Horror is Fun, but Hell is True Terror

            
If you really think about it, it’s really strange that “horror” is a genre of fiction.  I mean it’s kind of funny that we are entertained by being disturbed, shocked, horrified, and disgusted.  Why do we like getting scared?  There something masochistic about being thrilled by making ourselves afraid.

I remember back when I was eleven years old, when a classmate lent me this Goosebumps book:

I would not really consider R.L. Stine’s popular (at least, during my childhood in the 90’s) Goosebumps book series as part of the “horror” genre.  It was more of semi-“soft core horror” (no such genre, I made it up.  But you get the point) or fantasy, with trademark twists – a sort of Twilight Zone for kids.  Speaking of Twilight Zone, I really love that vintage TV show and probably my most favorite ever.  Thank God for the reruns in Studio 23 back then.  The storytelling and the twists were first rate, but the show also sometimes (or often) freaked me out – sometimes, frozen from mild jitters – considering the show’s schedule was late at night and I was still about twelve or thirteen.  Anyway, back to being eleven and this particular Goosebumps book.  Okay, so there, there was no Goosebumps story that scared me stiff at all.  I loved the series back then and found Stine’s stories entertaining but not really scary.  Then I read “the Headless Ghost.”  And it was the first book (and so far, only, I think) that made me scared – scared in a good entertained way.  But, nonetheless, made me scared stiff.  Maybe it was because I read it late at night and it had that “late night”-mystique.  Maybe it was because of the spooky storytelling technique and the twists that I was never ever expecting.  Or maybe because being eleven, I was not yet really out of the “easy-to-scare” gullibility of childhood.

As I grew up as lover of books and tales, I encountered authors like Stephen King and Edgar Allan Poe that wrote some pretty good entertaining horror or other disturbing stories.  But though some such stories freaked me out a bit, I was never scared.  I also had read some freaky non-fiction about creepy psychological cases that freaked me out a bit, but never scared.   I guess, I got “hardened.”  Goosebumps No. 37 “The Headless Ghost” was something special.  Sure, I may find it cheesy if I read it again now and if I compared it to the other literatures of real horror it would come up tame and pale.   But it was really the only book that scared me stiff in my lifetime.   As for the movies, well, let us say they can be more effective to scare me (anybody) since they are more, uhm, graphic.

My father had always been a movie lover.  And since I was a baby, I was exposed to plenty of movies (and I grew to love watching flicks, too) because I was usually tagging along when my parents watch movies in the cinema or TV.  Even if they’re horror movies.  I could remember two movies that frightened me big time when I was a kid. 

They were about this guy…

 …and this guy.

                I get to watch those movies again (in cable) when I was a little bit older.  Of course, they can’t scare me by that time, but as a toddler when I first saw them, I was definitely scared.   Come on, any toddler would be scared.   But as a child grows older, the child becomes braver and braver.

                This guy also freaked me out… but not to the point I was scared stiff.  The movie was more of action anyway and not really horrifying.  

By that time, I was over getting scared silly by horror movies.  Then in high school, I saw this classic horror movie – un-cut version – in cable.

Then again, I guess I can still be freaked out big time by some horror movies.  It was late at night again when I watched it (what’s this thing with late night-mystique?).  Up to now, I don’t dare watch it again (note: I also had seen that “Emily Rose” movie and that prologue to the Exorcist but they were really not that scary, though still freaky).  The possessed Linda Blair gives me the creeps.  And, no, I would not post that picture here! 

And let’s not start talking about those popular Japanese horror films...

Now, again the question, “Why are we entertained by horror?”  Well, according to a research, we get a bit of a dose of phenylethylamine – the pleasant chemical nerve reaction when we “fall in love” or get romantic highs (which this generation is addicted to) – when we feel fear and excitement.  So we are semi-“in love” state when we get scared (so that's why being afraid and being "in love" have the same symptoms).  That’s probably the reason we are entertained by horror.  We are just biologically and psychologically designed to be, in one way or another, pleasured by fear.  So we give ourselves thrills by reading horror books, by watching horror films, by riding horror rides or roller coasters, by doing some dangerous life-risking hobby or activity like bungee jumping or sky-diving, and, those really hard core fear-phenylethylamine junkies, really enjoy real life violence or gunfights or wars – reminds me of a George Washington quote, “I heard the bullets whistle, and, believe me, there is something charming in the sound.”  Fear and danger gives a certain type of high that even in the risk of life, humans can find some pleasure in it.  Probably this human trait is also a reason of such cases like pyromania.    

However, not all of us are past “fear from entertainment” highs and are into “real life life-threatening danger” highs; just like toddlers are not at all entertained by fear from Aliens and Freddy-esque slashers.  In fact in real-life dangerous scenarios - like being shot under fire in combat or a real life sociopathic killer is coming after you - getting scared stiff is not harmless and fun anymore as it is in the case with entertainment, but getting scared stiff is actually fatal since to be able to think and move under pressure is a necessity to survive in these scenarios.  Being frozen in fear by then would mean getting killed.  In real life, there are things that are so terrifying that, I think, that phenylethylamine are never released in our minds and not fun at all.    

