Between Collins and Dawkins

I recently finished reading Francis Collins’ “Language of God” (2006). Having read Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion” (2006), albeit belatedly, I am now able to contextualize TIME Magazine God vs. Science debate conducted almost two years ago now.

For me, Collins’ writing is more accessible and kinder (more politically-correct) than Dawkins’, although Dawkins’ emotional and carefully worded rant (which I’m sure most but the very open religionists would find highly offensive) at times is quite amusing to read.

Collins simplifies several major ‘players’ in the big debate of God vs. Science as such:

1. Atheism and agnosticism (when science trumps faith) – where Dawkins is obviously one of the main proponents.
2. Creationism (when faith trumps science)
3. Intelligent Design (when science needs divine help)

and proposes the fourth position: BioLogos (science and faith in harmony) – where he is one of the main proponents.

While Collins’ attempt to seek balance between and to certain extent justify his (and help others justify their) position as a scientist and a believer may hold its virtue in bridging the opposing players, in my view, he is probably more successful in convincing believers about science than he is in persuading scientists (and atheists and agnostics) to become believers. This is mainly because he does not really bring in a new argument to the table, but simply reinforces C.S. Lewis’ logics (and quotes his words throughout the book), specifically his questioning in “Mere Christianity” of where does human morality comes from (if not from God).

Dawkins’ response to “why are we good” question is:

“First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in ‘anticipation’ of payback. ... third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, ... the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising” (Dawkins, 2006: 219-220).

I have my own reason why morality should not be defined as closely aligned with religion, as it would almost ‘allow’ those without religions to be immoral.

And as offensive as Dawkins can be for religionists, his closing response to the TIME Magazine debate is worthy of contemplation:

“My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis [Collins]. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed” (my italics).

Chanel Mobile Art: A New Branding Height

Marketing, branding, and promoting in these past few years have upped their bars to reach an unprecedented level of superb, aesthetically pleasurable, collaboratively sensual experiences.

In a post written almost a year ago, I mentioned briefly about British Council’s traveling exhibition Love & Money, which showcased works of artists and designers from the UK, done as part of the government’s effort to promote, market, and brand the country as the leading center of creative industries.

Several years ago, fashion house Prada created a lot of buzz (at least in the exclusive world of architecture) by hiring world renowned OMA to design its shop in New York City, Herzog and de Meuron in Tokyo, to be followed by others in other major cities.

Now, fashion house Chanel has launched an even more jaw-dropping project by combining all of the above. Not only it has a traveling exhibition of artworks specially commissioned by world renowned artists, but it also commissioned Zaha Hadid to design a mobile museum to house these artworks in their tours to Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York, London, Moscow, and Paris.

So if you happen to live or will travel nearby these cities, do spend the time to check out this new height, while I can only blog and experience it virtually through this informative and animated website.

Information and University Competitiveness

Opinion, The Jakarta Post, 1 March 2008
Published as "University Competitiveness"*

Various newspapers and weblogs have, in the past few weeks, discussed about the controversial ranking of Indonesian universities by Globe Asia magazine (February 2008). The ranking is controversial because it places Universitas Pelita Harapan (UPH) directly under Universitas Indonesia and above other universities that have traditionally been regarded as the best in Indonesia.

On one hand, Globe Asia should be applauded for its attempt to rank Indonesian universities for the first time, because it gives the public access to previously unavailable information. The report manages to put into question the assumption that public universities in Indonesia are generally better than private universities (Suara Pembaharuan, 29 January 2008). It also raises the question whether the role of capital has enabled the better funded private universities to actually outperform the more reputable public universities, or whether it is merely marketing buzz.

On the other hand, the strong opponent to the ranking deems it fallacious because Globe Asia magazine, like UPH, is owned by Lippo Group and it gives more scoring weight to university facilities over faculty members and research (Priyo Suprobo, Kompas, February 15, 2008). Globe Asia also gives no indications of data collection methods or sources of information. In other words, the credibility of the information published by Globe Asia is questionable.

Underlying this debate is the issue of information, specifically access to, credibility of, and ability to discern information. Information affects public perception in general. In this case, information influences how the public conceive a university standing in comparison with the others, and it affects prospective students and their parents in making decisions about choosing one university over the others.

With the commercialization and privatization of universities, some fear that the universities with more marketing budgets under their belts will be able to conduct campaigns that may very well enhance and even exaggerate their reputations. So how do we ascertain that this will not be the case?

The answer lies in the attempt of information sources to give more access and more credible information to the public, while individuals try to gain and demand more access to more credible information, and increase our ability to discern information.

Apart from words of mouths, currently the Indonesian public has little or difficult-to-get access to hard indicators that could help us in determining the credibility of information about a university. University accreditation is rather dubious because of the ability of a university to manipulate the data, while the ones published by universities are often done for the purpose of marketing their own programs.

Within this context, any attempts to rank universities against a similar set of criteria should be encouraged as it helps the public to gain a better sense of a university standing. Any attempts to rank universities, either nationally or globally, however, have been imbedded with criticisms, some draw more than the others. But regardless of their many controversies, university ranking systems enable the public to get better sense about university standing in relation to the others.

For example, six of Indonesian top universities rank in the range of three to four hundredths in Times Higher Education Survey (THES), and did not even make the list of top five hundred universities in Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) – regarded by many as one of the most credible university rankings. This information not only confirms our understanding that Indonesian universities in general lag behind those in many other countries, but it gives hard indicators which areas we lag in.

Therefore, what we need is to have more versions of Indonesian university rankings and to provide/ gain more access to other substantial information and reviews of universities, with more credible methodology that would ensure more objective information. In addition, a third aspect needs to be emphasized, i.e. the ability to discern information.

To be able to discern information is to be able to determine the relevancy, credibility, neutrality, and validity of the information. To gather information, one must be willing to pay with energy, time, or information processing in the brain; because of this investment, one will only make the effort to gather information if the information is considered relevant and thus worthy of the cost (Pinker, How the Mind Works, 1997: 142, 175).

Some information also cost money to access, while others, like advertising, is ‘free’ for public. Information gathering, therefore, is an investment of energy, time, information processing, and, quite often, money.

Education is an investment of a lot of energy, time, information processing, and money. Unfortunately, many prospective students, as observed by Richard James, Professor of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne, and as I learned through my five years of teaching at university level in Indonesia, “do not have well-formed intentions and aspirations.”

In addition, education is one of the area that is prone to information asymmetry – a condition whereby an inequity of information exists in a transaction (Stiglitz, "Making Globalization Work", 2006: xiv), in this case, between the prospective students and their parents vis-a-vis the universities. Information about a university “... is impenetrable to all but the most informed and literate families and students ... making them [most students] – particularly those with less educational capital, at a loss” (James, 2002).

To help close the information gap, before we invest in our own/ our children’s education, we should invest our energy, time, brain tissue, and money in finding information about our/ our children’s intentions and aspirations, and about the universities. We should make ourselves better informed and more literate consumers of education.

Information, according to Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard, also feeds into our knowledge and intelligence; our beliefs and desires are none other than information (Pinker, 1997: 25). Without sifting good information from bad, one may very well trust fallacious source, form fallacious beliefs and desires, and make fallacious investments.

Notes:

* This is the original, unedited version.