Does religion have a place in modern society?

I wrote this in the latest examination (Promotional Examinations) and I was told that it was a really relevant and well argued essay, so here I've decided to use it as my post for this time. Hope you people find it to be a good read as well.

With the passing of time, many question if religion is still a relevant institution in the modern world. Indeed, in the age of science, many religions have lost their central roe in the lives of people. At times, conflicts have even arisen due to the "irrelevance" of religion. Darwin, in his pursuit of science was forced by the church to stop his support of the theory of evolution which tries to explain how organisms exist as a plethora of species in the world today. Inter-religions conflicts dominate the headlines in these troubled times as well. With such problems prevalent in society, it is truly justified that some may question if religion has or does have a place in modern society.

Religion, even with its flaws, does have its role in society. Religions, in their preaching, teach followers to take on selfless roles in society to benefit the less fortunate. it is under the strong backing of religion that organisations like YMCA Youth For Causes are formed to benefit society, Churches are also known to bring followers on overseas volunteering work, which often aids in the development of rural areas in less developed countries. Locally, a monastery provides free meals for those who are too poor to afford basic necessities. Such acts, though not always limited to those of religious organisations, show that it is indeed important that religion exists in modern society, as the ability of religion to call upon and influence its followers to do good are often something few others are able to do, even for multibillionaires and pop starts who command companies of more than a hundred thousand workers worldwide or fan bases that possibly reach into the millions.

Religion is also able to help individuals survive trying times. Karl Marx once remarked tat religion is the opiate of the masses, and more recently, a book was written with the title "The God Delusion". While these terms often bring with them a negative connotation, it is only right that this "opiate" and "delusion" should be promoted if it is able to strengthen the soul in times of adversity. That is why many patients of terminal illnesses often turn to religion for moral support and a report in the Straits Times mentioned that religious individuals are able to embrace the controversial topic of death with relative ease compared with those who do not have a faith. Thus, whether religion brings tenacity to individuals through seemingly "unglamorous" ways such as "delusions" would be insignificant to the final result of religious individuals being able to out-do their counterparts in mental resilience.

Some may also argue that religion, though a "relic of the past", helps preserve the traditional way of life in societies faced with the fast paced twenty-first century. Much of ancient society revolves around religion, as seen from the church being the highest authority in medieval Europe, after the monarchy. In China, Emperors used to offer lavish gifts and food to the gods, during festive occasions. Thus, by preserving the religions that have made ancient societies the way they were, the preservation of ancient traditions and culture is highly achievable, even without much need for organisations to protect certain sites.

However, the diminishing role of religion is indeed evident in modern society, In the past, religions used to provide an explanation for the unknown from the movement of celestial bodies to the origin of mankind. However, it seems, with the improvements in science and technology, mankind no longer turns to faith for explanations. Now, science has taken over the role of explaining and defining the world. The movement of planets is explained by physics and the origins of man, by evolution. People no longer believe in luck, but statistics. To some, death is no longer associated to the afterlife, but cardiac arrest and brain death. In the age of science, not even religion is able to survive the "cutting edge" of our advancements in this field and has lost its place in society.

Also, in modern times, many individuals, having developed in relatively peaceful times, and with freedom of religion. do not see much benefits in religion in contrast to the "costs" they pay in the form of conformity to heir religion's guidelines on their way of life. Scientists, in particular are most adversely affected. Stem cell testing has always been contested by the church even though scientists promise of a better future in the scene of medicine. With the dilution of cultures, many have also seen religion restricting their choice of spouses. Thus some individuals see religion as irrelevant in modern times as changing times have lead to changes in culture and goals of individuals.

To put all views into context, religion is indeed losing its influence, and thus its place in society. After all, it is already remarkable that any institution is able to survive the changes that accompany the passing of millennia. However, the role of religion is still important in the hearts of many, and though it is expected to lost its role of explaining the unknown some day, it is still relevant as as source of hope and moral guidance in the complexities that define today's state of affairs, and therefore has a place in modern society.

Respect: not everyone gets what they deserve

My brother recently spoke of a conference between a high ranking official in the military and cadets of the Specialist Course (people in this course graduate as sergeants). As part of their training, some infantry specialists were sent to Taiwan for their training, and they remarked that the treatment of soldiers there is much different from that they received in Singapore. In Taiwan, citizens view soldiers as respectable individuals involved in a noble profession, deserving of great respect for their tireless duty of protecting a state. In Singapore, the contrast is stark. People view NSFs as nothing more than youths who have yet to mature, while regulars are at times viewed as people who take up such a government affiliated job in order to seek a comfortable lifestyle with a "metal rice bowl" as some chinese put it.

The official, taking the question, replied that it is true that Singaporean soldiers garner much less respect from the people they work to protect, compared to their counterparts in other nations. He claimed that there was once when he boarded a commercial flight in his uniform, and the captain of the flight announced to the plane that there was a soldier (him) on board and requested for all passengers on board to applaud his effort in keeping the area safe. Later, he told the cadets that it was common for captains of commercial flights to do such announcements overseas so long as there is a soldier in his/her uniform on board.

It is evident that something must have gone really wrong on our side. Soldiers are arguably on of the most noble professions. Without soldiers, there would be no security in the state. We would have to live every day fearing that other countries can easily take over the very land we call our home. Vulnerable countries would also be subjected to lacklustre economic performance due to investor fears of political instability caused by such country being viewed as incapable of maintaining its sovereignty. In times of political turmoil, it is notable that the police loses its effectiveness in maintaining social stability. It is often the army that is mobilised at such times to ensure that there are fewer disruptions to the lives of civilians. Yes, soldiers at their best are the protectors of the weak and the helpless, creating order in times of chaos.