 

                The most intense emotion of terror I had felt ever was because of this…

                Horror in fiction is fun and entertaining.  But the reality of Hell is actually so terrifying.     Yup, hell in this world is hell enough, but nothing horrifying compares to the real Hell.  An eternity of burning.  Never ending suffering.  And because of Man’s sin, Man is destined to that fate. 

                But this fear of Hell is sometimes a sign that God has opened someone’s eyes; that one realizes the consequence of sin.  And when this someone ultimately repents and surrender to God, he or she would completely appreciate the grace he or she received. Because he or she can compare the terrifying destination of eternal punishment that he or she was supposed to go with the undeserving salvation and ticket to Paradise from God he or she was given instead.  And with fear of Hell now reduced to a mere vague feeling of the past as a reference for the joy now felt, it would be replaced with a real fear of God, and fear in God alone.  With this exclusive fear in God established, headless ghosts to demon-possessed creatures to, even, physical death are not worth fearing anymore.   

Read More

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" Part 2: Illustrations of Manipulations

Before you read this, I encourage you to first read my discussion on "the importance of never passively accepting information and to have a researching mindset" in the previous post.  Oh, moreover, read it to know why “Innocent Until Proven Guilty.”  I had already raised some points and this essay would serve as a supplement or additional support to those first arguments.  This essay is more on giving examples of manipulations.

There are plenty of techniques to manipulate people.  And I would discuss some of them here (at least, those that I’m aware of).    It is rather necessary to learn of these techniques so that we can be ready to watch out for these manipulations because they can hinder us from finding out what is real.  Even by simple flawed techniques of persuasion, we can fall prey upon it if it is delivered in a sly way.   Take the popular Red Herring approach.  It is simple but effective (I should know.  I sometimes use it).  In a debate, there are two sides of an issue.  A red herring means “changing the subject” or “diverting the issue.”  But to use red herring effectively in a debate – not just cheap “diverting the issue” tactics by being irrelevant – without being too obvious is to attack the opponent’s point.  Your arguments are all about proving that the opponent’s point is wrong or flawed, instead of proving that your point is correct!  This technique is not really completely fallacious, but, in a way, it is clever manipulative argumentation since all your energies are concentrated on poking holes in your opponent's points, instead of a combination of that and defending and proving your points.  Proving your opponent is wrong, does not prove that you are right.  But it would be implied that way if this flawed argument would not be noticed at all because your opponent or audience is inexperienced and passive.   To continually attack the opponent’s point would put him on a defensive – emotionally defensive, making him vulnerable.  You would win the argument not by convincing the audience that your point is right, but by showing your opponent is wrong; it should lead them to the conclusion that your point should be right then since the opponent’s is wrong.  Using Red Herring is just one technique. There are plenty of others, and we should learn them to be on guard and to prevent ourselves from being manipulated.    As I’ve said, we can be easily be persuaded by flawed or limited arguments (like "red herring") and techniques.  Thus, I had encouraged applying a bit of “I-believe-it-when-I-see-it” skepticism on every institution, individual, or other sources we get our information from. 

One of the most powerful tools of manipulation is by using statistics.  Statistics give the appearance of credibility or being scientific.  Because of this, people would nod and agree with one’s point even though they actually do not understand the presented statistical data!  People are impressed by and trust statistics too much.  And because of this, statistics would be fabricated to suit one’s argument and be confident that the receivers of the information would be convinced.  We should not allow ourselves to fall “hook-line-and-sinker” to the statistics presented to us.  We should ask questions.  It is advertized “10 times better.”  Ten times better than what?  Than the competitor’s product?  Than it used to be?  “9 out of 10 people prefer this product.”  Who are these ten respondents?  How can we be sure that the group was diverse and not homogeneous?  And why just ten samplings?  Can these ten really speak for the majority?  Usually, statistics are helpful, but it could also be misleading.  Even if the statistics are true, it does not tell the whole story. Example is the Kobe vs. Lebron “who is better?” debate.  In my hanging out in NBA blogs and forums, there are people from both sides that can argue their points effectively.  But there are also naïve ones.  Most of these are LeBron fans, arguing that because LeBron has better stats, then he is definitely better.  Using this fact solely is the most ridiculous and shallow argument to prove that LeBron is better.  Stats are not the whole story.  By actually analyzing all factors – stats, intangibles, and actual game – we can see that Kobe is better (of course, I am a biased fan ^__^).  Or at least they are in par.  In one particular season, Dwayne Wade was averaging like some tenths higher than one or some tenths lower than two both in steals and blocks.  So does it prove he’s a good defender?  No.  He was criticized that for always trying to get the highlight steal or block, he has sacrificed overall man-to-man and team defense – which the prime purpose is to make the opponent miss shots and then collect the rebound.  See, good defensive stats doesn’t mean one is a good defender.  Stats do not tell the whole story.  A good defender is like the guy in the gold jersey below:    

My main example of a “source of information” in the previous essay was the media, and there I gave a theoretical illustration (photo manipulation) on how media can manipulate us to sway on the direction of the way of thinking they want us to lean on.  Aside from that, I gave no other examples but settled with a discussion.  But I guess I would have to give a few more examples, so that you can have some idea of these techniques that can cleverly manipulate the receiver of the information.  Thus, the next time you encountered these techniques being used on you by the media or by others you would be on your guard.

