I had just come from an office Christmas party. There was a discussion about whether one should tell little children about Santa Claus. Clearly, this co worker, who is a mother to 3 very young children, saw no point of telling her kids about a bearded white man who does not exist. To pretend that he and only he gives out presents to kids is, for her, plain and simple, a lie.
A lie is defined as a false statement with a deliberate intention to deceive. That Santa Claus does not exist is a true statement, and to say otherwise is a false statement. But, were the parents harboring a deliberate intention to deceive?
The young mother to 3 very young children thinks so. And, so do historians and non-Christians, and atheists, and other Christians, like the young mother, who given the chance, would like to put an end to this particular season.
As for me, I know that to make a claim that Santa exists is not a true statement. Yet, I do not not see Santa as existing in the material sense of the word. He does exist in the spiritual sense of the word the way my deceased father does. My father has not existed in the material, factual world for more than 2 decades. But, because his children still think of him, relive the memories they had had with him and, more importantly, practice his moral and spiritual values, his presence is felt as though he were physically alive. It is the same with Santa Claus, whose spiritual presence had taught me, when I was young child, and now as middle aged man, the value of giving more than receiving, and the rekindling of the sense of togetherness, and the remembrance of those who are unfortunate.
But, how can we tell our young children about these spiritual values? To them, these values are intangible and abstract. What they need is to see the embodiment of these spiritual values. So, why not tell them the truth about who does the giving?
I don’t have an answer to that. All I can say that when I was a child, Christmas season and Santa Claus was the most exciting, and an extremely magical event. As a child, I loved the festivity, and I cherish many memorable moments I had with my family and Santa Claus, whom I believe to exist because of the gifts that I always find another the Christmas tree.
As I grew older, I was sad to discover that Santa Claus did not exist and that the gifts were not from him. And, yet, because of my age, I appreciated something more important, more special: it was the act of giving. It was my father who told me how much he loved to see his children become so excited and happy. It was not until I became a father myself that I understood what my father had done for me and my siblings and my mother; and, lastly, for himself. In return, we gave him a gift: a memory of a beautiful family so close knit and so much love in the air.
This is why I still believe in Santa Claus.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Play By The Rules, Please!
The bathroom door is locked. Someone is in. I say, “Peter”. Paul answered: “No, it’s me”. A very simple situation: I asked a question, I assume (hypothesis) that it was Peter using the bathroom. My assumption was wrong. A very simple, verifiable answer shot back. In this case, and others like it, there is no need to speculate.
Water boils at 100 degree celsius. I want to know if it would boil high up in the mountain. To find the answer, I climb to the peak of a mountain, and there, my question is answered. This takes some time and a bit more determination to find the answer. Nevertheless, the answer is definitive. There is no need to speculate.
Einstein’s General theory of relativity was first thought on paper. At the time it was formulated, there was no technology to verify the truth or falsity of his theory. It took several decades to find out. Nevertheless, the answer was definitive.
The situation is slightly different with the theory of evolution. Yes, we do have fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago. Yes, we do have some evidence that the environment can alter DNA. But, you’ll need to live long enough to see species evolve to another but different species. And, we were told that this process takes more than 10,000 years. But when it comes to choosing which theory best explains how species come to be, the theory of evolution wins out - at least for now.
So, if you’re looking for answers to your specific questions, then you only need to point to the facts that everyone can see; or, in the case of theories, judge the one that best explains a wide collection of related facts. Whether it is a theory or an assertion about facts, facts always have to take the center role. Without involving facts, you can’t form a judgment. These are rules of the game that scientists, lawyers, police (to name a few) that they play. And, there are many players who join in, but who are not scientists, lawyers or the police. However, because of the great majority of people joining in, people tend to believe in the kind of truth that came out of this game. So much so that they would also apply the very same notion of truth on other games that don’t share the same rules.
Think of the debate on the existence of God. Many try to prove the existence of Supreme being by referring to facts. Yet, these very facts could also be used to prove otherwise. It’s as though proving God’s existence with the rules that scientists, lawyers, and politicians, would be a valid reason for believing in a God (or, the immortality of the human soul). None has seen God the way we experience storms, floods, killing, deformity, etc. And, yet these things are taken as proofs for God’s existence. And, yet these very same ‘proofs’ are also used to support His non-existence.
If you’re going to play chess, don’t apply the rules of checkers, or basketball, or baseball. It just doesn’t work. No matter what, people just go ahead and do it. The break the rules all the time.
Water boils at 100 degree celsius. I want to know if it would boil high up in the mountain. To find the answer, I climb to the peak of a mountain, and there, my question is answered. This takes some time and a bit more determination to find the answer. Nevertheless, the answer is definitive. There is no need to speculate.
Einstein’s General theory of relativity was first thought on paper. At the time it was formulated, there was no technology to verify the truth or falsity of his theory. It took several decades to find out. Nevertheless, the answer was definitive.
The situation is slightly different with the theory of evolution. Yes, we do have fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago. Yes, we do have some evidence that the environment can alter DNA. But, you’ll need to live long enough to see species evolve to another but different species. And, we were told that this process takes more than 10,000 years. But when it comes to choosing which theory best explains how species come to be, the theory of evolution wins out - at least for now.
So, if you’re looking for answers to your specific questions, then you only need to point to the facts that everyone can see; or, in the case of theories, judge the one that best explains a wide collection of related facts. Whether it is a theory or an assertion about facts, facts always have to take the center role. Without involving facts, you can’t form a judgment. These are rules of the game that scientists, lawyers, police (to name a few) that they play. And, there are many players who join in, but who are not scientists, lawyers or the police. However, because of the great majority of people joining in, people tend to believe in the kind of truth that came out of this game. So much so that they would also apply the very same notion of truth on other games that don’t share the same rules.
