In a recent Twitter discussion in regards of vocational school trend in Indonesia, with an Indonesian economist @ari_ap, he proposed a standardization mechanism via certification made by government for these vocational school graduates in order to lower the cost of screening for employers. However, I extended his case that it might also lower the cost of signalling for students. Here’s the model:
In status quo, we see that the screening (and subsequent response from students) goes like this:
Here, we have student that has additional qualification Q that is drawn from a pool containing a strictly increasing distribution function F (•) Є {Q, Q} that is continuous. Though only Student Q knows Q, it’s difficult to separate her from the pool since the pool contains all vocational school graduates that passed national exam that’s very general (for instance, she had passed English national exam, but her TOEFL scores will not be known from that,) ergo, additional qualification may not be known. Then we have employer that can choose whether she wants to invest in screening Sc(Q) Є {0, 1} (here, I strictly define screening as an attempt to separate Student Q from Student Q from pool of students, be it via test conducted by that employer, and so forth,) and after that can respond by hiring that student, R(Q) Є {0, 1}. The employer then receives payoff ΠE from profit from employment, P(Q) > 0 with additional human capital benefit H(Q) if student has quality Q, subtracted by cost of screening - C(Sc) < 0.
If the employer chooses not to invest in screening, then it’s responded by whether the Student invest in signalling her additional quality via Sg(Q) Є {0, 1}. If the student choose not to invest in signalling, Sg = 0, then, employer may have probability β of employing Student Q, therefore the payoff is ΠE = P(Q) + βH(Q). If the student invests in signalling, Sg = 1 (assumption: the signal is ALWAYS honest, and ONLY student possessing Q can signal,) she’ll then receive payoff ΠS from benefit of employment B(Q) > 0 subtracted by cost of signalling – C(Sg) < 0.
With a standardization mechanism via certification enacted, the game goes like this:
We can see how a certification allows the pool to separate, therefore employer need not to invest in screening (separating Student Q from the pool), and the student need not to invest in signalling (since the cost of signalling is already paid by government.) We can also see that elimination of – C(Sc) and – C(Sg) from both the employer’s side and student’s side makes the payoff from the second game is more Pareto optimum than the first game/status quo.
Since I’m not yet acquainted with game theory (let alone mastering it) and I don’t have data to do regression analysis, I can’t give the analysis of its multiple equilibria and cost-benefit analysis.
Many thanks to @ari_ap for the insight and Simon Quinn for his brilliant paper (.pdf).
Okay, in this post, I will try to make it as succinct as possible; hence, I’ll make it to point per point.
On Faith
Traditional views on faith hold that faith is equal to believing that lacks of empirical evidence, in contrast with science*. Although not necessarily bad, this has been a subject of ridicule by some freethinkers. There goes the redefinition of faith; we can go with:
a) Faith as a way of living that regards life as having some meaning on it. In this way, faith serves as a notion that against the deconstruction of human and their life experiences as mere particles that occupy space and time, interact with other particles, and are subjected to probability. Faith says that life is beyond that; that what we do in this world is special and has meaning. To have faith is to see the world differently with wonder, enchantment, and sense of mystery and divinity. To have faith is to hold God to provide answers to human existence, although God’s existence is rationally uncertain.
b) Faith as an ecstatic passion for the ultimate. Faith includes rational and non-rational elements, yet is not identical with them. It means that when one encounters something ultimate that demands total surrender (after certain justifications that eventually stop in certain level) to whoever accepts its ultimacy, she is ready to have other concerns, other worldviews, be sacrificed.
On God
In my view, God has two properties, Transcendence and Immanence. God as Transcendental Being is a God who serves as foundation/ground upon which all beings exist. This God precedes subject-object dichotomy and ontologically prior to conception (similar to Heidegger’s Da-Sein) and reason. Using this a priori definition, Transcendental God is described by modern philosophy as “beyond reason/knowledge,” since knowing God presupposes the subject-object dichotomy. This is a God whom described by Paul Tillich as “God above God.” However, since Transcendental God is beyond comprehension, this somehow deconstructs God into non-personal Being, contrasts with traditional religious views.
God as Immanent Being is a God who manifested into subject-object dichotomy realm, as personal/anthropomorphical Being. This is a God as described by traditional religious views (and also the one who is killed by Nietzsche.) In my definition, Immanent God is a maximum entity possessing the highest possible features in all possible qualities which are not logically inconsistent. However this leads to several questions: whether God has control upon Its qualities (can God choose to be evil – since God is always described as all-loving. If It can’t, then God is not sovereign-omnipotent. Termed aseity-sovereignty paradox,) and whether omniscience is compatible with free-will (more on that later.)
The dualism of Transcendence-Immanence of God has led to a paradox, since logically it is impossible to have both qualities. My conjecture to T-I paradox is simple: that it is possible to have both qualities. In Christianity and Islam**, God is both described as Transcendent (Alpha and Omega; The Beginning and the Ending; Which Is, which Was, and which Is to Come. – Revelation 1:8. The First and the Last; The Outward and the Inward; The Knower of Everything - Al Hadid:3) and Immanent Being (there are myriad of mentions in Bible and Quran.) How this is possible? We can take a look on how electron behaves.
It is proven mathematically and empirically that electron has dualism in its nature: it is both a wave and a particle (it can even occupy two positions at the same time.) When we’re about to observe it, it experiences a wave function collapse; it decoheres as either wave or particle. Using this, we’re able to logically conceive that God can have dualism, too. Its default position is Its Transcendence; however, due to Its loving nature to express love to Its creations, It has necessity to decohere as an Immanent God. Immanent God does not just serve as a symbol (as described by Paul Tillich) but It is truly alive and manifested through religious experiences.
On Free Will
Are we driven by free will or a deterministic system? It is both, of course. Free will is when we make a decision; determinism is when we fall down to the earth because of the gravity, or that human can’t grow a pair of fully functional wings because there is no DNA for wings in human genes (this serves as an answer to Sartre’s problem.) However, a God who allows human being to have free will pose some problems.