Media uses some very clever psychological and trade techniques that would give us the illusion that they are objective and neutral, but are actually manipulating us to believe a message they are conveying.  Some of these techniques, you might remember, are taught when we encountered the “journalism” topic in our English subjects.  We are taught two important things: a) when news is reported or written, we have to start narrating the most important details first then to the less or least important or trivial details last; and b) the title should, somehow, give the summary of the news and to make it catchy.  The rationale given is this: people are always on the go, and, sometimes, have no time to read the entire article.  Thus, the important details should come first in the article, or just by looking at the title they would somehow “know” the news.  Makes sense, right?  Well, that is true, but this journalism “laws” can be used to manipulate.  Since we now all assume that the most important facts are at the beginning parts, media can now sensationalize the first part of the news to make it sell and bury the facts that might lessen the sensationalism at the last parts.  Like, tell all the negatives about a particular person or idea at the first part of the article, and put the positives at the last part.  As for the title of the news story, it could be used to condition mindsets of the reader for the story.  Example, we get the title “Boy Massacres Classmates After Playing Violent PC Game” or “Boy Massacres Parents After Watching Violent Movie.”  Simply by the titles alone, there are already manipulations to condition our minds about the news.  First, a strong word like “massacre” can now appeal to our emotion.  Our minds and emotions are now expecting bloodbaths or butcheries.  Even if we read further on the article that the deaths are less than half a dozen or sometimes even just two, we unconsciously think the number is irrelevant anymore, since by using “massacre”, we think of it as too horrible.  Yes, murder is horrible, but the murder was exaggerated when the word “massacre” was used.  It was used to provoke us to an exaggerated emotional response, putting as to an imbalance and making us vulnerable.  This leads to the second manipulation, the title says “…After Playing Violent PC Game” or “…After Watching Violent Movie”, it is now implied that the game or the movie has mentally influenced the boy to do the horrible crime, that it led the boy to mimic the violence he saw in the game or movie.  Then as we read the article, there was never a real indication that the game or movie had anything to do with the crime.  Since the media is “objective”, the reporter never said directly that the violence in the game or movie was the cause of the crime, but by his or her manipulation in the title, that was what he or she was trying to say.  “…After Watching Violent Movie” is actually the same as “Boy Massacres Classmates After Eating Lunch” or “Boy Massacres Parents After Waking Up” title; the fact that the crime was done after playing a game or after watching a movie was as trivial as after eating lunch or after waking up.  But then because the word “massacre” had already put us in an emotional imbalance, we had ignored these points.  Thus, we are manipulated to think that the movie or game had a part in the crime and we became outraged of the game or movie.

Another technique is disguising the writer’s or reporter’s opinion in the news or matter.  Since media should report news “objectively”, there is no room for personal opinions or unconfirmed or non-concrete facts.  But opinions can be disguised in reporting or arguing.  They begin a sentence by using weasel words like “many people…”, “many people…”, “most experts…”, “some say…”, “some ask…”, “some argue…”, “skeptics say…”, “authorities say…”, or “supporters say…”, but actually these are all opinions or perceptions from the reporters.  They do not actually cite who are these “many people”, “some people”, “experts”, “skeptics”, “supporters”, etc.  This is disguising: no actual sources, but only based on the reporter’s or writer’s opinions, but making it appear that those statements or point of views are from others.  Example, “According to most experts, this pill, combined with proper exercise and diet, would quickly make you lose weight” but it was not detailed who these “experts” are.  This technique of disguising opinions are also done in debates (I sometimes use it, and always gets away with it) and advertizing.  So from photo manipulations to title manipulations, we can see that the media can do some clever… well, manipulations to influence us. 

You see, media had been manipulating for some time now, throughout history.  Do you know about the “American-Spanish War” incident?  Well, some guys named Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst made it happen.   When the American warship USS Maine blew up with no determined cause, the two made reports in their newspapers implying that Spaniards did it.  They had been already sensationalizing and exaggerating the Cuban rebellion against Spain back then – fabricating facts and portraying the Spaniards as cruel murderers and rapists (actually, if this Spaniards in Cuba were the same as those here in the Philippines back then, there might be some truth with it) – before the USS Maine incident happened, and the American public was already getting pissed on Spain.  Thus, the USS Maine incident was the final tipping point (because of Pulitzer and Hearst’s manipulative reporting), America declared war on Spain, warfreak Teddy Bear Roosevelt gave the enemy hell, and the Americans took the Philippines from the Spaniards.  The power of media.   

