Decisions, Decisions

One thing I will admit that I enjoyed my English Literature classes from my High School, and I do miss them. It wasn’t the Literature books that  we had to study though I still read them mostly and refer to them a lot, with notable exception for Pride and Prejudice, not going near that at all. It was my English teachers, both of them in matter of fact, the way they approached the course, the curriculum. It wasn’t til I discussed with my friends I realised how lucky I was. “If you want to ruin a book, put it on the school curriculum” was the chorus.

They used the books as a tool, to open up our world, our views, our perceptions, and occasionally would bring in titbits of History, Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Sciences into the discussion about English Literature to understand the content or the author more.

To this day I found myself referring to those books I read, King Lear about love, I Lay Dying about perceptions, Kafta about humour, to give a few examples. I am not  summarising the books, but what I drew the most out of them for everyday’s life. Best example would be Kafta’s humour that failed to be translated into English, gives me more understanding of how translations and culture can really differ.

One memorable lesson was about politics, and I can’t remember which book we were discussing, but the topic was Tony Blair and the War in Iraq. The gist of the lesson was

“What would you do if you were in Tony Blair’s shoes”.

 

We all benefited from the power of hindsight, we are able to comfort ourselves with the idea that we were right that there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that we were right all along and there shouldn’t be any war.

But lets say for the moment that you are Prime Minister of United Kingdom and in your cabinet room, you are discussing with your advisers about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Try not to use any benefit of the hindsight in this example.

As a Prime Minister you are responsible for your citizens, and their safety. Not to mention that you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that every one have a right to life and from fear. Your alliance with America is also hanging on what you would do next, which you cannot just rely on idealogical reasons, there are trade negotiations and deals going on, military and various treaties all signed, economic ties and debt, an alliance that goes back to the First World War.

You may have something against the American President, but can you hold that against the American public, despite the fact they elected him. Perhaps that American businessman you are trading with, or an American hipster customer from Oregon that you are selling to. Whether you like it or not, millions of your own countrymen visit America, buys American goods, trade with Americans. All that will be affected by your decision whether to back America or not.

So the Americans gave you information and you have to weigh the value of the information. You know Americans are going to war anyway, not much choice you can do there. But you could pull the leash a bit before it snaps. Your advisers gives you paperwork citing evidence from your own intelligence agents and American intelligence organisations, that Saddam harbours weapons of mass destruction. Iraq may not be a threat to your country nor America, but they may or may not been supplying terrorists, or future terrorists, you don’t know therefore you can’t just assume the best case scenario, you have to assume the worst case scenario.

The information are given to you by the people who are serving the country, they gave up their life, their names, for the country. In exchange for their duty to the country, you cannot name them, nor indicate where you got the information from or how. That is a rather sticky situation to be; how to convince the public about the documents that you are led to believe is genuine without telling them the entails of the documents and how you acquired them.

The intelligence agents may have misidentified, may have made a mistake, may be overconfidence in surveillance, but again for the safety of your citizens you cannot assume that. Things going on in your mind that if the intelligence agents actually got it right and you didn’t believe them. You would be crucified, responsible for the deaths of your own citizens in a terrorist attack that had weapons from Saddam. Tough decision to make. Bill Clinton regretted not going after Osama Bin Laden, after the Nairobi bombings, which in turn Bill Clinton have the deaths of 9/11 hanging over his head.

Pacifist or not, no matter how much you hate Bush, you know if confronted with that situation, weighing the lives of your own countrymen, with your advisers giving you information that you cannot afford to doubt, you would have done what Tony Blair did whether you like it or not. That is hard choice, difficult choice. The worst thing is; there isn’t any other real pragmatic option of overthrowing Saddam.

Perhaps it was easier just to go to war, overthrow a tyrant who murdered and oppressed his own citizens, just in case to confirm there are no weapons of mass destruction. Safe side of the coin. Follow your ally into war, and hope for the best, ride the storm that would come if there happens to be no weapons of mass destruction. President George W. Bush copped a lot of flak for wanting the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell was chastised, but British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s reputation remains fairly intact. His legacy isn’t overshadowed by the decision to convince the British public to go to war.

Tony Blair did the best he could, he and Powell managed to get America to go through the United Nations as much as possible, regardless of how much a difference that made.