First, the problem of evil. As been explained by Alvin Plantinga, problem of evil arises as the consequence of God giving human free will. To be fully capable of making free moral judgement, human must be able to do both morally good things and morally bad things, open up the possibility of doing crime. Inasmuch of this doesn’t really answer of problem of natural evil (such as why an omnibenevolent God lets disasters/starvations happen) and problem of non-interference (such as why an all-loving God didn’t prevent Holocaust to take much death tolls despite I believe there were prayers from millions of Jews at that time,) this begs the question as why the configuration of the world that allows suffering/evil to happen and the possibility of innocent victims is preferable by God rather than not giving free will at all***. Or, let’s say why didn’t God create the world where bullets and knives will not cause any harm to human, therefore keeping the world free from suffering but still allowing free will to happen? Some will say that God is also just, therefore will punish those who inflicted evil things to others (in hell?); Nonetheless, hell is also problematic, but more on that later.
In regards of problem of natural evil, if God deliberately "sacrifices" humans through disasters/famine for the sake of so that other people will learn, then God must be horribly unjust, even if God promises places in heaven for these people. I am not entitled to shoot my first kid just to serve as a warning for my other kids, even though I always provide her with all her needs before. Humans are not the means, they are the ends in themselves. Using them to serve as an example for the others therefore is immoral and incompatible with the concept of an omnibenevolent God. Even if you say that "God is so good with us, why do you never take into account of Its goodness?" it is still wrong. Morality is not a simple economic calculus. That's why even the most religious person would think that we cannot exempt a person from criminal charges simply because she never breaks the law before or always donates for charities and poor people. This is why it is simply wrong to dismiss problem of evil just because God is (seemingly) good (in your perspective.)
Second, the problem of omniscience. Suppose there is a God G who understands all facts in the universe, say K1 = {F1, F2, F3,…} and all possible combination of subsets of facts, say K2 = {(F1 + F2), (F1 + F3), (F2 + F3),…} and so forth; then G who understands knowledge K = {K1, K2, K3,…} including of what will happen in the future Kt+n = {K1t+n, K2t+n, K3t+n,…} will know all what’s happening in all quantum states in all 10^500 multiverses and all subsequent outcomes. Therefore, if God knows all possible outcomes from our actions, then the free will that we have is not a free will, but just an illusion of it. Either God must be not omniscience, or It limits Itself from knowing all thing, despite possible to know. Nevertheless, it is well-established by religions that God knows everything including the future, that’s one of my problems of faith.
On Hell
Suppose a just God will banish those who committed wrongdoings in Hell, eternally. This is, however, in itself, is unjust and incompatible with an omnibenevolent God. Why?
1. It is unjust to punish someone eternally for what she did in a limited/temporary course of time. How can it be just to punish someone who spent, let’s say a total of 10 years from all her life since she was kid for doing sinful things, into a million millions millions millions (ad infinitum) years of torture?
2. Suppose I’m a robot maker, and I programmed my robot to be able to make choices for navigating around obstacles and doing certain things. Assume I didn’t include Asimov’s laws of robotic in my robot’s algorithm (therefore my robot is capable of killing human, even though I didn’t specifically program it to do so.) My robot then has free will, albeit rudimentary. Suppose then my robot inadvertently killed human, who is held liable for the murder? Me as the maker, or the robot as the doer, or both?
I, although can’t foresee the outcome of the action of my robot, can be held liable, as the tort law also can also hold companies that design dangerous equipment/machine culpable if that machine’s actions can cause loss of life, limb, and/or property. The court can decide whether I have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent death, injury, and damage (I haven’t – for the sake of allowing “free will.”) If the court can prove that I can foresee the action of my faulty robot, the punishment will even be more severe. Now, replace me with God and robot with human. Isn’t God supposedly held liable for the actions of human, moreover when actually It can foresee the impact and damage of the actions of human and can prevent it to happen?
Furthermore, the existence of hell itself is problematic. I’m not talking about its visual descriptions, since different people can also portray the same object with different descriptions. I’m talking about the prerequisite to enter hell.
Assume hell is a university, say University X. And we know there are various ways to enter it: via written test (SNMPTN,) selection of rapport or talent (PMDK,) or by, well, money (swadana.) We can safely say that we can enter University X by one of that means. But what if there is a campus authority says the only valid way to enter University X is by SNMPTN, and there is another campus authority that says the only valid way to enter University X is by PMDK, and another campus authority says swadana and only swadana? Should University X be an objective thing, it has to have a non-contradictory and non-exclusionary way to accept students. This is exactly another problem of hell: religions are contradictory and exclusionary in determining who gets to hell.
Virtually almost every major religion dictates that the one who doesn’t believe in that particular religion’s teaching will go to hell. Religion A dictates that the nonbelievers of religion A (including believers of religion B, C, D, E, atheists, etc.,) will go to hell. Religion B dictates that the nonbelievers of religion B (including believers of religion A, C, D, E, atheists, etc.,) will go to hell. Therefore, either there are a lot of hells (in which everyone goes to hells – see the reasoning above,) or there is only one hell but we don’t know whose version of hell that is true (giving us a non-zero probability of choosing the wrong religion.)
Well, perhaps, hell is just a metaphor for the bad consequences of our wrongdoings in this world, and heaven is the good ones. Hell for a murderer is having his ass thrown in jail for years and beaten by his cellmates. Hell for a cheater is having his marriage and family gone astray. Hell for a corruptor is having a trouble sleeping at night, and then if he gets caught he has to endure shame and humiliation in media and in jail, and so forth. This is similar to the concept of karma or "what you sow is what you reap." But this is just my opinion, of course.
Epilogue
With all the problems of mainstream religions, I’ve been asked by my friend of what will I have my kids to embrace? Well, whenever my kids are logically capable, I will have them taught all that I know about atheism, Christianity, agnosticism, Islam, pandeism, Buddhism, pantheism, Hinduism, deism, etc. and all the pluses and minuses of all of them. I will not indoctrinate them that there is God, but I won't indoctrinate them that there is no God, either. I will teach them to be skeptical. For what purpose? So that they will have an informed choice and pick the best for themselves – in a thoughtful, intellectual way, of course.
