What do you believe in?

Well, something along those lines, simply captivated me for a while. Let's say, hypothetically, I'm arguing with myself here. Given my relationship with myself, I'd say, some sort of chest-thumping "I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!!!" response, especially given me being a future engineer and whatnot.

Well, I do. Or at least, I believe that I believe in the scientific method. That being said, there are plenty of "scientists" or students of science (be it psychology, medicine, chemistry, etc) who seem convinced that they actually have concrete, absolute understanding of whatever topic it is they've studied for so long. This is obviously Bad Science. Good Science will never lead to a person standing there with a dead-set final answer. Good Science will only lead to more questions, and with those, progress. Technology will become more advanced, medicine will make various leaps ahead and of course, on occasion, textbooks will have to have chapters completely altered in some cases. (Take note, creationists - science is supposed to work that way!)

A Good Scientist would understand that he knows nothing, but works within the framework of the best possible subjective viewpoint that all of his research and life experience can offer him. A Good Philosopher will be like this too - maybe even more blatantly so since it can be much harder to convince any given person going through the early "but - why?" stages of anything. Questions are how we make advances as society, and I believe that, as individuals, we do too.

My answer would thus be something like, "I believe that all that any given person really has is themselves and their minds. All of their perception is based on a struggle between doubt and faith. I don't believe there's one answer for what the world is about, where we all fit in it, I believe there are none. But I do believe in order to get by, we all have to make use of our own individual balances of doubt and faith."

I'm pretty sure that I had expected a little bit more of a "if you can't see it, it's not there" argument based on the questions I'd been asking myself. And I'm pretty sure it sounded like a cop-out at the time, actually. What I don't get when I challenge my own points of view is that I'm not actually looking for an argument or a debate, I'm asking critical questions to better understand why I believe in something that I might not, or could not. Realistically speaking, I can go right on believing whatever I like and generally it won't bother myself (naturally, there would be some beliefs that just scare me, but what would that bother me with anything except scaring myself?).

Of course, then, I'd ask myself to prove that there's nothing where nothing can be observed. I then forced myself to enter this arguement, which can basically summed up as:

A: I can't prove God's real, but you can't prove He isn't real!
B: I also can't prove that there are no invisible spiders working as a team to control my thoughts - so maybe I should believe that as well?
A: No, because believing that would be ridiculous!
B: If I could prove it it wouldn't be ridiculous. Okay, well I'll respect your right to believe in the invincible invisible man if you respect my right to believe in the Spider Conspiracy. Let's agree to disagree. Otherwise I challenge you to prove how what you believe is more true than my Spider Conspiracy!

Anyway, this is the part that really interests me. I could take it quite personally if I question my hypothetical beliefs. I've found that the least offensive way to get away with it is to act as if one would be taking everything they say as granted, and give them a bit of a, "but hang on, what about - ?" a la the various Christian propoganda cartoons I remember from Primary School. Play the innocent strawman who just needs a bit of an education. The problem with this is the answers tend to follow the usual circular logic that only works in conversations between people (me included) who already believe the same thing. (The Bible is All True because God wrote it; God is infallible, it says so in the bible; So the Bible is All True because God wrote it, etc.)

So there will come a point where, as an outsider (who is attempting to be as objective as possible), I will have to ask questions that the other person may find confronting and only if I'm lucky, will I get satisfying answers. Unsatisfying answers include extremely defensive replies, more aggressively circular logic, rants about intolerance or other people "not getting it", and so on.

This is by no means limited to religion. In fact, there is one that really gets under my skin. I would have to give myself a heads-up right now and let myself know that if I ever consider this an actual explanation for anything, one: I clearly have not thought out my own stance through very well. If I'm questioning something I'd normally take for granted, then, yes, obviously, I don't get it - yet. Perhaps that's why I'm asking myself! And honestly, this comes across more like there's actually something in there that you don't get, but would like us all to simply accept so I/we can move on and just believe everything that logically follows from there. This is of course, a leap of faith that I may have perhaps taken because my parents taught me to believe it, or a gut feeling I have that insists the world must work this way, or else something similar. At any rate, it's not a case of the outsider being stupid, or not deep enough, or even just being too different to 'get it'. In a case like that, there's actually nothing to get because I could be missing a simple link in the chain. I don't think there's anything particullarly wrong with that, it just bugs me that so few people, which would include me, are willing to admit it.

There's the classic cliche that goes, "never talk about a person's religion, politics, etc". The reasoning behind this is that one might offend somebody. I would very much like it if people all made some effort to pull the sticks out of our bottoms on this one. Why be so precious about it? Let's have some interesting conversations with some substance, shall we?

