Tuesday, June 9, 2009

World Religions



I have sent President Obama's speech that I uploaded to my blog a few days ago to many friends even before I read it. The reasons: 1, It is so very important, 2, it is the first time ever since I became aware of Obama as a USA presidential candidate that I started to get serious about him. No, I am no skeptic nor a cynic. I have been critical in my youth but I have been consciously steering clear the path of cynicism and skepticism. It is just that I have been so much bombarded by politicking throughout my adult life that I have developed my safe way of reading politicians.

Now, with that speech delivered in Cairo, I have to look at President Obama in a different light.

I believe in a happy life being profitable to mankind. I believe in Love and Peace.

All founders of the world's major religions preached Love and Peace. Many of their followers believe in Love and Peace.

Religious wars, prevalent for centuries, caused tremendous human suffering. Religious wars are the biggest paradox ever invented and implemented by mankind.

In the period that has just lapsed in this 21st century, the smell of religious war is ever present in the air. Being the top leader of the major countries in which the people are believers of one of the major religions, President Obama is the best person to initiate a truce in religious wars. His background also give him considerable added advantages.

The information of the pie chart I quoted here may not be agreed by all, but I think it is good enough for my purpose. Leaders of Christianity and Islam, being the 2 biggest religions in the world, must take the lead to lead their believers to what their founders preached and squash religious wars, if humanity is to develop in synchronicity with science and technology.

I have no doubt President Obama will want to walk his talk, but it may be my wishful thinking that he will actually be able to.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

President Obama's speech to the Muslim World

转载:

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam. (See pictures of people around the world watching Obama's inauguration.)

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. (See pictures of Obama in the Middle East.)

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."



Remarks of Barack Obama in the Grand Hall of Cairo University on June 4, 2009

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

持咒改变神经电路

Sagittal Section of Human Brain

朋友有机会却犹豫要拥有个人咒语,主要理由是有了咒语或持戒就不可以破戒,而他没把握能自我控制到不破戒的程度。

放眼天下,谁又能自我控制自如呢?有这本领的,已修成正果,不会犯戒,可以不再在戒条上用心了。过了岸,还要船干吗?

就是我们这些还不能自律的人,才要勤修,才要持戒,才需咒语。

我们赋予戒条或咒语权威,目的在促使我们不要轻易犯戒,不是在制造罪恶感和恐惧。这一线分别,务必分辨清楚。

愤怒和恐惧是不健康的、有害的,务必排除这类情绪。

持戒持咒语,是为发展戒条与咒语所期待的善果。也为杜绝他们所摒弃的恶果。

我们持戒持咒时,会刺激某些脑细胞,会促成某些神经电路的发展,也会约束或切断某些神经电路的发展。某些电路的操作,表现为善行;某些则表现为恶行。戒条和咒语的选择,基于善恶的标准。

坚持修炼,则不断地把这些导致善行的电路发展下去,也防止或切断那些导致恶行的电路的发展。

意念集中时,所牵涉到的电路特别活跃,电路发展效果特别好。 不受理会的电路不受刺激,渐失能量,不会发展。久而久之,神经电路就被改变了,人格也因之改变了。

人类是生物进化的近期( 约200,000年)产物,人脑的进化,也可分新旧期,旧的沿袭兽脑,因为它本来就是祖先-包括爬虫的脑,新的较具灵性,是灵长动物 的大脑皮层(neo cortex)。修行时,应多刺激新脑,少刺激旧脑,这样,就有从兽性提升到灵性的功效。

上帝定下天律后,天律就代表了上帝。顺应天律,就是顺应上帝。人脑有极限,未必能了解上帝,也未必能了解自然。自然和天律是不变的,是有理无情的。

有情的是人。把情理融合是人的事,不是上帝的事。


修行是有科学基础的,科学家正在不断地发现,无论是有恒心地持咒或是深切的祈祷,都有可能提升人的素质,令人更合群、慈悲、平静与长寿。




Evolution of animal brains
Human brain was evolved from lower mammal brain which in turn was evolved from reptilian brain. Human beings still retain some parts of the old reptilian brain.
If we are in our brain, we have all living beings in us. Which part to manifest is our choice.