Post Scriptum
* However, science also has limits in achieving empirical evidences. For instance, we will never know what lies beyond 46 billion light years (4 x 10^23 kilometers) from us. We will never have the empirical evidences for string theory – as to test it we need a collider in the size of a galaxy. Making science is somehow intuitive as well.
** I just know a similar concept of a Transcendent God in Hinduism, that is Nirguna Brahman. As of my limited understanding about other religions, I’d like to hear to what other religions have to say about the concept of Transcendental God.
*** Have been discussed by Fyodor Dostoevsky in his novel “The Brothers Karamazov,” especially in “The Grand Inquisitor” part. Also discussed by C. S. Lewis in “The Problem of Pain” and Alvin Plantinga in “God, Freedom, and Evil.”
On part one, I have told what bothers me about religions and subsequent intolerance that occurs in Indonesia. Now, on part two, I will tell about my personal opinion on how religious people should be.
Mix religion with power, and you get one hell of recipe of destruction and oppression. History records this very well that religions become corrupt in the course of time. We saw how Christians went with Spanish Inquisition or Islam with their bloody history of caliph feuds*. Today, we can see religious cacophonies elsewhere in this world: Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia (with law giving death penalty to apostates,) Indonesia, Pakistan, Vatican (the alleged pedophilia cases, rejections to condom, church inclusivity via Dominus Iesus, etc.,) Lord’s Resistance Army (theocratic Christian militant army with long list of human rights violations in Sudan, Congo, and Central Africa,) Al-Shabaab (Islamic militant army based in Somalia,) Al-Qaeda, right wing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party in India (who keeps on oppressing Sikhs and Christians,) Laotian Buddhist government (who keeps on oppressing Christians,) and the lists go on**. What should we do to mitigate these? The answer is to contain religion within private sphere of individuals.
Reshaping Individual Realms of Religion
I am always perplexed with absolutism and fundamentalism, given the claim of religion is circularly self-justifying and there is nothing we can verify of such claim from outside of religion. Thus, with the contradictions of what God and heaven look like, and the way to achieve salvation among religions in this world, one can rationally conclude that there is non-zero probability that we pick the wrong religion. Rather than feeling humble in the presence of God, followers of each religion feel superior to others, thinking that they’re the chosen ones. Fanaticism is fed with theologies based on superstitions, erroneous ideas, unscientific concepts, false expectations, and unethical commands. With the vivacity of converting others into their groups – to the extent of offering various versions of heaven or even threatening with forces – religion has grown into divisive teaching. When one thinks that her religion is absolutely correct and the only way to salvation, using violence seems justifiable. When one thinks that her eternal life in paradise is at stake, anything done to achieve it seems justifiable. Instead of teaching tolerance, religion teaches intolerance. Instead of teaching peaceful co-existence, it teaches dominance, and even annihilation.
There are two kinds of religiosity: one in which someone tries to delve into sublime and intimate spiritual depth, and one that treats it as simple economic calculus of “what will I get if I believe in God and what will I get if I don’t.” This Pascal’s Wager-ish sort of discourse renders most people reluctant to dig deeper into their religious teaching, resulting in widespread reticence and ignorant uni-dimensional perspective of religion. As a rational being, of course we have to seek deeper, to question religion and its conception of morality, and to check the infallibility claim of the holy book. As an ex-apologetic, I’ve seen contradictions and discrepancies in two of the biggest holy books, Bible and Qur’an, and this is the view that I’d like to sound: that no religion is perfect.
Here is the thing, although in my view, religion is self-justifying, paradoxical, and contradictory, doesn’t necessarily mean that we as rational being cannot embrace it. As Kierkegaard also noted, to embrace religion is to do the “leap of faith.” But this “leap of faith” cannot be completely devoid of reason. This “leap of faith” must be justified because somehow the religion that we pick is in accordance with our moral sense and our idea of a good life, and therefore shaping our life experiences. As we are all beings in a dynamic society, changes in this moral sense and idea of good life are to be expected, hence, we must revise our belief system according to these days’ moral conception, although this doesn’t necessarily entail outright falsity of our belief system. Since the moral sense and idea of good life of everyone is different, one must also firmly adhere to the notion that one’s religion is justified to her and her only. To each is their religion, and we must not interfere nor judge them as wrong.
It is by opening our mind to other religions that harmony can exist. Interfaith discussion and peaceful coexistence may not be working if people still think that religion is a “sensitive” issue. It is funny that religious liberals who are interested to go against extremism and for peaceful religious coexistence are persecuted and deemed “infidels” by their fellow religious members. It is therefore very important for us to become spearheads for socially disseminating these non-violent religious views, via social media and conversations with family members or friends.
Re-contextualizing and Testing Religions for Morality
One common thing that has always been cited of religion by its proponents is on its status as inerrant and infallible Words of God and therefore the ultimate source of morality (objective moral value, if I may.) But then it’s a shame if such guidance of morality and peace also condone war (see war on Amalekites on Exodus 17 and war on Jericho on Joshua 6, and also Qur’an Sura Al-Anfal verse 60, At-Taubah verse 29.) Should these verses taken literally, you got recipe for religious discriminations and religion-motivated wars, as what I’ve mentioned in paragraph one. A rational being will always re-contextualize religious tenets with current situations***.
However, re-contextualizing religious tenets need moderation, and moderation generally means having some doubts to the claim of absolute validity and inerrancy of religious credence. One must be open to the questions such as: “What if my belief is wrong? Why are there some foundational questions it cannot answer?” This is why it’s important to sow doubt and to force ourselves into coping faith with reason - apologetic-style. The calling for religious war aforementioned, for instance, can be taken as “spiritual war”, between good and bad. Or you can simply contextualize it into the condition of Middle East during that era, with all the hostility, and thus war can be viewed as preemptive self-defense (which is, perhaps, no longer appropriate these days as now we have ICJ to settle international conflicts.) Or, you can also think that actually, calling for war is something that was reluctantly done by God to ensure the continuity of His people; that God basically regretted it (God CAN indeed regret something, viz. Noah flood.) Or you can simply regard that as proof that some of the religious tenets are no longer relevant these days and must be changed, whatever you may.
