How to listen the interview with me on Vatican Radio?

The interview will be transmitted on Vatican Radio on Friday, 11th March 2011 and re-transmitted on Saturday 12th March 2011. Thanks a lot to Fr William at Vatican Radio who interviewed me and to Fr Isaac Arickapillil CMI (Director, CIIS, Rome) who took initiative to put in on Vatican Radio.

The easiest way is to access it through Internet.

Access the interview on the following link (Broadcast on Demand) and select "Malayalam".The audio is available in mp3 and real audio format.

http://www.radiovaticana.org/in4/on_demand.asp

The interview will stay one whole day in the Vatican Radio site. So you can access it from 5.00 pm (Indian Standard Time) on Friday 11th 2011 to around 5.00 pm (Indian Standard Time) on Saturday 12th 2011.

The next way is to listen it in a "Radio".

As for my interview, it will be transmitted on 11th Friday 2011 evening 8.40 pm(Indian Standard Time) and there will be two re-transmissions on the following day (Saturday) at 6.30 am (Indian Standard Time) and 8.10 am (Indian Standard Time) on the following frequencies. You need to have a radio with shortwave frequency reception capabilities to listen to it.

Why shortwave radio? I had to research a bit to find that out. However, the research outcomes were quite interesting.

To begin with there are two types of transmissions in general.

1. FM (Frequency Modulation)
2. AM (Amplitude Modulation)
   

AM is further divided in to two:

• Medium Frequency (MF), which broadcasts on frequencies between 531kHz and 1602 kHz.
• High Frequency (HF), usually known as "short wave" radio, broadcasts on frequencies between approximately 2 MHz and 26 MHz.

Vatican Radio Malayalam is a short wave (HF) transmission. Short wave transmission is used for long distance transmissions (usually to receive broadcasts from another continents), because shortwave frequencies bounce off of the ionosphere of earth and return to earth halfway around the world.

Shortwave Radio (HF) is divided into the following bands:

3900-4000 kHz (75 meter band) 13600-13800 kHz (22 meter band)

5950-6200 kHz (49 meter band) 15100-15600 kHz (19 meter band)

7100-7300 kHz (41 meter band) 17550-17900 kHz (16 meter band)

9500-9900 kHz (31 meter band) 21450-21850 kHz (13 meter band)

11650-12050 kHz (25 meter band) 25600-26100 kHz (11 meter band)

And how to tune to it in India or elsewhere

രാത്രി 8.40-ന് തുടങ്ങുന്ന പ്രക്ഷേപണം ( 11th Friday, Indian Standard Time: 20.40)

41 മീറ്റര്‍ ബാന്‍ഡ് 7585 കിലോ ഹേര്‍ട്സ് (41 meter band, 7585 KHz)

25 മീറ്റര്‍ ബാന്‍ഡ് 11850 കിലോ ഹേര്‍ട്സ് (25 meter band, 11850 KHz)

22 മീറ്റര്‍ ബാന്‍ഡ് 13765 കിലോ ഹേര്‍ട്സ് (22 meter band, 13765 KHz)

രാവിലെ 6.30-ന് തുടങ്ങുന്ന മലയാള പ്രക്ഷേപണം (12th Saturday, Indian Standard Time: 6.30)

49 മീറ്റര്‍ ബാന്‍ഡില്‍ 5895 കിലോ ഹേര്‍ട്സ് (49 meter band, 5895 KHz)

41 മീറ്റര്‍ ബാന്‍ഡില്‍ 7335 കിലോ ഹേര്‍ട്സ് (41 meter band, 7335 KHz)

രാവിലെ 8.10-നു തുടങ്ങുന്ന പ്രക്ഷേപണം (12th Saturday, Indian Standard Time: 8.10)

19 മീറ്റര്‍ ബാന്‍ഡില്‍ 15460 കിലോ ഹേര്‍ട്സ് (19 meter band, 15460 KHz)

Mysticism Beyond 0s and 1s

Mysticism Beyond 0s and 1s
Search for traces of mysticism in science in the light of Steven Hawking’s Grand Design.
(draft only)

Jaison Paul Mulerikkal CMI
School of Computer Science
Australian National University
Canberra

The whole of computing, as we understand in computer science is based on 0s and 1s where 0 is off and 1 is on. Or in other words, combination of ons and offs are computations in computer science. What Millions of transistors in a square centimetre of silicon chip do is to act as a switch, which opens or closes a gate – on or off. A positive charge applied to the gate attracts electrons, allowing current to flow across the gate. A negative charge stops the current and closes the gate .