                The media, though the biggest source of information these days, is just one institution.  There are other sources of information; other institutions have their own techniques in manipulating facts.  Even logicians, academes, and scientists – those governed with the scientific attitude of objectivity – will use manipulative techniques for their own agendas.  Using logic can effectively convince.  Even flawed logic can be used to manipulate or prove a point!  I forgot in the last essay to use the simplest and most popular illustration of a flawed logical reasoning: mathematical fallacies.  The most popular of which is “proving” that one is equals to two.  Here is the step by step illustration:

1.)    Let us assume that a and b are equal non-zero integers, thus a = b

2.)    Let us multiply both sides by a, thus a² = ab

3.)    Let us subtract b², thus a² – b² = ab – b²

4.)    Let us factor both sides, thus (a – b)(a + b) = b(a – b)

5.)    Let us divide out (a – b), thus a + b = b

6.)    Now, since the fact that a = b is already established from the start, we can change ato b, thus b + b = b

7.)    Simplify.  2b = b

8.)    Divide both sides by b, thus 2 = 1

There was no flaw on the algebra at all; we had followed the rules of algebra.  But common sense tells that, of course, one can never be equal to two.  So how did it happen?  Though there were no flaws in the algebraic reasoning, there is definitely a manipulation that broke the rules and made the reasoning as a whole fallacious.  We can find it in the 5^thstep.  Here, we have to divide both sides by (a – b).  Now since a and b are equal, to subtract b from a would result to zero.  And now since the result of every division by zero is infinity or undefined, the argument is invalid.  Any further solutions after step 5 are meaningless.    

            There are other mathematical fallacies, but I am not a mathematician so I forgot or am not aware of the others.   The point of the illustration is by even following rules of logic or math, if it is manipulated cleverly out of context, it could “prove” a wrong point.   Thus, as receivers of information and arguments, we should be able to take all of the data in context.  To see the whole point. The determine the valid and invalid arguments. 

          Sometimes an argument, though it is convincing, is not applicable to a certain point or idea.  Years ago, I decided to think and research on arguments about how to argue that there is no God.  Now, all my life, I believe in God, and had argued that with the complexity of and with the interaction of chaotic systems in Creation, it is silly to argue that there is no God that created and maintains the multiverse.  Of course, to satisfy my researching mind, at least, I try to look at the argument that God does not exist.  And among all arguments that deny the existence of a God, the argument that stumped me (for a while) and fascinated me most is the “Omnipotence Paradox” argument.  The omnipotence paradox’s bottomline is omnipotence is impossible, thus there is no God or at least no omnipotent God.   Why is that?  Well can an Omnipotent Being limit himself?  Example, can God create a stone that he cannot lift?  If he can and would, then the existence of the stone would cease his omnipotence since he is now limited – he cannot lift something.  But if he can’t create a stone that he cannot lift, then there is something he cannot create, making him limited and, thus, not omnipotent.  So, either way it goes, God is not omnipotent.  


The popular defense for this is: Omnipotence Paradox is invalid to God since God is not something finite.  Consider this: He is a Colossal Being that time and the universe cannot contain him, but, still, he dwells in the hearts of every Christian.  Paradox!  He is one God, but three persons.  How can three persons exist and distinct from each other but at the same time just One?  Paradox!  And by these “paradoxes”, He shows how actually mighty he is!  Paradoxes will not limit God. Human mind and logic will never completely comprehend or measure God.  Human words cannot describe God’s characteristics.  Human analogies can never effectively illustrate God.


However, though the points are correct, this approach is not really the most concrete logical argument that will allow us to dismiss Omnipotence Paradox.  The Omnipotence Paradox is as fallacious and invalid as the question that also limits God, “What is the thing that God cannot do?”, which the answer is “to sin” (if he can’t sin, he can’t do everything, thus he is not omnipotent).  C.S. Lewis dismissed this as ridiculous.  He compared it to asking God to create a square circle.  Indeed, the logic of the omnipotence paradox is fallacious and inapplicable to God.  As Christian apologists argue, God is neither above logic (in which he can make a square circle) nor under logic (in which logic disallows God to make a square circle), but logic is part of God’s nature.  God is logic.  God is order.  He can’t make a rock that he can’t lift, not because there is a flaw in his omnipotence, but because it would be at odds with his nature of order.  Two contradictory things or statements can’t be both true at the same time and at the same relationship.  “Believe in Jesus Christ and you will go to Heaven” and “Believe in Jesus Christ and you will go to Hell” can’t be both true at the same time.  Therefore, this logical premise makes the omnipotence paradox as something that can’t be applied to God.    

        By illustrating mathematical fallacies and that though the “Omnipotence Paradox” is a clever argument but actually not applicable to use to deny God’s existence, my point is: it is necessary to be knowledgeable and to be able to determine valid or applicable arguments from invalid or inapplicable arguments. 