Christianity was also actually born by re-contextualization of Jewish teaching. If you read what Jesus said in Gospels, it is actually a critic toward a strict and literal application of Torah. Jesus reconstructed everything that in the end, the compassions and love for other human being is equally important to the love for God. Using this as a pretext, the condemnation of LGBT, for instance, can also be re-contextualized****.
So, the question left, if the Words of God are not absolute objective moral source*****, what is it, then? My simple explanation is that we don’t have such absolute objective moral source, yet we don’t necessarily be a fatalist and moral nihilist. We can simply construct morality using our logical and ethical capacity as humans. I always think that morality is related to the intentions and actions whose purpose is to maximize collective well-being of environment and other conscious creatures. Such conception of morality must stand on several tests. One, the test of rationality: what would I, as an average reasonable person, free from bias and mental defect, and have sufficient IQ and information, think of moral value? This is done to establish boundary for the possibility of radically different moral preferences. One that thinks genocide or rape as something delightful must be declared insane.
Second, the test of justice. Borrowing John Rawls’ concept, morality must allow the collective well-being to be maximized through mutual benefit, or, at least a Pareto optimum condition. Should discrepancies occur (for instance, dichotomy between religious majority and minority,) morality must prevail to give the greatest benefit for the most disadvantaged, for the ongoing of social cooperation. This is the duty of civility for every rational being to make a harmonious society.
The Conception of Liberalist Government
With different point of view of what is construed by each individual as religiously moral, one will ponder on how to ensure the stability and the obedience of citizen towards law in a liberal society. The most desirable method in achieving stability will happen if citizens have overlapping consensus, i.e. supporting the same basic law inasmuch for different reasons, e.g. a reasonable Christian doctrine, a reasonable Islamic doctrine, a reasonable atheistic doctrine are all affirming the law supporting freedom of religion using their own perspective. But this is somehow difficult to achieve as some worldviews are exclusionary and often have conflict with each other, that’s why we must go with secularism.
It’s unreasonable for citizens to impose what they see as whole truth to others. Citizen must be able to justify their political decisions using publicly available values and standards (using Rawls’ term: public reason.) Public reason encompasses all aspects of social cooperation. To name some: freedom of religions; equality of women, racial minority, religious minority, and LGBT; efficiency and equality of economy; preservation of environment and public health, etc. Nonpublic reason only incorporates certain values that are internal to certain organizations, viz. bishops have to commit celibacy, Hajj pilgrim must be done in Mecca and Medina, etc.
Public reason is not taken whenever citizen is doing some mundane activities (such as singing) or activities outside of public sphere (such as praying in place of worship.) Public reason must be taken into inquiry whenever fundamental public/political decision is about to be taken or whenever citizen is engaging in some political activities, viz. when she is sitting in House of Representative. Using this, law banning LGBT marriage will violate this public reason, as not all citizen can be reasonable expected to accept Bible or Qur’an as authoritative set of political values and common standard to evaluate public policy. The usage of public reason, especially concerning different religious precepts, will be made possible when the government embraces liberalism.
The conception of liberalist government is then as follows: after relegating religion strictly into the realm of nonpublic reason and coming up with moral judgements that withstand at least two tests I’ve mentioned above, we develop political theory from the generalities of these moral judgements. This political theory then eventually be revised over time according to dynamic of society and be compared to other theories in terms of reasonability, consistency, coherency, and feasibility in accordance to moral judgements that we’ve developed at the very first time (although our moral judgements can also be revised over time.) This government then must also come with severe legal punishment for the violators of the moral judgements and empowerment for the supporters of peace. As the policy of religion often depends on who is the religious leader in power******, government has to ensure that the grip religion have on the political fabric of society be checked and reduced if necessary. Government must also not endorse having no religions above having religions and vice-versa, or endorse having a certain religion above the others.
Religion as Intuitively Good Thing
Religion, morality, and science have one thing in common: that they are, at very best, based on intuitions and concepts that can’t be reduced nor justified. Mathematical axioms are intuitive (see also Godël incompleteness theorem) and sometimes it is very intuitive to help someone in calamity (what if the person I help turn out to be a criminal?) as human knowledge is limited and it’s impossible to attain perfect information of everything and to justify everything (see Gettier problem and problem of infinite regression.) Intuition can also be wrong. We often have intuitive “physic”, but much of our intuition of physic is wrong – with regards to how matters behave, quantum physics, relativity, etc. We often have intuitive “morality”, but much of it is also wrong – with regards to test of rationality and test of justice. But, just because something is intuitive doesn’t mean that it always wrong, otherwise we are afraid to do anything and believe in anything. Although I have left religion myself, I can still see why it’s intuitively good. In my opinion, religion, at its best, is beautiful. There is always compassion, understanding, love, peace, patience, and harmony inside the core every religion. Unfortunately, I see this beautiful core grows weaker every day.
Post Scriptum:
* For further reading, see book by Farag Foda titled “Al-Haqiqah al Ghaybah.”
** Theists often cite the massacre done by Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot to show that atheistic persons can also commit atrocity. First, CMIIW, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot didn’t kill in the name of atheism. Second, even if they did, this is not a contest of “who kills less therefore it is right.” This is a classic “lesser of two evil” logical fallacy, as genocide done either by atheists or theists are equally evil.
*** Also called hermeneutic or takwil, as the counterpart of exegesis or tafsir.
**** On the basis of condemning LGBT using Leviticus (particularly Leviticus 18:6 and 20:13,) I can make an objection that is how Leviticus is mostly irrelevant these days. Practices such as marriage is only valid when the woman is virgin; covering women’s head with veil; prohibition on eating pork, getting round haircuts and shaving beards, tattoo, working on Sabbath, wearing mixed garments, are abandoned by mainstream Christians these days. Why not on LGBT?
