he is beating his wife out of love to “teach” her. "

- Her atheistic assumptions proved bearable, but her feministic ones are out of touch with reality. What more does she want the bible to say? Does she think that love isn't enough? Taking the verse out of context, does she assume that the bible tells men to disrespect women, simply on the basis that the Ephesians 5:33 never spelled out everything BSL wants to hear? Taking into account that the bible asks men to give himself up to women isn't sufficient? What more does she want? If the man of the household abuses his wives via authority, don't you think that will be an unloving act? Therefore violating the very commands that the Lord gave man? Come on...


" Even if we accept the argument that women are treated fairly in the bible, it certainly isn't reflected in society, where right-wing Christians in America oppose abortions, the Obama administration's birth control policy and gay marriage. The Christian church in Malaysia is also fairly conservative. "

- Christians oppose most abortions because they are murder. Does BSL support murder of the innocent? Birth control policies is a debatable issue I admit. What does gay marriage have to do with women rights? So she incessantly complains about these supposed problems within the Christian community, but does she acknowledge that conservative Christians in America would fight for a women's right to vote, to choose her spouse, to work in any economic industry, to have free speech etc? Or is her mind filled with the deluded modern liberal indoctrination manufactured by the American Left?


"  It's strange to see right-wing Christians attacking same-sex marriage when churches allow divorcees to remarry, even though divorce is frowned upon in the bible. "

- Allowing divorce and frowning upon it isn't contradictory. I can allow my children to drink as much as they want but that doesn't mean I don't frown on it.


" Religious believers who oppose other people's right to marry someone of the same sex are like vegetarians who want meat banned. It's as bad as banning interracial marriages, which would be unthinkable at this time and age. "

- This is not true, given that meat/race and gender differences are vastly unanalogous( I am not sure what the negative is for analogous ). I won't go into this subject in this article because this deserves an entirely new post.


"  Then there is the teaching of creationism at some schools in America instead of evolution. Malaysia doesn't fare much better as the government has banned the Malay translation of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. How can we teach children myths instead of basic science? Young minds should be encouraged to explore and to question. Simply teaching children “God did it” will only hamper their growth and create an unquestioning generation that thinks in absolutes. "

- I can safely concur with her sentiments on creationism. While it is true that evolution needs to be taught in schools, it must not include the atheistic presuppositions that Darwinism adheres to, but instead allow students to rationally explore the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory as an explanatory mechanism of the natural world. Regarding absolutes, I wonder if BSL finds it acceptable for anyone treat her feminism and atheism as non-absolutes? Or perhaps the absolute view that no absolutes should be rooted in society? Absolutely!

" Religion has inspired violence too, whether it's the Crusades launched by the Christians during the Middle Ages or the massacres currently carried out by the Islamic State that includes beheadings, crucifixions and rape. The holy scriptures may not explicitly permit such violence, but it is problematic when belief in God is the main motivation for such acts. We can't simply dismiss such barbaric groups as minorities who are wrongly interpreting their holy books. Holy scriptures are always open to interpretation anyway. The problem is with the holy text, not believers, because it can push men to commit such dastardly acts in the name of God. "

- As I've pointed out in a previous post of mine, religion maybe responsible for some wars, but the overwhelming majority of wars are political and secular in nature. Atrocities in World War II are perfect examples. Yes, we should condemn the abuse of scripture, but that's a problem with human nature, not the holy scriptures of the Bible.

" However, I must stress that in the same vein, the lack of meaning of our existence should have nothing to do with whether God exists or not. We create our own purpose in life. As Jean-Paul Sartre says, humans are “condemned to be free.” "

- If one wishes to mistreat women, burn homosexuals and harm infidels, then justify it by saying: " That is our self-engineered purpose in life!", I wonder how BSL would react? Would she condemn such acts of violence, or would she start mining for more quotes from french philosophers?

Women: They've changed, for the better?

         

As I contemplated exposing my views on this topic, I thought I might be swimming in pre-boiling water, then again, if I see my understanding as helpful to others, I should just proceed at the expense of a possible backfire. In other words, to put it mildly, YOLO.

          I discovered this article on Facebook and decided to have a go at it, as I found it very dogmatic yet interesting. There is also widespread empirical relevance on the matter, which makes it, I hope, socially bubble-popping for whoever is reading. Do read the mentioned article to ease some of my burden on explaining.


She writes : " Gentleman, you are part of a new era, the era of the emotionally unavailable woman. "

• Well, this doesn't bode well for relationships...