The most important thing about that discussion for me was the confrontation with reality. Unable to tell the public classified information when you need them as evidence to convince them. Making the decision and living with them. It is easier for you to be on the couch and criticise when you are not given the burden of the decision. Be damned if you do and be damned if you don’t.

For the record, War in Iraq, I still don’t know if it was worth it, but I hope democracy flourish to make it worth the lives lost, not to make Bush feel better. Saddam was a tyrant yeah, there are many other tyrants we could have overthrown too but of course it wasn’t in the interest (oil), it was the inconsistency of their policy that should be criticised. Not a thing is being done about the starving people of North Korea (sanctions only hurt the people more). Respecting sovereignty is a double-edge sword. This post wasn’t justifying the case for war, but highlighting the burden when confronted with a decision.

Everything I think about politics, or a political decision politicians make or about to make, I always think about Tony Blair, weighing the options. No doubt Blair would want more information, find something that is missing that could have changed the case.

Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Non-Theism, Ignosticism,

I am Ignostic myself, as I have been struggling for ages explaining to people I am not atheist because I don’t claim to say ‘God doesn’t exist’ with 100% confidence as that would make me a believer, nor I am theist to say that God exist. Agnostic was just too vague for my taste, ‘God may exist out there but frankly I don’t care’, or “I just don’t know”, or “God is inconclusive until further evidence is met.”

As much as I am tempted to reply that my religion is Beer and I am member of Beer Masonry and would apply to join Beer Church, worshipping the miracle of Zytho! Church of Zythology! (Greek for Yeast)

In all seriousness, which is a shame, I labelled myself Non-theist, which I tried my best to differ from the atheism. Of course it is liberating knowing there is no God, and I can live with that fact but I cannot back it up, I cannot argue it and I am certainly not going to let someone say I believe there is no God.

Originally I have been arguing about non-theism, as in don’t believe in anything, pretty much a secularist. Yes I come from a science background and science is a method (Not a religion!), it is description of how we observe and experiment, not belief. At times I feel like I am Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory when someone says Science is a Religion, and I do wish I memorised the quote that Sheldon would have said. Actually let me have a go; “Science is not a Religion as Scientific theory has to be falsifiable, and have no dogmata. Theories are vetted repeatedly through processes of Scientific Method by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.”

Creation as set down by the Bible and belief by Christians, to me is simply a Hypothesis, not a theory. There is nothing to back up Creation, not a shred of evidence and frankly a Bible is much of an evidence as Lord of the Rings is an evidence for existence of the Elves, Hobbits, Orcs, Dwares, Dragons. (The latter more convincing though!)

I will believe in existence of God if the hypothesis of Creation is proved and proven again and again as a theory plausible enough. I never say I believe in Evolution, I merely accept the theory of evolution, (note I said theory) as it pretty much explain our history with some holes which is why it is still a theory. Parts of the evolution theory has been verified more times than enough to be plausible.

Therefore I labelled myself as non-theism, following the method of scientific. However I realised later on that I have been jumping the gun, in particular when my own brother would jab at me for I often say “Oh God”, or “Oh My God”. Now why I have been saying God, or even mention God when I am supposed to be non-theist? The word ‘God’ have been used so many times that the meaning of it has been lost and gained if that even make sense. Just like the word Fuck has lost it offensiveness but at the same time it has an impact that no other word would have. I could say “Fark” “Flush”, but it certainly doesn’t have the same impact as FUCK!. To me, God word has the meaning that I desire to express that people will understand, and it doesn’t help that I have been reading that a lot!

That brings me to Ignosticism, which I can’t remember how I came across this article, but it totally makes sense, and most likely what Sheldon Cooper would be. I realised I have been assuming all along the meaning of God, when it differ for everyone, which brings to the point that Ignostist would say “I don’t know what you mean when you say ‘God exists’?”.

Therefore how could I be discussing God or even its existence when it is meaningless as we haven’t established a coherent definition of what God is.

Pell vs Dawkins

I was watching Dawkins vs Pell the other day on ABC’s Questions & Answers, how they discussed Secularism vs Religion. I admit I wasn’t watching the full program, nor following it closely, only watching it time to time while surfing the internet. Morals and evolution was touched upon.