***** As an objection to divine command theory, how can we, humans that were made in God’s image (thus retaining God’s characteristic – I assume His conception of morality as well) can think that murder on the basis of differences is immoral, yet somehow God who created us think that it’s okay, even endorses it? I think that problem of evil is solved by Alvin Plantinga’s defense of free will, yet the question of how could an all-loving omnipotent God kills via disasters and famine and didn’t answer to Jews prayer during Holocaust, is still unanswered.
****** When the conservative Ratzinger became pope, many Catholics express their concerns as to his stance may reverse the progress of interfaith discussions that had been earlier forwarded and campaigned by Pope John Paul II. We can also observe various ludicrous laws passed by religious authority such as ayatollah in Iran or those in Arab Saudi. Should the leader be more moderate, we won’t find any of these idiosyncratic laws.
Being happened to live in a country with diverse cultures and religions that is Indonesia, I can’t help but notice that in these days, what’s so-called tolerance has diminished in an alarming rate, culminating in violations of human rights, particularly to those who are minority. Cikeusik Ahmadiyah*) case, for instance, in which some extremists stoned Ahmadis to death (and the perpetrators get only six months or so in prison). And then HKBP Pondok Timur Indah in Bekasi and GKI Yasmin in Bogor that are prohibited to exercise their right to worship, despite the such right is protected by the very Constitution that Indonesia has (in Article 29). Whose fault is this?
Let me examine the government first. On one side, we have government who is apathetic. How? Seeing how religious extremists such as FPI going rampant and violent in the name of “justice” under the government’s nose, yet there was never been a serious attempt to disband them. In fact, police forces who are supposed to keep peace are afraid of them. Still lingers in my memory how in 2009, GKJ Manahan Solo cancelled their decade-old tradition in selling “nasi murah” (cheap meals) for poor people during Ramadan, per the order of polices that were afraid of extremists attack. Still lingers in my memory, several months ago, some religious thugs threatened elementary school kids conducting flag ceremony in Tawangmangu, and police were helpless and unable to disperse them. I do admit in Detachment 88’s success in dealing with terrorists like Noordin M. Top and Dr. Azahari, but when it come to big yet legal extremist organizations such as FPI, in which they have long records of aggression, government seems so helpless. Then again, it is nonsense in hoping peace and tolerance without punishment for those who disrupt it, for there is no human right to do violence.
On the other side, we have government who gives privilege to religious majority both in a subtle way and blatant way. In a subtle way, we have, for instance, SKB (Surat Keputusan Bersama or joint decree) no 8 and 9/2006 requiring those who want to build a place of worship to obtain at least 60 autographs as a prerequisite. This is very unreasonable. First, why exercising a constitutionally protected right should get permission from neighborhood? Right to worship (and right to peacefully assemble) is an individual right that is same for all people, based on justice principle and equality before the law. The right of people belonging in majority is not higher than the right of people belonging in minority, thus, the requirement of getting acquiescence is utterly pointless and unconstitutional. The interest of majority to keep their numerical advantage IS NOT protected by constitution.
Second, in a place where the hegemony of majority is strong, this is clearly not a level playing field for minority**), especially in the current situation when prejudice and suspicion is strong. This kind of giving de facto right for majority to dictate what place of worship that can be built, is very undemocratic and unfair. Majority can simply make up reasons to drive out minority. Fear of Christianization out of paranoia is one of the reasons I often heard - not that it is constitutionally wrong to proselytize, anyway. Proselytizing is okay as long as no coercion involved. Not to mention, the majority can also proselytize as well, so it’s a Pareto optimum justice. After all, all religions followers have the “holy mandate” to spread and preach about their religion to others. But the label of “being provocative”***) and “Christianization” simply just by a church being existed and singing and preaching and doing whatever constitutionally protected rights they have inside that very church is absurd at best. My friend ever told me about two churches in Depok that were closed even though they were nowhere near the residential area (therefore no basis for closure because of “being provocative” or “creating social unrest”). Isn’t this very ludicrous?
Third, this certainly will exacerbate tensions between different religious followers in this country, when majority “systematically prohibit” the minority and the minority retaliate or give the same treatment elsewhere where the minority happens to be the majority in that area, and vice versa. I see cases in Manado and Papua where Moslems who are minority, were made difficult in getting their permission to make mosque - what if we extrapolate these things in the future and on much larger scale, where the news of religious conflicts can spread fast and easily? This certainly will not lead to peace.
Even worse, is the government who blatantly and actively doing systematic discrimination to drive out minority. For instance, the SKB (joint decree) declaring Ahmadiyah as prohibited organization (why not FPI?), Governor of East Java that urged government to curb Ahmadiyah and Shia Moslems, or Governor of West Nusa Tenggara who actively endorsed Ahmadiyah to be relocated in a certain area similar to ghetto, or Major of Bogor who prohibited GKI Yasmin to conduct sermon on a preposterous basis of “making church in an Islamic-named road”. This is the government who is sick and ridiculous. After all, in such a democratic governance that Indonesia adheres to, government DOES NOT own religion nor have the right to define what a religion (and various interpretations of it is.
Using power to delineate, for instance, “what true Islam is” (in the case of Ahmadiyah) is such an abuse of power. It’s NOT OK to say that they can’t be Moslem. It’s NOT OK to attack them. It’s NOT OK to say that their lives and rights are somehow worth less than others’. It’s NOT OK to say that they can’t do dakwah (preaching) and gain follower, for they are peaceful and non-violent. It is the basic right of every religion, and furthermore, Islam is not the property of anyone, and certainly not government’s. The case of GKI Yasmin is even more barbaric. There is definitely no quarrel on their status as a legally recognized mainstream religion (Christian, alongside with Islam, Catholic, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism), yet this sick Major threatened their very right to worship, even after the Supreme Court’s decision to allow them to practice. I really, really hope that this Bogor Major be brought to justice for doing treason to this country.