        I hope I was able to make a concrete case to convince you to be able to think for yourself and be able to prevent others – whether it is media, religious leaders, philosophers, or even simple and humble bloggers like me – from manipulating you to believe every idea or information presented to you.  Let me leave you an anecdote that I love to share on how outrageous it is to believe an idea by means of clever but flawed arguments.  You may laugh at the story, but I hope it would provoke you to ponder.  Enjoy.


The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic(absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.  One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

This student got an A.         

Read More

Floodgates in Embarcadero

We were invited to play in the 2nd Annual Ice Musicfest held at Embarcadero De Legazpi last May 20, 2010. The Musicfest featured a variety of bands in Legazpi and Albay of different genres; each band performed two songs.  These were our two songs, as our band represented the Christian genre. 

click here for more videos

Read More

5-23-10 Worship Service

Here are the first two praise songs we played at church on May 23, 2010.

click here for more videos

Read More

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty."

I found the photo above from the Net.  According to the one who posted this to the Net, this photo is suited as a theoretical illustration of how media can manipulate photos (among other data) to suit the desired message they want to convey to their audience. 

If they want to show the soldiers as compassionate and noble human beings, they would crop the picture like this:

On the other hand, if they want to portray the soldiers as cruel dogs, they would crop the picture like this:

Clever manipulation, eh?  This photo might be just a theoretical illustration but it can’t be denied that media has this power and had used these kinds of strategy so many times before. 

Do I think that the media is 100% credible and trustworthy and has no self-agenda?  No, I don’t.  From what I said already, they can easily manipulate the available data to convey a message suitable for their purpose.  I don’t think that the media is totally objective.  We know that media organizations, though they claim to be objective and neutral, has their own stand as an organization on certain issues (e.g. Left-leaning  TV stations and newspapers’ attacks on Bush) or has their own agendas (e.g. what else? Mullah, leverage, power, profit, etc.).  Media would tend to sensationalize to sell.   Omit certain facts to make out of context statements, or completely omit to report the event or news completely if it is not favorable to their agenda at all.    Media needs to make a profit.  They have to report things that people want to hear or read.    Thus if a good news would not sell, why report it at all?

  

To be fair, I am not only referring to the media.  I think that there is actually no such institution or person that can be totally free from any form of bias, thus his or her or its statements can’t be believed to be true all the time.  I am not saying that the media is completely untrustworthy.  That’s not the point I will make.   Media is the best option we got to obtain data from places or sources out of our reach.  But we should not take all what the media gives us as the gospel truth.  And not only the media but other sources of information as well.  As I’ve said, I am not only referring to the media but to every institution or source that we might get our information from, like the government, from the textbooks, our teachers, or other authorities.  That’s the point I would like to make.  We should have this mentality of being a bit of “I-believe-it-when-I-see-it” skeptic, so that we would not be easily be persuaded to believe any argument or idea without seeing or experiencing or researching about it first-hand.    

Yes, I am saying that we should not totally believe everything an authority (media, books, and other sources of information) says.  But the opposite extreme of it – to totally disbelieve everything an authority tells us – is also a wrong approach.   We have to be open-minded ourselves and consider the points of the authority’s arguments or see if we could verify what the authority says.  That’s what I mean earlier when I said that the media “is the best option we got to obtain data from places or sources out of our reach” (unless we can get to the main source of the data, to confirm it against the media’s message).  We can absorb the data provided by the media (or by any source of information), listen or recognize their own interpretation of the data and its argument, consider if all arguments are in context, discard the “props” or the dramatic or romantic arguments (e.g. use of labeling, red herrings, or anything that can appeal to the emotion that prevents objective mental evaluation), presume, even this far, if the arguments match flawlessly with the data… but never judge or accept it as the 100% truth until we look upon it ourselves, from other sources of information, or from the opposite side of the argument.  I said “presume”, since we can assume it’s a fact (if the argument was unflawed and concrete), but we should still find a way to confirm it.  Once we checked it all, either we agree ourselves with what the media or authority or source of information told us, or found out it was all fallacious.   Let me use the fact that the world is round as an example of a good approach on how we can believe what an authority says.  It is generally known that the world is round.  Have we been to outer space to see it for ourselves?  So why can we quickly accept that the world is round?  Because Ferdinand Magellan traveled to Asia by going westwards instead of eastwards.  Because Yuri Gagarin and others who went to space have seen for themselves that the world is round.  Throughout history, we find figures of authority – geographers, travelers, historians, scientists, astronomers, astronauts, etc. – that has arguments and evidences that supports the fact that the world is round.    Two factors why we now can comfortably believe that the world is round is a fact.  One, there are evidences and arguments that we can look upon.  Two, the claim that the world is round comes, not from one authority or source, but from multiple authorities and sources.  There’s no way there could be a conspiracy among all these authorities and sources throughout the centuries to mislead us.  On the other hand, we have what argument that the world is flat?  None.  Thus, we can trust the truth in the claim that the word is round.  However, in the back of our heads, there should be a tiny voice saying, “But I will 100% believe it when I finally go to outer space myself and see it for my own eyes.”  Not because we still completely doubt that the world is round, but because always maintaining this mentality of a bit of “I-believe-it-when-I-see-it” skepticism is healthy, to avoid being gullible and to always have a rational and objective mindset. 