In Grand Design – which is an attempt to expel the Divine from human quest for ultimate answers, Steven Hawking reduces freewill to calculations, or in other words to 0s and 1s. He acknowledges freewill as a good model/paradigm to explain human decisions but only because we don’t enough computing power to analyse the “scientific” reasons behind human decisions/freewill. For him, the decisions (which comes out of freewill) are the result of combination of complex yeses and nos, which he suggests could be the result of chemical and biological reactions in our brain. Thus Hawking links science and computation to the sanctuary of human spiritual and moral capacities like freewill.

Once we link computations to human moral capacities, there is a big scientific question: why people don’t make the same decisions under same circumstances – if they are the results of same chemical/biological reactions? This is an important question because the basic premise of scientific process is that we should be able to reproduce the same results, under same circumstance for an experiment and principle to be scientifically true. Quite interestingly, Hawking does not answer this question directly.

Hawking tries to reconcile this question by pointing his fingers to macro world – the universe, which is his area of expertise. He rejects the idea of a “Law for everything” and resorts to the idea of “Laws for everything” and calls it as M Theory. In nutshell there is no scientific determinism as we have seen in Newtonian physics. No more single theory of everything or single set of theories for the whole universe. Because he introduces the probability of 10500 universes deriving inspiration from the Feynman’s theory of alternative histories in quantum physics (a jump from micro to macro level). Each of those universes (which came into existence after the Big Bang – the definite creation event), can have that many possible (but separate) histories and sets of laws (Hawking also predicts an end – the judgement day!). This gives Hawking enough space to argue about numerous sets of laws for different set of worlds/universes and for different scenarios. If we can apply this model to micro level – we should be able to explain the moral faculties like freewill, scientifically, for one can argue that decision can take twists and turns, based on those different sets of laws of his/her world. We could also predict those decisions, if we know the laws and got enough computing power to analyse it. However, Hawking does not say it explicitly, but that’s where he is going.

He concedes that those laws are “apparent” because the reality we perceive is modified (or interpreted) heavily by the model we use to understand it (Model dependent realism). There is no ultimate answer/explanation to the things we see and experience. Here, Hawking knowingly or unknowingly leaves space for the unknown, the mystery.

Hawking seems to reject the idea of a prime mover. But introduces a new model where all the probable 10^500 histories/universes/sets of laws etc derive from a prime law – Gravity, in his opinion. He has replaced prime mover with prime law. But the question remains: who is the lawgiver? Quite interestingly the Divine is also theologically understood as the lawgiver (remember the story of Moses at mount Sinai). If there is a need for a lawgiver to design the prime law (Gravity in Hawking’ view), who is also the designer of those 10^500 or more sets of probable set of laws/histories/universes, and this macro design can be replicated in micro level of human moral capacities (as Hawking would secretly wish), the credit for freewill will again go back to ultimate lawgiver. The mystery of freewill at personal level will also remain intact for out of those innumerable probabilities it will be up to each individual to make the right choices using the laws pertaining to him/her. The mystery will continue which will be very well beyond 0s and 1s.

It seems that the more he tries to eliminate the Divine (to that matter mystery), the more he gives space to the Divine to exist.