邱

Saturday, May 23, 2009

亚庇 建国中学资讯大楼开幕为捐助百万元的丹斯里刘玉波立铜像

几年前,亚庇建国中学筹建资讯大楼时,丹斯里刘玉波尚在人间,一口气捐了一百万元,拿督余清守三十万元,学校当局献议为丹斯里立铜像,以 拿督的名字为大楼命名。

今年四月十七日,建国中学举办了隆重的大楼开幕兼丹斯里刘玉波铜像揭幕礼,丹斯里已千古,我适逢是刘玉波基金在亚庇市的唯一信托人,被邀主持揭幕礼。


见证揭幕嘉宾留影

玉波控股公司在亚庇同仁铜像前留影。中间穿白衣者即丹斯里义女苏珊娜。刘玉波基金的来源,即是玉波旗下的公司。


晚宴贵宾

林鉴校长。
教育界的朋友说,林校长除了吃饭睡觉之外,他的时间,他的心,都放在建国中学上。现在为教育而如此执着的人已不多了,像建国董事部这样知人善用的也不多了。

邱记

Monday, May 18, 2009

巴斯葛的赌博 Pascal’s wager

巴斯葛(1623-1662)是法国的数学家、物理学家、哲学家和散文家,早年认为几何学的方法是最可靠的,晚年转向神学,认为感性和理性知识都不可靠,只有信仰最可靠,它高于一切,强调直觉优于演绎,只有通过直觉才能洞察宇宙的真理。
巴斯葛曾以因果论来考虑是否要相信上帝,它的论证,叫做巴斯葛的赌博。证论的结果是以相信上帝为佳。简略地说,如果你相信上帝而上帝存在,你会没事;如果你不相信上帝而上帝不存在,你也会没事,但如果你不相信上帝而上帝存在,你可能有麻烦,可能要在地狱度过永生。所以,从逻辑角度来看,相信上帝对你有利的机会比较大。
这个论证,有个大前提:信者得救,得升天堂;不信者下地狱。
那是十七世纪人类的佼佼者根据当时的人类知识作出的推论。今天,认知科学已有可观的进展,感性、理性和直觉的知识的产生和人类大脑的那一部分的运作有关,已有初步的认识。也许,在不久的将来,人类能够确认是那些神经电路(Neural circuits),在分别负责感性的、理性的和直觉的认知,并知道用什么方法,来促进这类神经电路的发展与运作。那时候,“洗脑”要改称“改脑”了。



邱辑

Saturday, May 9, 2009

结果轮对义务论(下)

一架载有两百多人的客机,失去控制,正朝向人口稠密的城市冲下去,已来不及疏散飞机将要着陆的地方的居民,而飞机着陆时,很肯定会有近千居民会伤亡。唯一可以避免这场伤亡的方法,就是马上炮击飞机,让他在天空爆炸。你会这样做吗?

#####

一对连体婴,如果不施手术把他们分开,他们就只有几个星期的生命;如果把他们分开,手术成功率很大,其中一个婴儿可以健康地活下去,另一个肯定会死亡。如果你是医生,你会为他们做分割手术吗?如果婴儿的父母不同意做手术呢?(先不理法律怎么说,一般上,法律要有道德基础)

#####

甲病人肯定会在一个星期内死亡,而他的心脏和肾脏,正合乙和丙病人用。乙丙二人如不更换器官,肯定会比甲更早死,而当时没有其他人可以捐出适合的器官。如果你是医生,你会取出甲的器官来救乙丙的命吗? 如果甲不同意呢?(先不理法律怎么说)

#####

盖世太保以十个小孩的生命要挟你透露间谍的身份和藏身之处,而你根本就不知道在你们中间有间谍。但你很肯定他不会相信你不知道,你也肯定,他会执行他的恐吓,把孩子杀死。你会为了救十个无辜的孩子的生命,胡乱指出一个人,任何人,是间谍吗?如果会,用什么标准来选择那人呢?

#####

飞机在山岭失事后,有好几个乘客生存下来。他们没有食物,走路无法脱险,拯救人员无法在两个星期内到达,到时人人都会饿死。如果把其中一个人杀了,他的肉,可以维持其他的人生存到拯救队到来。你会杀其中一人,吃他的肉吗?

*****


类似以上这些虚构的故事的事情,可以在真实生活中出现,挑战我们的道德立场。安乐死算是一个现代的例子吧?这类两难抉择,显示了道德标准的难以拿捏。难道道德标准是很随意的吗?

在西方,除了康德的道德规则,还有基督教的神诫轮,是属于义务论的。在中国,特别是儒家思想,也具有强烈的义务论倾向。 孔子认为“君子义以为上”,孟子说“何必曰利?亦有仁义而已矣”,而汉朝的董仲舒要“正其义不谋其利,明其道不计其功” 都是很明显的义务论者。

结果论在西方的最显赫的代表是边沁和穆勒的功利主义。在中国,有王充的主张“功用”,戴震则认为道德乃“人伦日用”。

道德上的尖锐相对立场,看来是超越文化的。

邱辑

Monday, May 4, 2009

结果轮对义务论(上)

飞行气球故障,飘向海洋,慢慢堕下;海里划游着饥饿的鲨鱼,飞行器上可以丢掉的东西都丢了,只剩下邱老师和他所带领的六个高材生。班德是六个学生中最胖的一个,他的体重,是任何其他一个学生的三倍。邱老师估计,只要把班德丢下去,飞行器就可以上浮,飘过鲨鱼阵,安全抵达对岸。

对邱老师来说,情况是极明显的,他只有两个选择:一是什么都不做,眼看飞行器掉到海里去,让七个人成为鲨鱼的食物;二是把班德丢下去,让他单独喂鲨鱼去。对班德来说,两个选择的后果都一样:给鲨鱼吃掉。

这是个老故事。古人照单全收。 现代人聪明,要问:为什么邱老师不自己跳下去呢?答案是:只有他会操纵飞行器,他下去了,还有后患。还有更聪明的人要问:为什么不推其他的孩子下去?故事是说班德体重惊人,丢别人,要丢三四个。

好,不要节外生枝,言归正传。如果你是邱老师,你会选择哪个方案?

选择把班德丢下去,你就是伦理学上的“结果论者”(Consequentialist);选择另外一条路,你就是“义务论者”(Deontologist)。结果论和义务论是伦理学上针锋相对的两大派系。

这两派的差别,可以用手段和目的来说明。结果论者认为行为的对错,决定于行为结果的善恶,即目的决定手段的正确与否。义务论者则认为行为不单是达到目的的手段,行为本身有它的内在的价值。比方说,杀人,不管为了什么,都是错的。

功利主义是结果轮之佼佼者,而最有影响力的义务论是康德的伦理系统中的“绝对命令”(Categorical Imperative) 或“道德规则”。


邱辑