Second part that I’d like to examine is the moderate majority. I say, they have not done enough for the betterment of condition of religious minority. This “silent” moderate majority actually have the power to restrain their violent counterpart, that, ipso facto, are on a significantly lesser number than these moderates. But in my opinion, I have yet to see significant effort from them.
There are millions of them, yet injustice for minority that could have been prevented still occurs. In Cikeusik trial case, in which the violent perpetrators got only six months in jail, for instance, I believe some of the judges are Moslems, but why did they reduce sentence just because of some “requests from prominent ulemas”, in spite of the duty to uphold justice is one of the most basic Islamic tenets? Why, for instance, Moslems who work as journalists and editors for news agencies never reported about the burning of some churches in Riau in the beginning of Ramadan few months ago****)? Why do Moslems in the police and Office of Attorney General never brought FPI to justice, despite there was a calling for banning or restricting FPI’s “vigilante” activities from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono himself? Why do Moslems at Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Indonesian Ulemas Council) never issue fatwa (edict) that says FPI or any other religious violent movement (aside from terrorism where they had issued the fatwa) as haram? Why do Moslems at Department of Religious Affairs and Department of Internal Affairs keep on doing victimization and demanding the VICTIMS not to behave so as not provoke more violence? Why do they keep on making policy insisting VICTIMS to “negotiate” and “compromise” with their violent oppressors? Even worse, why do moderate Moslems who happen to be prosecutors were prosecuting Ahmadis for defending themselves from the angry mobs? Do these moderates really think that just because they are in a safe majority position then they don’t want to get their hand dirty to help their fellow human beings? Do they really think that just because we are different than we are not worthy of their caring? Do they really think that just because we are minority then we have no merit for justice?
But I do believe that the existence of religious liberals and human right activists can shed some light for the more peaceful future of Indonesia. Islamic organization like JIL or The Wahid Institute can disseminate tolerant understanding to their fellow Moslems. Governmental organization like Komnas HAM can further strengthening inter-religion peace talk by making more inter-religion discussions and seminars. Human right watchers like Imparsial can observe and report of some injustices that may occur in the future. I also hope and believe that in the end the moderate majority start to act something. At least, they do the easiest one like not voting for party that upholds radical religio-fascism ideology or has religio-fascist politicians inside of it. But more importantly, I do believe that the solution lies on the very basic step of human life: education. If school can propagate about tolerance and de-radicalize kids from the start, I believe that we will not see religious violence anymore in the future.
Part Two will follow.
*) Albeit there is Ahmadiyah school of thought, that is Lahore, that still believes Mohammad as the last prophet and that Mirzam Gulam Ahmad’s position is just as Imam Mahdi. Despite this, they are still pushed to not use the moniker Islam. While this is wrong to prohibit them in declaring themselves as Moslems (see reasons above), I don’t think that they will not be attacked anymore after changing their name anyway, seeing the attacks to Christians (who are legally recognized) and cases in Pakistan.
**) The dichotomy of majority and minority between Islam and Christian, if I may say, is not merely about numerical dominance, but such dominance in terms of the number of the places of worship is not proportional as well. Data shows that in Indonesia there is (in ratio) approximately 1 mosque for 364 Moslems while there is only 1 church for 1605 Christians. One religion is clearly having a privilege over the other.
***) Even displaying Christmas symbols DURING Christmas can be considered “provocative”, as per MUI comments on Christmas last year. I wonder, why having prayer in Islamic way during a formal public occasion in which a lot of non Moslems also attend isn’t considered provocative? Why can I see some anti-Semitic books sold freely at Gramedia and this is not considered provocative as well?
****) I got the news only from international media outlets such as Jakarta Post and Jakarta Globe. I hope that I was wrong. But even if Indonesian news agencies reported about this, I don’t know why it seems that there was no continuance from them. Apparently, Nazarudin case is far far more important.
The thing that I really, really love to do is to sit down at 7-11 while sipping some beers and coffee and feasting some potato chips with my friends like By Charles and Nanang Nurbuat while playing Cap Sa. But often we talk a lot about politics, religion, and philosophy in raw level – we don't know much about political affairs nor philosophical concepts, but we could discuss all night long on them.
One thing that ever discussed on was about atheism. Had been reading Jon Meacham's article on Newsweek "The End of Christian America", I found some interesting facts. The number of American people who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990 from 8 to 15 percents. Meanwhile, according to American Religious Identification Survey, the number of people are willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic since 1990-2009 has been rising nearly fourfold from 1 million to roughly 3.6 millions. This is needless to say, quite shocking me although I'm a liberal person, and I believe, this is much to dismay religious conservatives who long to see their faith to be expressed and conserved in public life. What phenomenon is happening right now? And what causes it?
Some people says we're now entering what is so-called post-religion era. That doesn't necessarily mean our God is dead (as Friedrich Nietzsche said), but surely our God has lost His grips on our socio-political circumstances than any other time in recent memories. Some say, religions lose on the issues of same sex marriage, gender re-assignment, euthanasia, cloning, and abortion (by the way, Indonesia allows abortion, too, although it's only for urgent medical reason and rape victim, see Indonesian Health bill). I saw that this phenomenon doesn't only occur in secular countries, but also in conservative religion-based countries, albeit the effect on the latter isn't as paramount as the former.
I've been in and out of atheist internet forums and I found a lot of mockeries, blasphemies, and intense debates about so many things: morality, history of religion, dispute about the facts in Qur'an, Bible, and Talmud, concept of Supreme Being, and one thing that is never left, creationism vs evolution. Both religious and atheism brought so many facts, and, for me, neither side is getting a clear winning nor losing.