This is what I think it boils down to at a certain point - no matter what I, or you, for that matter, believe in, at some stage reasoning and doubt have to give way to feelings and faith. Even the proud atheist who only believes in science and questions everything has no rational explanation as to why the rational approach is the best one. Think about that one - it also requires a leap of faith to assume that the world runs on some consistent set of rules (although the atheists and the 'spiritual' tend to agree on this idea, they mostly disagree as to whose rules).

In addition to that, conversely, I also could openly state that what I believe in is based completely on faith seem to struggle with the idea that this sort of conviction doesn't definitely make anything right. Somebody may have equally strong faith in something diametrically opposed to what you believe in, and then where does that leave me? Having faith in my own faith? So technically, then again, the other side's got that covered too.

So everyone has faith in some things, and doubts others. What makes us chose where to place our faith and doubt is something I'm extremely curious about. At the end of the day, it sometimes seems like nobody wants to admit that everything they believe might be completely, 100% wrong. An honest discussion about politics, culture, religion, etc, may lead to disagreements. They may lead to us being asked questions about our beliefs we never thought about before. If we are honest with ourselves, we may then realise that some of our beliefs are inconsistent, or don't really make sense. The logical way of dealing with this is to seek more answers so that everything fits together again. The logical way of handling this means you must allow for the possibility that what you thought before might not be true. Some people find this confronting, or seem to even find it scary. I find it refreshing and exciting. The more I learn, the more I change, the more I adapt. All the better for my understanding of how the world (see: people in it) work and all the better for my ability to live in it, contribute to it, etc. Some beliefs are not all that great, frankly, as I said before and maybe just not worthy of our faith. We should be able to question the merit of believing in certain things. There is no reason to hide behind our faith in cases where we are doing harm when really we're just afraid of change. If your faith says it's okay to steal my kidneys, or if your beliefs see your gatecrashing funerals declaring that the deceased is going to hell, we may have to have more than a little talk about that. If your faith tells you some dude created the world and he wants you to love everybody in it and help us all out, that's cool - I used to believe my life was being written in a book somewhere and irony/drama were consequently actual forces of nature. That didn't hurt anybody and I've gotta say, it did make the world that much more colourful.

I believe that it's healthy to question my own beliefs because it can consolidate your faith. I agree - I believe that having a healthy faith muscle is as important as having a strong doubt gland. I think it can also help build up a healthy respect for people who have faith in something completely different. Because after all, when it comes to touchy questions like this, I am not a fan of acceptance, or tolerance. They really are just euphemisms for "putting up with stuff that shouldn't be there". My ideal is a world where alternate points of view are embraced and appreciated for what they are, and the people who carry them are able to see the distinction between the person and the belief, allowing them greater flexibility in their lives and the world. That's why it's called an 'ideal', I guess?

Anyway, what are our beliefs actually based on? At what point does one stop using reason and just take a leap of faith? When one stops using logic/evidence to ask/answer the hard questions, what helps us decide where to put our faith? I really would like to know.

The Hilux

My robot for HES1305. Due to my group being composed of me, and two dud Mechanical Engineering kids, it was upon me to build the robot, program it, and hopefully pass this subject.

MarkI chassis:

Issues:
*used up too many parts
*not very stable
*fat

So it was again upon me to tinker around, being a Mechatronics kid. Solution? MarkII chassis [remake a whole new chassis]
MarkII chassis had to sastify the following requirements:
*use less parts
*be stable
*not be as "fat" so I have allowage for sensory items, e.g. touch bumpers, lights, light sensor, IR rangefinder, etc.
*work

Updates coming up soon; I'm posting these "updates" two weeks later I actually did it so that other groups who may stumble upon this will always be behind me, thereby making it impossible for them to copy my robot.

The Silhouettes of Memory's Pirouettes: Tetris

As I think of people who play Tetris, and let us as the bricks lay them, oh so straight in line and parallel, not to mention fitted neatly into each other until
so square that they disappear, for scoring are points that we clear; and equate to meaning something.

I find that I feed my brain the bricks in places aside and outside the game, passing buildings down the street, in the characteristics of people I meet, but see, the pace always hastens as the next level higher you climb; no winning it beats me right down, the way you lose one every time.

I inevitably run out of ways to make it fit, those bricks that are me; and as for Tetris, even for record high scores, for trying eventually we sour and sore, realising that this has nowhere to go, but game over.

Being Singaporean

Hello again, ladies and gentlemen.

This is not another rant, but simply my thoughts of the typical Singaporean citizen, living in Singapore.