So, the inference: there is something real. The Absolute, the God, the law, the lawgiver! But we may not understand it fully – even through scientific process - because of so many intrinsic limitations of the model we use to interpret it. There will be mystery, and that is a scientific premise. So there is scope for faith. It is quite reasonable to have belief. There is no point is saying that, at this point in history I don’t want to believe in an Absolute (God), since it is not been explained fully through scientific process, now. It could very well be there as one of the 10^500 probabilities at least! Moreover, there is more than enough reason to assume that there is an Absolute – either as prime mover or lawgiver or some other title as we still don’t understand. Or it could very well be understood as a mystery as revealed.

no-secularism, no-religionism

A friend suggested no-secularism, no-religionism
for India in rediff forums. Here is my reply.

----------------------------------------
Howz ur theory of no-secularism and no-religionism going to work? It is self-contradictory.. If it is secular but no-religion, it is logical. But that's what Western countries tried and trying. But they are struggling with 'kid-fathers' who claim the fatherhood of a babe from 16 yr old mother! The best option left is god-ful secularism, what India tries, without religions' extreme elements. That's what we need to concentrate and foster, I guess.

Jesus the Man - the deception in the very 33rd page

go to HOME

I am reading 'Jesus the Man'- a 'supposed to be controversial' book by Barbara Thiering - an Australian author. I read in 'amazon.com', the reviews praising it as an authentic work with the backing of deep research which will topple down our views about Jesus and Christianity. The back cover of the book reads as follows:

"Jesus was the leader of a radical faction of Essene priests. He was not of virgin birth. He did not die on the Cross. He married Mary Magdalene, fathered a family, and later divorced. He died sometime after AD 64."

One of the critics claims that "Barbara Thiering is a supreme academic and goes to great lengths to justify her theories with much referencing, to the point where I have to admit that I probably need to re-read this immediately and I do confess to only really reading the narrative chapters at the start - which is very readable."

So, I opened the book with great expectations. It is really intriguing. The theory she proposed to explain the Qumran (and the Gospel) texts is really gripping - something very similar to Vinci Code. She introduces peshar technique - a kind of technique to unlock the 'submerged mysteries' beneath the Qumran and Gospel texts. I would say, it is original. I have never heard or someone used before.

I kept on reading expecting more. Then I came to page 33. I was completely lost... disappointed. She was giving her first example to explain pesher technique. The example she selected was the Wedding at Cana, where Jesus turned water into wine (according to Gospels!)

I put down the words of Thiering account of the miracle of Cana (God I have to type all of it.. give me patience!).

"According to a story in John's gospel, Jesus was at a wedding...When, however, a drink was drawn from them and taken to the steward of the feast, it had miraculously turned into wine. The steward's reaction was strange: he did not comment on the miracle at all, but merely complained that Jesus had saved the good wine until last, whereas it was more usual to serve the good wine first and the poor wine later."

I stopped reading there - the text in italics (the text is Thiering's but i've given italics to highlight it) - what has she done?

Because, I never ever heard that the steward "complained that Jesus had saved the good wine. " According to my memory, the gospel clearly stated that the steward didn't know about the source of the 'new wine'. Did my memory fail. I reached home and searched all available versions of Bible. I was happy that my memory still works perfect!

She was quoting 'a story in John's gospel'. In the very 33th page itself, how could she go wrong? Was she just going wrong - a human error. NO WAY. without that small twist, she could not have justified her pesher theory in that instant. That was the pivot.

But it was too much... in the very 33th page manipulating the Gospel text to prove 'a theory'. I didn't expect that. If this is the case of the very first example, what would be the case of the rest of her work... the authenticity! May be her critic would have been right "Barbara Thiering is a supreme academic and goes to great lengths to justify her theories with much referencing..." except the comments put in italics!

Anyway, I will continue to read the book, to hear her stories and theories!

Jesus the Man - the deception in the very 33rd page

go to HOME

I am reading 'Jesus the Man'- a 'supposed to be controversial' book by Barbara Thiering - an Australian author. I read in 'amazon.com', the reviews praising it as an authentic work with the backing of deep research which will topple down our views about Jesus and Christianity. The back cover of the book reads as follows:

"Jesus was the leader of a radical faction of Essene priests. He was not of virgin birth. He did not die on the Cross. He married Mary Magdalene, fathered a family, and later divorced. He died sometime after AD 64."