One of the faults we have is we can be easily persuaded by intelligently packaged arguments or propagandas.  We are easily impressed by statistics, as if statistics are all accurate and always tell the whole story, and as if we understand all those statistics delivered to us. We think we know everything about Global Warming just by simply watching a documentary by Al Gore and we forget the important fact that weather is just too complicated to be explained simply, thus we have wishful thinkings such as the Earth Hour actually having some effect on the lessening of Global Warming.  We join bandwagons, like hating Bush for no justified intellectual reason at all, but just because the animosity on him is popular. We are easily addicted to fads.  Our opinions and feelings are easily swayed by the flow of the crowd (it’s a true human phenomenon).

To be able to persuade people does not necessarily mean it was through unflawed and concrete arguments.  We all know that we can persuade someone by appealing to the emotion, which is a weak basis for faith in a message or idea, and even convincing by appealing to the mind can be done by intelligent but manipulative arguments.  I should know since I also sometimes succumb to using techniques like sick logic, labeling, out-of-context points and analogy, reverse psychology, etc.  Even great logicians and debaters would also, consciously or unconsciously, use these effective but faulty techniques.  Sigmund Freud can deliver fictional and flawed ideas in a scientific and logical way.

I’ve said that there can be no institution or individual that can be completely objective, even ourselves.  Thus, even if we look upon the data ourselves, we could also be biased in some way.  It can never be helped.  It is being human. The point is, though we would lean on a particular idea because of the thought indoctrinated to us by our upbringing or beliefs, we should be able to stand to these beliefs because we, ourselves, had looked, researched, studied, or evaluated the given data first-hand and had not just accepted it passively.  I had always argued that one of the factors for effective analytical thought is to be able to get to the main raw source of the data, and not from already “processed” data – though, this would be theoretically more convenient if the one who did the “processing” is 100% trustworthy and error-free, which is almost impossible.  The next best thing we can do is to always have an inquiring mind, never compromising to believe in something until there is no doubt in our mind after doing our own researches.  Therefore, even if we have our own “biases” because of our faith or principles or philosophies, the “bias” would be minimal; that we can sincerely believe that our stands and beliefs have firm bases, and not holding unto them stubbornly even if we know that the stands and beliefs we have are false.    

  Let me share an illustration by Max Lucado.  The point here is that Christians should not take all what anybody preaches as true and that they should confirm all what is preached to them by turning to the Bible.  It is also similar with my point.  Here is the illustration:

Imagine you are selecting your food from a cafeteria line. You pick your salad, you choose our entrée, but when you get to the vegetables, you see a pan of something that turns your stomach.

“Yuck! What’s this?" you ask, pointing.

“Oh, you don’t want to know," replies a slightly embarrassed server.

“Yes, I do."

“Well, if you must. It’s a pan of pre-chewed food."

“What?"

“Pre-chewed food. Some people prefer to swallow what others have chewed."

           

Let us not make other people do the intellectual chewing for us and be resigned to just do the swallowing.  We should stop letting others do the thinking for us.  We should always have an inquiring mind, to confirm the information we get and not just passively accepting and believing them.  We should always have concrete bases on what our stand or what we believe in.  We should see through the “bells and whistles” arguments.  We should not be quick to judge.  We should not let our emotions cloud our evaluations.  And though we will always have some bias and prejudice, we should keep it at minimum and be objective enough, at least, to not defy ethics and common sense.  This is a healthy mentality that we should always practice as best as we can.  In Law, I like the term used for this kind for mentality.  “Innocent until proven guilty.” 

Read More

5-10-10 Dynamic Worship

First two songs we had in this date's dynamic worship service at Bicol Presbyterian Joy Church.

 

click here for more videos

Read More

Finally, Who I Would Vote For President

Earlier this year, I wrote an essay about my initial research and thoughts about those running for president this election.  But back then, my mind was not yet made up who I would vote for.  This time around, I finally have my candidate.

This is my second analyses of the candidates.  In the previous essay, I did it in random order.  Now, I rate it from my least preferred candidate to the candidate I would vote for.

So, here goes...

JC de los Reyes makes the last place because he does not impress me one bit.  It’s a losing race for him.  My mother told me that he at least has guts to run against giants.  I rather think it’s arrogance. 