So why do local soldiers command less respect than their foreign counterparts? I do not have much of an explanation, but perhaps, it might be due to the fact that our citizens live in times of relative peace and stability. In other places, the role of a functional military is always one of the top priorities. The US, with its  role as the "global policeman", has had the largest number of troops stationed overseas. The role of US troops in fighting wars on terrorism as well as in the recent Arab Spring showed the never ending role of US troops on the world stage, and thus their importance to the American people. In Taiwan, an example named above, the maintenance of a functional military is of utmost importance in the event of a turn in (until recently warming) cross-strait ties. In such places, the citizens are able to see and feel the role of the military in their country, unlike in Singapore, where the military is kept as a deterrent and has not been mobilised or tested in actual warfare since independence.

Nevertheless, we should always bear in mind that even without any visible involvement of soldiers in the daily lives of citizens-in our case, not even in the news- having men involved in this profession even as nothing more than a deterrent force is already a great improvement to not having anyone to guard us. George Orwell once said, "Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Remember, anyone in any occupation can go on a strike to request for pay hikes and more work benefits, but if the military does that, we might well lose our sovereignty in the blink of an eye. We owe much to them, and they certainly deserve a certain level of respect.

Nuclear energy: should we continue to develop it?

I was just watching the International Varsity Debate on television and I heard about the debate over developing nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy. Ever since the incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, many have rekindled the old sentiment about the safety of developing nuclear energy as a source of electricity. Timely a reminder, though. When news of the nuclear accident spread throughout the world, many countries were forced to put their pursuit of nuclear energy on hold. Few governments have cancelled their plans, though, and in Asia, the "pillar of growth" for the years to come, many governments did not even seem to be shaken by the severity of the accident, as well as the reactions of their citizens to the effects of nuclear power accidents. The incident was more than just news at that point in time. It was a checkpoint, a consideration for governments in an era where the pursuit of renewable energy is of utmost importance.

In my humble opinion, the development of nuclear technologies for generation of electricity should not be stalled by these developments. It is true that the tragedy of Chernobyl should never be repeated, and that the impacts of any nuclear accident is much more severe than many other forms of renewable energy. Contaminated land usually takes years before radiation is eliminated as a health threat. However, the use of nuclear technology does not always come with such accidents. Accidents are not a sign of the unsuitability of nuclear technology, but lapses in safety procedures and government policies that govern the use and maintainence of plants. In the Chernobyl incident, the explosion was a result of a testing in the nuclear power plant that ended up in the mess that turned a bustling city into a ghost town. In the Fukshima plant, it shows that the construction of nuclear power plants should be done with consideration of the geographical location (the plant had backup generators that could have shut down the plant and prevented the accident, but they were knocked out by the tidal waves that accompanied the earthquake). If more consideration had been given, it is visibly possible to prevent the nightmares that occured, and we would never have considered nuclear power to be so dangerous a tool to meddle with.

In terms of environmental damage, hydroelectricity, one of the world's fastest growing source of renewable energy, is known that the construction of dams distrupts the ecosystem in rivers and lakes, potentially leading to the extinction of species. For example, the population of white sturgeon, a fish native to the US, is on the decline due to the fact that this species of fish depends on fast flowing waters to wash away sediments on the riverbed to allow its eggs to be protected under stones and pebbles which have now become covered by layers of silt, leaving the eggs of the white sturgeon exposed to predation. Also, deltas which depend on a continuous flow of sediments to form and serve as a habitat for animals and farmers alike, are now deprived of the silt that makes them fertile land for plants and crops. With the construction of dams, it is possible that the deltas will get eroded away soon, never to be replaced again with new sediments that are now trapped behind dams. It is known that the Nile delta is now retreating because the construction of the Aswan high dam causes sediments to be trapped in lake Nasser in Egypt. Thus it is visible that the widely favoured hydroelectricity does have its own drawbacks too, but they simply happen so slowly that few of us notice so long as it is not in our field of expertise.

Finally, nuclear energy has its advantages. Nuclear energy is much more consistent than other forms of energy, namely solar and wind energy. The two forms of energy named are highly dependent on weather conditions. Of course, many may argue that countries would choose whichever is more suited for local conditions, but who would know that there would be a month with 18 rainy days in Singapore? Even the government was given a rude awakening at the truth of climate change when floods hit the city. After all, the reason many have delve into this topic is to save the environment of climate change, and to depend on the climate in a time of climate change might not be the best solution. In my opinion, that should at best be a part of a greater solution, with other sources to complement it in areas where it has failed.

The reason why man has risen above other creatures over the numerous milleniums is due to the fact that we have learnt to triumph over nature. Long ago, man used to gather and hunt in the wild, subject to the conditions handed to us by the grasslands that was at once our home, our garden and our battlefield. Once, man used to sail by wind power that made travelling uncertain and dangerous at times. But with developments in our society and in science, we now domesticate our own animals and grow our own crops, using automated sprinklers and man made fertilisers (though the wave of organic activists are aiming to change that). We now travel using planes and ships that depend not on nature but on fuel. Yes, mother nature is fickle, but for there to be development, there must be consistency. That is why the mongols gave up their nomadic lifestyle after their successful conquest. It was only when civilisation breaks away from the whims and fancys of mother nature's inconsistencies that we have finally found a way to grow and develop in directions chartered by our own will. To once again turn back to nature and subject ourselves to these inconsistencies would take us back to the level we once were, which is why nuclear energy is indispensible in the end, as an alternative to fossil fuel. Surely, we are not talking about having majority of our energy generated by electricity, but as part of a system for provision of "cleaner" electricity, it gives us the consistency that we require.