One of the critics claims that "Barbara Thiering is a supreme academic and goes to great lengths to justify her theories with much referencing, to the point where I have to admit that I probably need to re-read this immediately and I do confess to only really reading the narrative chapters at the start - which is very readable."

So, I opened the book with great expectations. It is really intriguing. The theory she proposed to explain the Qumran (and the Gospel) texts is really gripping - something very similar to Vinci Code. She introduces peshar technique - a kind of technique to unlock the 'submerged mysteries' beneath the Qumran and Gospel texts. I would say, it is original. I have never heard or someone used before.

I kept on reading expecting more. Then I came to page 33. I was completely lost... disappointed. She was giving her first example to explain pesher technique. The example she selected was the Wedding at Cana, where Jesus turned water into wine (according to Gospels!)

I put down the words of Thiering account of the miracle of Cana (God I have to type all of it.. give me patience!).

"According to a story in John's gospel, Jesus was at a wedding...When, however, a drink was drawn from them and taken to the steward of the feast, it had miraculously turned into wine. The steward's reaction was strange: he did not comment on the miracle at all, but merely complained that Jesus had saved the good wine until last, whereas it was more usual to serve the good wine first and the poor wine later."

I stopped reading there - the text in italics (the text is Thiering's but i've given italics to highlight it) - what has she done?

Because, I never ever heard that the steward "complained that Jesus had saved the good wine. " According to my memory, the gospel clearly stated that the steward didn't know about the source of the 'new wine'. Did my memory fail. I reached home and searched all available versions of Bible. I was happy that my memory still works perfect!

She was quoting 'a story in John's gospel'. In the very 33th page itself, how could she go wrong? Was she just going wrong - a human error. NO WAY. without that small twist, she could not have justified her pesher theory in that instant. That was the pivot.

But it was too much... in the very 33th page manipulating the Gospel text to prove 'a theory'. I didn't expect that. If this is the case of the very first example, what would be the case of the rest of her work... the authenticity! May be her critic would have been right "Barbara Thiering is a supreme academic and goes to great lengths to justify her theories with much referencing..." except the comments put in italics!

Anyway, I will continue to read the book, to hear her stories and theories!

ON CONVERSION AND THE CHURCH

go to HOME

Here is an excerpt from our discussions in DaVinci Code - Helpdesk community on Orkut.

You can go to the whole lot of discussions about DVC, Christianity and more in this community, just follow the link. You may need an Orkut ID though!

------------------------------------------------
ON CONVERSION AND THE CHURCH
------------------------------------------------

basically there r 2 issues in our discussion, i guess - the conversion and the role of Catholic Church.

As Ian pointed out, conversion is not simply changing religion. basically, its about change of heart. As Ritin puts it, it should be stimulated by the good works of Christians, themselves.

but there are some issues - if we start to do good works - people say its wrong motivated. i know, after the earth quakes in north India (specifically Gujarat) a team of brothers from our seminary with a train full of supplies (we collected it from the public in Bangalore) were not even allowed to go to those villages. people were still dying and starving. look, we were seminarians with no intention to change their religion. (finally they did help them heroically).

so, its easy to blame church, Christianity etc... but the conversion issue, esp in India - is far more complicated. its not simply about church. people are not frightened about xians, for they convert them. rather they are frightened by the religious extremists with political, economic and cast ambitions 'to hate Christians' or 'risk consequences'. it's basically a political agenda and hate campaign. it was there all through out the history. in the first 3 centuries xians were treated like animals and killed like pigs! (ritin wont like to explain those killings of xians by state, wont u). but the same state accepted xianity as their state religion after that..ha ha.. that's politics, leave it.

then the church's role.

first point, the St Thomas xians in Kerala were catholic from the very beginning. any church initiated by an apostle is considered to be catholic. but the 16th century colonial powers failed to see it.. that's also true. they did a great harm to St Thomas xians. that's why we are divided now.