He struck me as a guy who thinks he’s infallible and has the answer for everything.  In one of those segments on TV for us to know the presidential candidates, he claims that he has some statistics on something (related to condoms, health, population and sex in Thailand.  Don’t bother to know the details, I think you know the picture), and when one of the panelists sited a WHO statistic contradicting his statistics, he claimed that the latter is false and doctored and that the statistic he has, which he got in some seminar he attended, is the correct one.  Without concrete argument or backing, he boldly claimed that the statistics he got from some seminar is correct and that the data from a UN specialized agency, which has to be independent and objective and credible, is false.  The arrogance.

He’s a nervous wreck.  He can’t make the connection for the audience to believe his plans if elected (at least, for my personal opinion).  One instance was when he defended his stand that sex education should not be taught at school.  With awkwardness and nervous laughs, he was not able to deliver a definite answer.  One of the senatoriables in his ticket at least gave the correct answer (in my opinion, it was the correct answer) during another situation:  sex education should be taught at home since it is the responsibility of the parents (Bravo).  

I don’t think he has the nerves needed to be an effective president.

Noynoy Aquino is the frontrunner of this race and might actually win.  He has his ace, his sister, who is the Greatest Endorser in the History of Advertisement in the Philippines.  Our presidential race is actually a popularity contest, with the presidentiables as products.  And whatever product Kris Aquino endorses becomes successful.   Conclusion:  Noynoy has great probability of winning.  He already has the showbiz glitz factor.  See, here?  He appears to be already comfortable with signing autographs.      

But, come on, he actually got nothing.  I really like this table:

But my father - who I think is going to vote for him - that among the other candidates, Noynoy was the only one “forced” to run, while the others had already plans before the filing of candidacies – thus they already have their own agendas.  Therefore, Noynoy has no agenda for himself and might be sincere in his desire to make a change. 

I would not vote for him for the argument that though it could be true that “he will not steal”, but basing from his records and his willingness to accommodate traditional politicians (does he realize that these politicians might be just using his popularity for their own ends?), he might not have the will to stop those under him.

Moreover, Noynoy – contrary to many people’s belief that he’s “clean” – has his own share of dark pasts.  He had that Hacienda Luisita controversy.  And the most damning of them all, he used to be an ally of PGMA and had defended her during the “I am sorry” controversy.  Now, he’s a prominent anti-PGMA.  What happened?  He actually realized she is evil, or is he actually a "trapo", changing sides for his convenience?

Because of some brilliant programs and accomplishments, and having proven good managerial skills, I might actually had considered voting for Manny Villar if not for: a) his C-5 extension scandal, which is so obvious to be expensive and disadvantageous in the part of the government, anomalous and had benefited Villar.  Thus, Villar is not fully a man who became rich “sa sariling sikap” and had also used his position to benefit himself financially, like the other traditional politicians; b) his arrogance of having too many absences, and ultimately refusing to attend sessions, in the Senate after being ousted as Senate President and during C-5 scandal Senate hearings; c) his rags-to-riches mystique advantage was shattered by the fact that there are public records claiming that their family back then owns some land, and, also, that death certificate issue about his brother which could be proof that he faked his poverty and they were actually, at least, middle class.  Plus, he did not actually start from zero to become a super rich tycoon.  It is said that his wife was actually rich, and thus when he married her, he was able to have the capital for entrepreneurial expansion and become richer; d) now, this could be some black propaganda, and could be not true, but it leaves a black mark. It is also said that he stole lands from our ethnic people and then turned them into subdivisions; the dates on the titles for the lands pre-dates the actual date of the foundation of the agency that registers such land titles; and e) another probable black propaganda but minus points nonetheless, is that he is the real candidate of PGMA.  That he had made deals with her.  (This is actually believable.  It is just like her to plan something diabolical.  Using Gibo as diversion, but in fact, supporting Villar.  And when they won, Villar as President and PGMA becomes Prime Minister, they reveal the truth that they are going to rule the Philippines forever!  Chilling conspiracy theories…) 

His advertisements are actually so popular and a hit with Filipinos, that he is in par or second to Noynoy in ratings.  Thus, many would vote for him.  But just like I won’t vote for Noynoy, I won’t vote for Villar.  I would not succumb to making this election a popularity contest.

It is actually sick what some Bro. Eddie Villanueva supporters are implying: “If you are a Christian, you should vote for him.”  As if it is required of our Christianity to vote for him. 

I am a Christian.  And that is actually the reason why I won’t vote for him.  As a presumption, unless God tells me otherwise, his calling as a pastor is nobler than running as president.  Tending the sheep and being a tool to evangelize lost souls is actually more Christian-oriented than running for president.  A Christian has a mentality of being a Citizen of Heaven above his nationality, and unless, it is in sync of God’s will, running for a public office is not a priority compared to preaching the gospel.

My prime criticism on the Bro. Eddie campaign is that church machinery and resources, instead of promoting Christ, are used to promote Bro. Eddie.  The Great Commission is forgotten.  Bro. Eddie also compromises his beliefs (like his appearance on Quiboloy’s church) just to help his campaign.  The rest of the Christian community might be labeled and be distorted because of what he is doing.