" The Millennial women is different from the women of former generations. We're extremely career-driven, goal-orientated, and independent. Since we tend to gear towards this path in life-- to make our mark and leave with a legacy. "

• So I presume she thinks that women who prefer raising families, being obedient to husbands and other traditional notions of women do not leave notable legacies? So women of the yester-generations like Margaret Thatcher, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa, didn't make their marks in history?

" There is absolutely nothing wrong with being emotionally unavailable. In fact, this generation of women is the finest we have ever seen. We've traded our recipe books for iphones full of networking contacts ; We've traded early motherhood for for corporations. "

• Why is this remotely beneficial? What about ' being cold ' is good for any relationship? Finest? She must then be referring to contemporary female role models Miley Cyrus and Nicki Minaj. What makes any of these trade-offs definitively advantageous? I don't think society gets degraded by having a few more women who can cook, or a few more women with the ability to bear responsibility at a young age. This isn't to say networking and the finance sector is muted in its value, but why think of them as better?

" We want more out of life than what has been previously allotted. In fact, we want it all. We control our destinies, and this makes us slightly fearsome, but also thoroughly impressive. "

• Because child-bearing and family building is loathsome and destiny-obliterating but making money gives real empowerment and self worth as a women at age 25.

" The Millennial woman shouldn’t be resented, gentlemen, but instead, needs to be embraced and accepted. We want partners, not patrons. We want to achieve substantial goals, not live vicariously through yours. "

• If this is indeed what a Millennial women should be( I don't for one second agree, but let's say I do ), then it should be resented. Because it makes women think that they should behave like men, aggressive and egocentric, while understanding traditional women qualities like gentleness and obedience to be repulsive.

" We are an upgraded version of the soft and fragile characters we are often so wrongly assigned. "

• Err... upgraded?

" In fact, the relationships we can provide are multilayered and unique. We’ll challenge you and frustrate you. We’ll motivate you and push you to be the best you can be. With the emotionally unavailable woman, you’re exchanging normal female roles for atypical, far superior partnerships. "

• Yeah, because only modern women can motivate and drive men, unlike the billions of traditional women around the world that constantly go through hard life conditions to maintain her household while being as mentally stable as possible and gentle in touch.

" The emotionally unavailable woman feels slightly guilty about being affectionate, as if it somehow betrays our feminist ideals. We’re also afraid that expressing ourselves fully could put us in a potentially vulnerable position. "

• Desires a relationship, but wants not to be exposed or vulnerable. Like wanting to swim, but hoping not to get wet. These feminist ideals seem to be really good at blocking meaningful relationships.

" It’s not that we don’t want to feel happy; it’s that we don’t want to feel susceptible to what that happiness means. "

• But how can one feel happy if they don't know what happiness means, or is?

" If this isn’t happiness we’ve created for ourselves, for instance, like a great ad campaign or an intriguing article, we fear the possibility of it being taken away. The emotionally unavailable woman prefers feelings of happiness that she has direct control over. "

• Why think, that which we have direct control over, can't also slip through our grasps?

" We ladies will feign indifference when we want you to take initiative because, once again, we don’t want to be vulnerable. Being direct, by asking a man to stay the night, would open us up to the possibility of rejection. "

• But I was made aware earlier, that feminist are robust, steadfast and strong individuals that likes a challenge and can stand on their own two feet. How did this narrative of women suddenly slide into fear of rejection and the shunning of vulnerability? Wouldn't these iron-hided women demonstrate high levels of imperturbability?

" We ladies don’t want to jump in the deep end and compliment you on your kindness or profound intellect. By objectifying you, you’re less threatening. Sex and good looks make for an easier complement. "

• Ah, the quintessential modern-day feminist slogan. ' We can't be asked to be submissive but we can treat you as lumps of atoms and molecules, thereby allowing ourselves to call you animals! YAY! '

" We will engage in the bedroom with aggressive gusto. What we lack in emotional availability we promise to make up for with sexual insatiability. "

• sigh...

Conclusion :

This woman, or man( since the distinctions are blurred and unimportant ), is without a doubt a walking oxymoron. On one hand there is great aspirations to be full of spine and gusto, on the other a deep display of insecurity and detestation of the unknown. Why would the fearsome be afraid of fear?
Such is the inauthenticity of the views provided in this article. If this is what we should expect from the so called ' Millennials ', then to paraphrase Ronald Reagan :" I am selling my bonds! "