So what is the grand line? I found that atheists seek one thing: indisputable empirical prove that God is exist, underline on indisputable and empirical. As what the prominent figure of atheism, Thomas H. Huxley said, "The deepest sin against human mind is to believe things without evidence." I asked someone on the forum about his decision to become an atheist, he replied, "God didn't give me enough reason to believe." Atheist believe human doesn't need God to live. They say religions are delusional and miracles can be explained in simple science. They argue that we don't need God to become a person with morality, because every person is born with the desire to order. They also associate God with "Invisible Pink Unicorn", imaginary, but has attributes (i. e. pink = God's attribute: great, glorious, etc.), and yet the attributes and existence of such thing cannot be proven or dis-proven since it's invisible. They also refuse to believe that God is exist due to the circular logic (i. e.: How do we know that God is exist? Because holy book told us so. Then how do we know that holy book is right? Because it is from God). And many more historical facts and philosophical arguments that are too long to be written here. But why does their number keep on increasing? I, frankly, don't understand. As a child who has been raised in conservative family, I found that religion education or indoctrination is still strong enough, and even on the liberal one. If it's failed, there are still religion subject on schools, preaching on churches, mosques, synagogues, and even on the TV.
Another Concern
Another problem that corners religion is when religion separates people instead of connecting it (the term "religion" is derived from Latin phrase re + ligare which means "to bind, to fasten"). When religion becomes a justification to kill other people, when religion is in behind of many conflicts and wars, and when religion separates two people who love each other make God, through the eyes of religion, nowadays becoming an "alien". I may be representing one of the many young people who are brave enough to question God and religion. Nowadays, religion differences are almost like a curse. Each religious group tried to look at and approach God with its own definition of truth, with its point of view, since religions are multi-interpretative. Religious fundamentalism on one spectrum is the perspective of a certain believe/religion that considers that their own definitive perspective is the sole "truth" and absolute. But then again, problems arise when these fundamentalies claim that the "other" approaches and views of God, are considered deviant or wrong. What happens next is the conflict: Ambon, between Christian-Islam; Jerusalem, between Jew-Islam; Iraq, between Sunni-Shia; Ireland, between Protestant-Catholic; India, between Islam-Hinduism; and so forth. Too many blood spilled, God's name claims so much death tolls and not to mention raises a stereotype towards certain religion that is regarded as terrorists.
A lot of people be anxious of religions, precisely the anxiety felt by Friedrich Nietzsche years ago, as what he said, "god is dead! god is dead! And we all killed him...." (Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet!). Nietzsche had "killed" a metaphysical god. He was a true atheist. But this, too, what is feared by a lot of people when they think, "This world has too many religions. This world has too many gods already!" Was it God's fault? Or human's? Or both? Or whose fault?
Seeking for Truth
So, what is truth? Whose "God" is right? Truth, taken in historical perspective, social, and cultural context, describe something that we caught or learned. Truth is indeed very fragmentary, depends on how we are shaped by the various fragments, ranging from cultural to social environment.
Immanuel Kant called this as "Das Ding an Sich", that truth is in itself, we'll never know. Humans have limitations in seeing the whole reality. When monotheism was born, many hope that monotheism can overcome the quibble on the question of classical metaphysics, paganism, or "primitive" religions. Emmanuel Levinas with his "concept of one God"-Judaism, has placed the Abrahamic monotheism religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as benchmarks for the paradigm of faith. Levinas criticized Martin Heidegger's point of view that reminds us of the "Existence" in traditional metaphysics. "Existence" is not always a substantial God(s), but "Existence" is there, before we even thought. "Existence" is a reflective, which implies the power of the heart, grace, and the personal faith.
When religion becomes large, it grows like a rigid structure, far beyond the meaning of "Existence". Glorious mosques, churches, temples, and synagogues, and all the religion's gleaming, have taken quiet spaces in the recesses of meditation. Meaning of "Existence" has shifted to the prevaricating over differences between these and those. At that time, religion was no more than just about who is right and who is wrong. So, I think, we are "surplus" in "declaring the acquisition" of God, yet also "deficit" in terms of understanding meaning of God. Relationship between God and religion is now shifted only to be transactional matters, to fulfill the "spiritual needs" of people, to tranquil them in a bliss of joy, that's it. No wonder Karl Marx called religion as "the opiate". He regarded religion as the opiate which can make people "drunk" and forget the reality of life. Although, there are people who in their praise and worship, and in their contemplation, able to understand the meaning of God.
And in the end the question left is just: "Are we really able to fully understand and believe our God and the fact that we are created differently? And if we are, will we be able to stop equivocating and hyper-criticizing about the differences, and worship Him together with our respective methods?"
Meanwhile, let me defined my faith for myself. I don't need for myself indisputable empirical evidence to believe in God, even though there are a lot of facts about the truth of religion and the existence of God provided by the religious people on the forum, and through my own historical and scientific apologetic research. For me, God is there on the face of those who were crucified, and on the martyrs, and on those who died and sacrificed their everything for justice, truth, and morality. God is there on the person who is not only alive but also conscientious, who is on his standing, sitting, or lying down, seeing and contemplating the meaning and face of God, everywhere, every time. I see God on them.
What makes it worse, some nice guys just don't know how to make themselves attractive. They lavish woman they love with gifts, etc, in which it's more likely to be failed (unless the woman has some feeling with the man beforehand). Why? First, that woman thinks that there is no need to escalate the relationship (no need to be girlfriend, with the risk of breaking up the relationship) to get the facilities. Second, it's certainly boring, especially for attractive girls with lots of fans around them who do thing that's exactly the same, giving the woman lots of gifts. That treatment will not make this nice guy to stand out and have better chance to make a move.
This leads to a problem of an illusory tragedy of the commons, in which these poor nice guys thinks that relatively valuable women (either for their beauty, intelligence, sexiness, what say you) are difficult to get.
The Handicap Principle.
But, should we live a badboy lifestyle just to be able to get around with girls? No. You just have to mimic their impressions. Badboy is like the alpha-male gorilla. They are dominated by these primitive, masculine, animal instincts. Their robust masculinity is the ultimate attractor for women. In short, they are free men: free to express their opinions, emotions, and identity. They show a strong and leadership quality, even if they're not. Then, you should adopt that style, be communicative, flirty, able to take women down in cocky jerk jokes, hard-headed, decisive, adventurous, and show your high values.