From the post below, we have established that Lee Kuan Yew has clearly made Singapore a tax haven for those at the pinacle of society; "Several members of Lee's family hold prominent positions in Singaporean society, and his sons and daughter hold high government or government-linked posts. His elder son Lee Hsien Loong, a former Brigadier General, has been the Prime Minister since 2004. He is also the Deputy Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), of which Lee himself is the chairman. Lee's younger son, Lee Hsien Yang, is also a former Brigadier General and is a former President and Chief Executive Officer of SingTel, a pan-Asian telecommunications giant and Singapore's largest company by market capitalisation (listed on the Singapore Exchange, SGX). Fifty-six percent of SingTel is owned by Temasek Holdings, a prominent government holding company with controlling stakes in a variety of very large government-linked companies such as Singapore Airlines and DBS Bank. Temasek Holdings in turn was until 2009 run by Executive Director and C.E.O. Ho Ching, the wife of Lee Hsien Loong. Lee's daughter, Lee Wei Ling, runs the National Neuroscience Institute. Lee's wife, Kwa Geok Choo, used to be a partner of the prominent legal firm Lee & Lee." This was read from Wikipedia, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

"So what does this mean?" I hear you ask? Well, from this, we can safely assume that the average citizen must have been mind-wiped at the very least to not care where his/her country is heading. A country that is led by a man who is a megalomaniac. Which brings me to this: what could the average citizen of Singapore be like?

Let's do things one by one. Firstly, he would have passed his exams and perhaps works in Singapore Civil Service as a clerk. He would work hard, obey his orders and carry them out obediently. His job is only to consider what his orders are, not whether they are right or wrong.

His interests are limited. He would know his work duties but other than that his knowledge otherwise would be elementary. He is unlikely to have read much history, philosophy or anything much else.

He will dress conventionally with the usual haircut for men, clothes pressed and cleaned. He is unlikely to wear outlandish clothes, dye his hair bright green, or have dreadlocks.

As a person, he is of limited courage as to his abilities. He is unlikely to think himself capable of winning the Tour de France or circumnavigate the globe in a Westerly 35 sailboat. He believes that being Singaporean, such things are beyond him, more suitable for an Australian or Englishman. So in other words, he is incapable of dreaming. Reaching for the stars is simply beyond him. Lee Kuan Yew's model citizen is a member of a pack and is unable to live outside it, conforming his actions and thoughts to the accepted norm of obedience and submission. In other words, He cannot believe that like Gandhi he can single handedly topple Lee Kuan Yew. Dr. Chee Soon Juan may believe it, but Dr. Chee is not the conventional Singaporean and that is why he is not Lee's model citizen.

From this, I would say that our fellow Singaporean citizen has a sense of limited ability. Before he even tries, he is resigned to the belief that he cannot possibly become a Usain Bolt or an Edmund Hilary.

Continuing on, our Singaporean citizen would consider being unobtrusive a virtue. In other words, he would say what everyone else expects of him to say. For instance, if asked why are Singaporeans not demanding their political rights, his reply would probably be that it is impossible in Singapore. In fact almost every other Singapore model citizen will have the same answer. Let's pause for a moment here, and have a scenario out, just for laughs. Let's say, he met Dr. Chee Soon Juan selling his books beside the street; now his response would be that Dr. Chee is out of his mind, stupid or something to that effect. He would think Dr. Chee is not behaving as expected of the good people of Singapore, as criticizing the government is not seen as something acceptable on that tiny island.

This average citizen, would never openly criticize Dr. Chee or anyone else who behaved in an unconventional Singaporean sense among his friends, instead they will talk jabber about food, work, or life in general. He will never badmouth his own country, let alone his oh-so-great Lee Kuan Yew, as such criticism would tend to bolster his credit as being "one of the boys". If, by any chance at all, he was to meet any current Singaporean minister or Lee Kuan Yew himself, his reaction would be that of respect. It would never occur to him to throw rotten eggs or even insults at them. For one, he would be arrested and two, his peers would look upon him badly. If asked why he would probably say that such behaviour is more appropriate in the West, what with the French revolutions and all.

His contentment and happiness is fortified by reading the government-controlled newspapers that tell him about the poverty in Africa, the war in Afghanistan and trouble in Chechnya. He will reassure himself that his life is good the way it is, as he is in peaceful Singapore, with Lee Kuan Yew feeding him, taking care of him, loving him, leading Singapore towards the light.