I am not against a coalition of faiths to venture into politics.  But it has to have a distinct identity from the churches or faiths they belong.  Meaning, as individuals, though guided by their morals, they venture into politics without using their churches as support groups.  And, supporters should support as individuals and not as a church.  Sadly, this is not what Bro. Eddie’s coalition is doing. The churches become tools for his campaign.  It is almost implied that one is required to support him if one is part of the JIL church, or their ally churches.     

I am also not dismissing that God might have called him to be president, as he claims to be.  But as I can see in his campaign, I see someone that it is not relying completely on God’s hand, but someone acting on his own by playing the political game by the world’s rules.

But if God is with him, who can be against him? He’ll win if he is indeed called.  I, however, am not being called to vote for him. 

All I can say about Nicanor Perlas is that he is smart.  But his type is not for the presidency.  His type is effective as part of the Cabinet.  

What?  I rate Erap Estrada this high? Yes, I do.  I know he has flaws. He has vices.  He has been convicted (and pardoned) of plunder.  He actually might had been stealing from the government during his first tenure.  And he’s old.

But, he’s also an open book.  You already know his flaws.  While in the other candidates, they could be wolves hiding in sheep’s clothing.   He had also done some great things during his presidency.  He crushed terrorists in Mindanao.  Actually defended some poor farmers from greedy landowners.  Made programs for the poor (don’t believe me?  Then why do the poor love him?).  He turned a negative economic growth to positive.

 In my opinion, Erap was only ousted by power because the rest of the country, those in the provinces which are made up of his “masa” supporters, do not have the resources or capabilities to voice out their support for him.  While the anti-Eraps are all situated in or near NCR, therefore being able to create a huge crowd in EDSA.

In Erap, what you see is what you get.  Plus, he has never stopped entertaining us even after he left showbiz.    

Just as I expected, the majority of the youth vote meant for Chiz Escudero was diverted to Gibo Teodoro when Chiz chose not to run.    I can see it in my Facebook wall (a lot of my peers are joining the "Di sayang ang boto mo kay GIBO TEODORO dahil marami tayo!" group).  They are enchanted by Gibo’s intelligence.

I, for one, was actually considering voting for Gibo back then when Chiz decided not to run and Mar decided to be Noynoy’s vice president.  I was almost prepared to ignore that he’s PGMA’s lackey.  Though hesitant and half-heartedly, he was the one I was favoring back at that time.  Then the Ampatuan Massacre happened.  Then Martial Law came in Maguindanao and soldiers sent there dug out the weaponry held by the Ampatuans.  How on earth that such stockpile of weaponry, purchased by government funds, was held by the Ampatuans?   All of this happening under Gibo’s nose.  If that can actually happen when he was Defense Secretary, it could happen when he is President.  For the sake of political alliances, he was willing to turn his head and look the other way.

Gibo almost got me as a voter, but, no, thank you.

And the shocker… 

Jamby Madrigal

Jamby! I am actually considering Jamby when I had said before that I was not taking her seriously? 

Yup.  Jamby Madrigal impressed me during those TV presidentiable debates and forums.  She always has straightforward answers and knowledge on all issues thrown to her, and she has brilliant ideas on how to deal with the problems of the nation.  She never hides her richness, and never avoids topics about this.  She also seems sincere in wanting to help; I think one of the reasons she chose to run for president is because she is frustrated that such man that she considers a villain (Manny Villar) gets a high rating in the surveys, and she wants to stop him from getting the highest position in the land.     Her witty sharp tongue is entertaining.  She is strong-willed and smart (a “Mirriam Defensor-Santiago”- type).  And, the factor that made me rate her this high, is her cowboy-ness. I had always admired cowboys.  Jamby is a gunslinger – always ready to make a stand, down to the last bullet.  So even if it seems a losing battle, she still runs independently for president.  True crazy cowboy mentality.     

But, I am wary of her crazy impulses.

So, who would I ultimately vote for this May 10? (drum roll)

I will be voting for…

Yup.  I will be voting for Optimus Prime himself, Dick Gordon.  He’s the most equipped in terms of qualifications and experience.  Again, let us look at this table again:

There you go, the most impressive "bio-data" is of Dick's.  And what he did to Subic was dramatic and wouldn’t it be nice if he can do it to the whole country?   He is smart and has strong political will.  Yes, Philippines becoming like Subic seems possible with him on top.  

Of course, his personality is like the “totalitarian-type” and could have the nature of tending wanting to have his way always.  This could have a neagative effect (but let his cabinet deal with that initialy if this concern does arise).  And of course, I am not really sure if he can do it and would not screw up when he gets the office.  For this, I would vote for him but he has not impressed me to actually campaign for him.

This is a gamble.  But so far, at face value and actual evaluation, Gordon is my candidate.  Hopefully, he can set things right in this government and country.

Hopefully, you got the balls to go with your name, Dick. 

Read More