In my time I had my fair share of several debates about religions vs secularism. I remember my debate with a few religious people about evolution, some of them are just source of laughter, and I did sound ridiculous at times. One of them was Australian devoted Christian (young) who truly believe that Earth is only 30,000 years old, and was using science to counter the arguments. Somehow it was twisted as she was arguing about the power of water eroding rivers that the gorge (I think it was Grand Canyon) couldn’t be millions years old on one of the guide tour, and the fact she was accusing the tour guide as a liar. That was pretty much incredible, but anyway the point was she was using Noah’s Flood as reason why gorges were made, and that mountains are only few thousand years old and they do not grow upwards.

I took pains to explain much to my annoyance that tectonic plates crushing into each other created the Himalayas, and still are growing upwards, which is a fact! Something she disputes (alas, should have taken geography  along with Religious studies!), so I took her point and argue, okay lets assume she is right that the Noah’s Flood carved out all mountains and gorges, and the tallest mountain is Mt Everest which is 8,800 metres, so according to her ‘science’ the Noah Flood eroded from top of that mountain, which umm the sea level was at 8,800 metres above the current sea level… really? Where did all the water go! Of course she drew up the God’s card. Never mind the fact that rains can erode, she didn’t know that as she could have countered me!

Pell mentioned that Neanderthals being our cousins and where are they now? Dawkins’ response was simple “Extinct!”. “Exactly!” was the response. Ahem, once you give religious people time and space, their comments will continue to contradict themselves however they will not acknowledge or realise it. This is my favourite part of the show;

Pell: “For some extraordinary reason God chose the Jews. They weren’t intellectually the equal of either the Egyptians or-”

“Intellectually?” Jones interceded. “How can you know, intellectually?”

“Because you see the fruits of their civilisation. Egypt was the great power for thousands of years before Christianity. Persia was a great power. Caldia. The little Jewish people were originally shepherds. They were stuck, they’re still stuck.”

“That’s not a reflection of your intellectual capacity is it?” asked Jones. “Whether or not you’re a shepherd.”

“No it’s not but it’s a reflection of your intellectual development,” said Pell. “Many, many people are very, very clever and not highly intellectual.”

“Can I just interrupt, are you including Jesus in that, who obviously was Jewish? And was of that community?” Jones inquired.

“Exactly,” answered Pell.

“So…. intellectually not up to it?”

“That’s a nice try, Tony,” Pell replied. “The people in terms of sophistication, the Psalms are remarkable, in terms of their buildings and that sort of thing, they don’t compare with the great powers. But Jesus came not as an officer to the elite. he came to the poor and the battlers. And for some reason he chose a very difficult, and actually they are now intellectually elite because over the centuries they’ve been pushed out of every other form of work.”

That was poor use of the word “intellectually”. I am not sure why intelligence has to be involved in the debate, but when you think about it, with his knowledge on evolution, it is rather ironic that he isn’t up to understanding evolution intellectually. Pell and other religious people, are pretty much set in their own belief, that they will continue to misunderstand the common misconception of evolution, such as we come from Apes. (Another pet peeve of Dawkins and mine, the proper answer is that Apes and Homo Sapiens share same ancestor.)

I am not sure why Pell thought the Jews are now intellectually elite because they have received God’s word. Has he forgotten that the Bible forbids lending? The Torah doesn’t forbid lending, so over centuries Jews were able to practice lending and some forms of banking at the expense of Christians. (That would explain simply why they are targeted.) I know that is a simple answer and there are a lot more factors involved, but since Pell answered it simply, I thought I would counter it simple.

Can I interject just a bit that Jesus came to the poor and the battler. There have been a recent research among beer historians that Jesus gave Beer, not wine to the poor. That would make a lot of sense cos Jesus all need to turn water into beer, by adding barley. (Hops weren’t added for another thousand years.) Yeast wasn’t discovered until 18th Century and the fermentation was assumed God’s miracle prior to the discovery. So it is fair to deduct that Jesus did make beer and give out bread. The Catholic Church changed the practice and wording to wine in the Middle Ages because wine were exclusive and reserved for the elite, and probably some clever archbishop scholar knew that turning water into beer isn’t a miracle, but turning water into wine would.

Anyway it was pointless, and frivolous and damn annoying to argue with a devoted Christian with flimsy knowledge of science! No matter how much science you use, they will continue to find a way to use God’s card.