He may know, but will never be concerned that Lee Kuan Yew pays himself $3.1 million a year and that this is daylight robbery. He thinks that criticizing Lee Kuan Yew can land him in trouble, so he shuts off his mind from such questions. He will never be concerned that Singapore has no free press or right to free speech and expression, but since these rights do not impinge upon his daily life he is totally unconcerned about these things. However, he will consider people such as me, who criticize Lee Kuan Yew who provides all these "goodies" to him, as a bad person, out to make trouble and upset his present happy and peaceful existence.

And yes, there we have him; the average Singaporean citizen, an obedient, hard-working, law-abiding, quiet, sober individual who will not concern himself with intangible things such as human rights as they do not directly impact upon his daily routine peaceful existence. He thinks that by doing so, he might achieve a high station in life in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, whereas those who question authority will suffer a lifetime of harassment and victimization. This knowledge itself tends to keep the others in line and perpetuate the status quo of today's Singapore.

There we have it, our citizen, living on that small island; he hopes that people like me, who criticize his great Lee Kuan Yew, would just go away and leave him and his Singaporean "paradise" alone.

Time for ranting

Rant Time
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to my humble abode, where I will be ranting, I'm afraid. You may leave in disgust at any moment if you wish; there is nobody stopping you from clicking on the "x" button on the upper right-hand corner.
Let us begin.
Singapore, a tiny county with a small population has been over the last few decades suffering from a serious impediment to its ambition of becoming a first world international city state. This is the problem of massive on going emigration to more developed countries by the educated and skilled of Singapore.
Now the reasons for Singaporeans wanting to leave are many, such as the search for better paid jobs; the political uncertainly of it's future since it is nothing more than a dictatorship with an ageing dictator; the uncertainty of whether Singaporeans will receive their retirement benefits since the government is repeatedly extending the age limit before which retirement savings can be withdrawn; and due to the lack of political freedom and human rights.
I am going to take a moment here, to just add in between my thoughts, that I have noticed that the typical Singaporean will have no interest at all in politics or public affairs whatsoever. They will have no interest at all in how their tax money is spent. No interest in what new public projects are intended. None in how the train system functions. They couldn't care less how much the ministers are paid or indeed what they are even doing. No interest in whether the education system is working. No interest in listening to the next speech given by the Prime Minister. Nor for that matter by the Minister Mentor, his father. For that matter, the Prime Minister of Singapore pays himself a casual $3.1 million. $3.1 million for the head of Singapore, whilst the body, the people of the country, barely gets by with $2000 or less a month on average. The people get paid $2000 a month, and the government brings in imports from China working for $100 a month, and raises the HDB rates; rates for housing that the government owns. And I am not lying; $3.1 million a year: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.5200498.html.
Now the Minister Mentor our fellow dictator Lee Kuan Yew has himself referred to this problem on several occasions locally and with him traveling abroad; appealing and begging overseas Singaporeans to return to Singapore, confessing that this exodus of Singaporeans leaving the country is beginning to hurt the very foundation of Singapore. On one occasion, out of desperation in Melbourne, Australia, when speaking to a group of Singaporeans who were determined not to return to Singapore, come hell or high water; he began to passionately appeal to their consciences, reminding them that it was Singapore that educated them; enabling them to immigrate to Australia.
In their desperation, wrestling with this problem; the government of Singapore spends thousands of dollars, setting up Singapore clubs all over the world, throwing lavish parties and functions where free food and drinks are provided to overseas Singaporeans to somehow entice them to return to live and work in Singapore, in return for the free food and drink, at government expense.
We have also had government ministers traveling to these international locations at tax payer’s expense for this purpose. All this has come to naught. Not a single Singaporean has agreed to return. Their dislike for Singapore appears quite clear and they have made up their minds.
As if this is not enough, we have another problem. This time the involuntary draft dodgers who leave, never to return. I say involuntary because they were too young when they left to have any intent to become draft dodgers.
I am referring to young male teenagers, born in Singapore, who left Singapore, merely accompanying their parents who emigrated. These young teenagers, upon reaching 18, even though they are already settled overseas, are still required to return to Singapore to enlist and undergo national service for 2 years in the Army.
Since it makes no sense to be spending 2 years in the Army of a country where they have no intention of living, invariably these young men fail to surrender themselves for this purpose. And from that point of time, under the Enlistment Act, they become criminals or draft dodgers, who are liable to arrested on sight the moment they step foot on Singapore soil. And since imprisonment and a fine is their only reward if they return; they turn themselves into permanent exiles from Singapore with no prospect of ever returning to their country of birth. This adds to the already huge numbers of educated Singaporeans leaving.
This group of young men who are in essence in permanent banishment status, are the very ones which Singapore can least afford to lose; being the most educated capable skilled with international experience, all qualities that Singapore most desperately needs if it wants to achieve its aim of first world status.
Singapore's Enlistment Act requires all males born in Singapore to endure 2 years of national service upon reaching 18. Failure to report and submit to national survive requirements renders the offender to both fine and jail at Queenstown Prison. Only men have this requirement. Women do not have this liability.
With the present uncertain political situation in the country, the lack of social graces among its people, the lack of courtesy and manners, and not only that; the lack of human rights, a dictatorial government, the lack of an independent judiciary and the recent refusal of the government to give their citizens their retirement benefits held in the CPF, all make Singapore an unattractive place for those with means, education and skills.
Since these qualified people are accepted for emigration to Australia and other more developed societies, they leave Singapore taking their families with them including their sons who are born in Singapore.
These boys who accompany their parents to Australia are not the ones who decided on emigration since they are minors, less than 18 years and merely accompanying their parents to their adopted country to live. But it is these boys who will automatically become criminals under Singapore law if they did not return to Singapore to spend 2 years of their lives in the Army for national service.