Ian's observation is valuable - the church may be a communion of saints as well as sinners , but theologically its infallible. that's all.

it does not mean that whatever church does will be right. as a human entity, it may go wrong in its decisions and practice. but what its tells will be infallible - ie, without error - esp regarding the matters of faith and morals.

its a special charism, to make sure that what is good and what is wrong in this very confusing world. church exercise this with utmost care. it does not pass judgments on the realms out side its scope. it has no say in matters of science and mathematics, but of course, in its applications to human life.

i am happy that Ritin came up with the very idea that forcible conversion - in its rude meaning is not a possibility these days.. of course, we, even catholics may have to refine their means of evangelization. but a fact remains - much of the harm is done by the aggressive and unacceptable means adopted by the protestant and evangelical churches (its a great threat to catholic church in India too... why do they aggressively baptize catholics to their churches.. did Jesus tell that!).

I would strongly suggest those so called missionaries - who tries to create communal rifts in our country to stop their way of 'instant conversions'. whoever they may be, they are doing much harm to Christ and Christianity.

but at the same time, every Christian has a right and obligation to live their Christian life in its fullness and to invite others to share its beauty.

The sin of our 'Fathers'!

go to HOME

Yesterday we were asked to submit a new doc - working with children check certificate. All who work with children are to submit this according to the new legislation of Victoria Govt. However, it starts with priests and religious! We have to submit it before this Friday, but others - child care workers, medical persons, etc - will get another few months.

When this news was announced in the community, there was grim silence. It somehow implied 'the sins of our Fathers".

It's a good thing that we are concerned about children. We r all really concerned abt them. But I see the things take a different shape with all these kinds of 'reactions' from the State. The implication is very clear: "the state/society does not trust church/clergy anymore regarding children".

The result: The clergy and the church are getting lesser and lesser interested in child formation or in helping family (values). Here in Australia, there are no more Sunday schools or catechism classes. Some catholic schools may offer value education and religions classes, thats all. Only less than 10 percent are practicing Christians. No more child or youth associations in the parishes. Which means the next generations is coming up with almost zero religious formation and awareness.

How do their values take shape? The state provides them in the schools! (more than 50% of marriages are broken and most of the children live with single parents! We cannot expect those children to get any 'value' from their families). The state cares! what will be the 'state care'? As far as I know its 'market values'. The values driven by the market - consumerism, individualism, distorted nationalism and so on..

The Church is virtually cut off from the next generation, by all sorts of legislations (and of market forces). It seems that somebody wants it to be like that to serve their personal interests.

any way, I have submitted my doc today with other 5 priests living with me. Let's wait and see, whats going to happen. God save the state!

The sin of our 'Fathers'!

go to HOME

Yesterday we were asked to submit a new doc - working with children check certificate. All who work with children are to submit this according to the new legislation of Victoria Govt. However, it starts with priests and religious! We have to submit it before this Friday, but others - child care workers, medical persons, etc - will get another few months.

When this news was announced in the community, there was grim silence. It somehow implied 'the sins of our Fathers".

It's a good thing that we are concerned about children. We r all really concerned abt them. But I see the things take a different shape with all these kinds of 'reactions' from the State. The implication is very clear: "the state/society does not trust church/clergy anymore regarding children".

The result: The clergy and the church are getting lesser and lesser interested in child formation or in helping family (values). Here in Australia, there are no more Sunday schools or catechism classes. Some catholic schools may offer value education and religions classes, thats all. Only less than 10 percent are practicing Christians. No more child or youth associations in the parishes. Which means the next generations is coming up with almost zero religious formation and awareness.

How do their values take shape? The state provides them in the schools! (more than 50% of marriages are broken and most of the children live with single parents! We cannot expect those children to get any 'value' from their families). The state cares! what will be the 'state care'? As far as I know its 'market values'. The values driven by the market - consumerism, individualism, distorted nationalism and so on..

The Church is virtually cut off from the next generation, by all sorts of legislations (and of market forces). It seems that somebody wants it to be like that to serve their personal interests.

any way, I have submitted my doc today with other 5 priests living with me. Let's wait and see, whats going to happen. God save the state!