One of my favourite questions often asked what is before the Big Bang? Nothing is often the answer. I don’t have a problem with nothing because I have always assumed ‘Nothing’ as we don’t know and I am very comfortable with the fact that we don’t know yet. I often raised the logical argument; all the laws of Physics we have today, law of constant, theory of gravity, theory of relativity, so on all works in our current Universe. The key word is ‘in’, we don’t know whether they would be same before the Big Bang, the laws may apply differently. There is no way to find out because we are inside the Universe, even experiment in vacuum would be affected by our laws because we are inside the Universe. Einstein said in his Theory of Relativity “The laws of physics are the same for observers in inertial frame of reference.” As physics are observing phenomena in an expanding universe which started shortly after the Big Bang, therefore physics cannot explain at zero of time. One of the fundamental physic laws and my favourite; “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.” Law of conservation of energy. I will address this quote more in details in latter post. That would indicate that nothing is destroyed nor created, merely transferred into another form, since the Big Bang. and as I said before that physics laws doesn’t apply to the point of the Big Bang, then energy can be created or destroyed only at that point. But as I said before, I am comfortable that we don’t know yet, and am in no hurry.

I Brew, therefore I am.

At last a blog, or rather a serious attempt this time. I have been contemplating to have a blog but as usual the idea of concentrating on a topic doesn’t seem appealing, and would explain for the several failures up to this date. Among them were blog devoted to rating each beers I have tasted, ranting about environment issues.

However recently I felt it is time to give it a serious go, focussing on three pillars; brewing, philosophy and politics. Which is why I chose the title “I brew, therefore I am”, don’t you agree that it is rather appropriate? I have been delving into few passions of mine which can be summarised by those three pillars and this is what the blog is about.

Yes of course, some of you may relate to this, I took my time, thinking of names for the blog, coming up with ‘I brew, therefore I am’, well yes it is becoming a cliché but I promise I won’t be using that phrase much in any of my post apart from this one. Of course I wasn’t satisfied by just plain English, it had to sound exotic, so I looked to Latin, which is a rather odd decision when I think about it.

Why do we have an obsession of translating phrases into another language, and in particular tattoo it! I don’t know but I am guilty myself! And I cannot understand why I picked Latin… a Roman language. The Romans weren’t known for brewing or beer, which is understandable given that there are no true latin word for beer. Scholars have given some examples of latin words that could be beer; Cerevisia, Cerevesia, Cerivisia.  They all are originally sourced from Gaulish when the Roman Empire conquered Gaul.

While ‘Beer’ isn’t exactly the word I was looking after in Latin, ‘Brewing’ is more complicated. Some of the scholars offered translation by combining Cerevisia with Latin for cooking; ‘Coquo cerevesiam ergo sum’ – I cook beer, therefore I am. That… is just… bad translation if you ask me. Thankfully I keep on searching and found another website that does request translations, obviously I am not the only one who are after the phrase, many before me have asked, and Bracio means brew in Latin. Braciator means brewer. I particular like those two words and the simplicity of it.

Now why did I choose Latin? Beer have its origins in other civilisations in particular Egyptian and Sumerian, were rather prominent in the Middle Ages. I could have used any of those language or even Medieval Latin. In the heart of the Roman Empire, beer were scare and citizens drank wine in devotion their God Bacchus. The irony is that Latin gave birth to beer. Not the drink itself, but the modern word we use; ‘Beer’ which comes from ‘bibere’ which means ‘to drink’.

Now what does that all have to do with Ergo Sum? The famous quote by René Descartes; Cogito ergo sum which translates as “I think, therefore I am”, which is the fundamental element of Western Philosophy. Wondering whether you exist or not requires thinking in the first place therefore you exist.

Bracio ergo sum, is a play on the phrase and for me is a fundamental reason why we are here, why  we exist and living in modern world. History of Beer have shown that Brewing is the birth of Civilisation, it is the reason why we have Civilisation. We stopped being nomads and attempted to create a functional society, harvesting barley, wheat for bread and beer. Every Civilisation in history have a form of beer whether it is made from corn, barley or rice. First brewing are credited to the women of the Sumerian Civilisation around 6,000 years ago although there are some theories that first beers were brewed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago.

(From a variety of sources including “Beer: The Midwife of Civilisation” Here’s To Beer! )