Building a rapport.
Rapportis a term used to describe, in common terms, that two or more people feel in sync, or in short, chemistry. This is very useful to increase your receptivity, especially when you're about to approach a stranger with no prior connection. There are some techniques on the internet where you can learn canned opener, that is a sentence that you can memorize to open up conversation, directly or indirectly. But I prefer a more customized, situational one, but you have to be communicative or used to have a lot of conversations with random strangers. After you open up and have some conversations with her and want to escalate your chat further into a date, you have to look for the indicators of interest, then I assume you know what to do next.
How to Open Up
A lot of people are afraid to approach strangers, but the solution for this is quite simple. You don't need some motivational speeches from Mario Teguh to overcome this anxiety. You just have to approach as many strangers as possible. Feel the fear, go approach anyway, act nervously and stupid, be rejected (maybe), evaluate and learn from your mistake (did I become too creepy?) and become better at tackling your fear and at approaching.
Evolving Yourself
Your differences from badboy, supposed to lie on your genuine quality as a man. That's why aside from your outer characters of a badboy (that only become your clothes), you have to grow in emotional maturity, diplomacy (charisma), courtesy, character (confidence, belief in greater cause, fun and positive mental attitude, caring, etc, etc), and emotional skills of friendship, love, bonding, and mood management. You have to have wide networks and friends (in real life, not Facebook friends) as well.
And in the end, you'll become a man who's having a solid masculinity yet the ability to express friendly emotions that are heartfelt, genuine and real. You will not be boring in the eyes of girls, yet you are indeed suitable to be her long time partner.
In this post, I’m gonna talk about love. But not love in galau-ish sense. This is more into the psychology of women. There will be two parts. Part 1 will talk about how women can be stuck in abusive relationship. Part 2 will talk about how the bastards can get the girls :P. Go read!
Have you observed, or even experienced it by yourself, an abusive relationship? In which the woman suffered a lot of verbal, psychological, and even physical abuses? Yet despite after a lot of advices, still couldn’t let go her boyfriend. She even forgave him, and blamed friends and families, saying that they couldn’t understand her feelings? You might wonder how could this possibly happen. But yes, this is possible to happen. This is called Stockholm syndrome.
Stockholm syndrome is a paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which the victim shows affection and emotional attachment to the abuser. The name Stockholm syndrome comes from a robbery that took place in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1979, in which the robbers took bank workers as hostages for 5 days long. After released, they had attachments to the robbers and even defended their actions.
How can Stockholm syndrome shape a form of attachment? Firstly, the existence of threat and abuse. Verbal, mental, psychological, and physical abuses will degrade the victim’s confidence, creating a sense of helplessness. Threat will prevent the victim to report the abuser or get away from the relationship, even more if the abuser tells the victim that he “can’t live without her” and will commit suicide if the victim leaves.
Secondly, isolation and alienation. Be it physical, mental, or emotional. The abuser becomes so possessive and obsessive then creates a barrier for the victim to socialize. For instance, the abuser demands all the victim’s social networking passwords (Facebook, Twitter, Y!M, etc) or obsessive checking to the victim’s cell phone message inbox, or prohibition to contact someone, be it a male coworker, or male boss, or even male friend. This isolation will further dissociate the victim from her surrounding, and will worsen the sense of helplessness.
Thirdly, a form of compassion or love that is sometimes shown by the abuser. Because the victim is getting used from the pain and abuses, she becomes so “addicted” in waiting when the good thing will come. When this “good thing” is given by the abuser, this becomes something that’s so precious for the victim, creating false sense of hope that the abuser will change into someone better.
These all accumulate into helplessness and shame that will make the victim reluctant to tell to others, especially when her social life is so isolated by the abuser. The victim will then close herself from others and reject those who are trying to help her. She will feel that no one understands her feelings. This will be fatal, because the victim will gradually accept that “this is her fate”, and that the abuser is the only one that understands her. This will create an emotional addiction and she will think that this is “love.”
How to get out from such Stockholm syndrome? Well, for the victim, it requires a lot of effort. Usually the victim will realize that this is a destructive relationship after it’s too late, after the abuser almost kills her life or that the torture is so severe that it slap her back into the reality. As a friend, if you know this, it’s better to report to the police (because it constitutes a domestic violence), parents, and also psychiatrist (because this will leave the victim with deep emotional scar, even make the victim become too paranoid to start a new relationship)
But prevention is always better, right? Here is some guidance to know whether your current boyfriend will be a potential abuser:
Blamer: the one who blames his negative feelings or bad luck to someone/something else. Some of them are just good in seducing and making you feels good by comparing you to other person (“my stupid bitchy ex girlfriend”). You will come to think that what he needs is love from a good woman that you’ll provide. But beware; when you get closer to him, you’ll be the one that is blamed by him most of the time.
Entitlement: the one who always thinks that he is special and deserves special consideration/treatment. This type of person is highly egoistical and easily offended if he doesn’t get what he wants or what people should do to him. He will love to point out that he is smart and no one should disagree with him. He will have a very high self-esteem, a predatory self-esteem, and he will feel good if he succeeds in belittling others. The one who always thinks that life is unfair. This type of person is locked to his own sense of perspective, that he will neglect the rights and perspective of others, including his girlfriend.
Whiner: this type of person will focus on small mistake and exaggerate it. Be it the food in restaurant that tastes bad or that male friend who innocently ask you about how is your life currently. He will always complain about this and bring these little mistakes up every time you have a quarrel.
Sarcasm: that is directed to you, his girlfriend! Hostile sarcasm often means to devalue the girlfriend, to shake her confidence, and to get temporary ego gain to make his position in relationship higher than you.
Deceitful: the one who loves to lie, unintentionally or intentionally.
Controlling: if he starts defining boundaries over with whom you should go, urging you to block some of your male friends in Facebook, etc. That is.
If you feel that your boyfriend fulfills some, if not most or all the criteria, then be careful, maybe, at some point in the future you might fall into this Stockholm syndrome.