Think of the debate on the existence of God. Many try to prove the existence of Supreme being by referring to facts. Yet, these very facts could also be used to prove otherwise. It’s as though proving God’s existence with the rules that scientists, lawyers, and politicians, would be a valid reason for believing in a God (or, the immortality of the human soul). None has seen God the way we experience storms, floods, killing, deformity, etc. And, yet these things are taken as proofs for God’s existence. And, yet these very same ‘proofs’ are also used to support His non-existence.
If you’re going to play chess, don’t apply the rules of checkers, or basketball, or baseball. It just doesn’t work. No matter what, people just go ahead and do it. The break the rules all the time.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The True Fountain Of Youth
They say about people past their prime that the phrase ‘you can’t teach old dogs new tricks’ seem to apply to them. Every new technology seems to be so difficult for older people to learn and enjoy. They feel that these new technological gadgets like email, the internet, cell phone, etc, make life too complicated, they would rather keep things simple by doing what they are already familiar with. To a certain extent, there is no need to further complicate one’s life when what they are comfortable with things that still serve their practical needs. However, if you want to stay competitive in the workforce, you will need to adapt to the present times. Very few people past their prime succeed in keeping fit - not just physically, but mentally. How so?
First, take a look at the young. They’re naturally curious, adventurous, and they have very few things to worry or to be afraid about. That is why they are reckless. In a sense, they are building a past for they, at that human stage of development, have none. And, because they have no past to reminisce, then their whole attention is towards the present. Today and tomorrow, two time segments have no clear demarcation. Certainly, the young know fear; but their curiosity and adventurism gets the better of them. This is why they learn new things, more confidently. Without their knowing, their motto is ‘Where there is a will, there is a way’. It’s no wonder that Nike’s “Just do it” resonates with the young and the bold. But the young lack wisdom and do silly things. That is not their excuse. It is a fact of being young.
The ones past their prime have a long past. It’s the familiar faces, streets, people, certain ways of behaving, the same objects of fear, and pleasure - that make up their comfort zone.. All are stored in their past, in their memory. And, even if they are still afraid of certain things that occasionally make their entrance in the present, the old are comforted by the fact that they familiar with what they’re afraid of. It’s the unknown, the unfamiliar that they are most afraid of. That is why they stay away from anything new and unfamiliar, different and strange. “You can’t teach old dogs new tricks’ would seem to capture the general attitude of the old.
Yet, it’s those over 40 (or, 45) and older who have a lot to gain. They have a repertoire of knowledge, of wisdom (sometimes), and if they remember how they have learned when they were young, then they would, should know better that there is really, really nothing to be afraid of. From their experiences, they have learned from trials and tribulations. And, what they should have realized was that they survived, and at times, triumph. But because of fear, they stuck to it and forgot that they had actually survived and lived to tell the stories. They should have acknowledge the fact that because of fear, or rather despite of fear, they survived and lived to tell their stories. To spell it out: they remembered much of what they fear that they have overlooked the pleasure of accomplishment. It was their choice, and unfortunately, many, belonging to that age group, have chosen to stick to what is familiar: places, people, ways of behaving, ways of thinking. They could have learned new things about present reality; yet they had chosen to believe that they’re way too old for that. It’s thinking old that prevents one from thinking new.
True, there are more physical limitations as one ages; but that does not mean you’re an old dog. True, there is less brain power; but that should not stop anyone from learning about how he had learned when he was young so as to learn anew. Really, when one is already old (-er), what is there to lose?
First, take a look at the young. They’re naturally curious, adventurous, and they have very few things to worry or to be afraid about. That is why they are reckless. In a sense, they are building a past for they, at that human stage of development, have none. And, because they have no past to reminisce, then their whole attention is towards the present. Today and tomorrow, two time segments have no clear demarcation. Certainly, the young know fear; but their curiosity and adventurism gets the better of them. This is why they learn new things, more confidently. Without their knowing, their motto is ‘Where there is a will, there is a way’. It’s no wonder that Nike’s “Just do it” resonates with the young and the bold. But the young lack wisdom and do silly things. That is not their excuse. It is a fact of being young.
The ones past their prime have a long past. It’s the familiar faces, streets, people, certain ways of behaving, the same objects of fear, and pleasure - that make up their comfort zone.. All are stored in their past, in their memory. And, even if they are still afraid of certain things that occasionally make their entrance in the present, the old are comforted by the fact that they familiar with what they’re afraid of. It’s the unknown, the unfamiliar that they are most afraid of. That is why they stay away from anything new and unfamiliar, different and strange. “You can’t teach old dogs new tricks’ would seem to capture the general attitude of the old.
Yet, it’s those over 40 (or, 45) and older who have a lot to gain. They have a repertoire of knowledge, of wisdom (sometimes), and if they remember how they have learned when they were young, then they would, should know better that there is really, really nothing to be afraid of. From their experiences, they have learned from trials and tribulations. And, what they should have realized was that they survived, and at times, triumph. But because of fear, they stuck to it and forgot that they had actually survived and lived to tell the stories. They should have acknowledge the fact that because of fear, or rather despite of fear, they survived and lived to tell their stories. To spell it out: they remembered much of what they fear that they have overlooked the pleasure of accomplishment. It was their choice, and unfortunately, many, belonging to that age group, have chosen to stick to what is familiar: places, people, ways of behaving, ways of thinking. They could have learned new things about present reality; yet they had chosen to believe that they’re way too old for that. It’s thinking old that prevents one from thinking new.
True, there are more physical limitations as one ages; but that does not mean you’re an old dog. True, there is less brain power; but that should not stop anyone from learning about how he had learned when he was young so as to learn anew. Really, when one is already old (-er), what is there to lose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)