Punishing these boys who turn 18, who happen to be living in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA and other places around the world, simply because they refuse to return to Singapore to serve in the Army, is completely illogical and harebrained. Firstly, it was not the boy who decided to leave Singapore to settle in Australia. It was his parents. By punishing the boy when he turns 18 is to punish the wrong person!
Second, since it is clear that having left Singapore the boy has indicated that he wants nothing more to do with that island, what is the point of insisting that he return to a country to spend 2 years in the Army, a country to which he has no desire to live at all?
Singapore is already suffering from a serious shortage of births. Not only that all attempts by the government to encourage people to marry have failed; the birth rate is so low, it is insufficient to replace the numbers dying. This is already causing a severe shortage in manpower for the 3 military arms of Army Air Force and Navy; it is also turning into a national security problem because of insufficient recruits.
As if all this is not enough, the government by their misconceived policies exasperates the already worsening situation by adding another class of disgruntled young men, who are now forced to become permanent exiles because through no fault of their own they have been turned into criminals and fugitives subject to being arrested on sight if they ever step foot in Singapore.
This not only causes very capable educated young men to be lost permanently to Singapore, it also causes extreme bitterness and hatred towards Singapore in the minds of these young men; circumstances where not only are these men lost to Singapore, they will also turn out to become ambassadors of hate against Singapore.
I am not trying to spread any propoganda against the government of Singapore here; I am just stating out what I am thinking. Please, tell me one country in the world where a prisoner can escape from a top security jail 3 weeks ago, and yet the government has not given a single answer for the escape? Tell me one country in the world where the government can tell their people that they will not get any retirement benefits until they die or reach the age of 85 whichever comes earlier, without having to face nationwide civil unrest?
People, I beg of you, take a good look at this government. Look at Lee Kuan Yew. During the last 40 or so odd years, having made countless speeches and very long speeches at that, sometimes extending to several hours, not to be undone by President Sukarno, former President of Indonesia also well known for marathon speeches, the underlying message in each of them has always been the same. How he outsmarted and outwitted his hapless political enemies by various dirty tricks and cunning; and how proud he was of himself. He prides himself in how he was always one step ahead of his competition, how he managed to neutralize a critical press by dirty tricks, how he managed to imprison Lim Chin Siong and Chia Thye Poh, how he brow beat the Chinese Middle School students, how he managed to destroy the kampongs and erected HDB flats, how he had to finish off President Devan Nair, how he managed to detect the dishonesty of Francis Seow in time to pack him off to the ISD prison, how he finished off the then student Tan Wah Piow and so on and so forth.
I bring you all back to this moment in time, about 2 decades ago, when our man here made his famous "Hatchet" speech in parliament. "Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac." That was him as a senior minister, in 1997: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew. Really, this speech clearly shows the thinking of this man; the founding father of Singapore. It sums it all. A megalomaniac, too big for his shoes, Lee claims he did all this for the good of Singapore. But then you can also ask whether there was another reason. But was it really for the good of Singapore?
I implore you to think, people, if the Singapore government had any wisdom, which I doubt very much; they will reverse this self destructive and self defeating policy of requiring these men to serve national service in Singapore; where circumstances clearly show that they have no desire to return to the country.
Oh, if only they will listen.

Survive

Enjoy the moment
Oops, the moment is past
Get up, shower, breakfast
Oh now I'm late for class
Now that this shit's over
Might go catch up with friends
Keep an eye on my limits
Make sure I get some rest

Need more hours in a day?
Need a motive that lasts
Maybe I need more time
Oops those moments are past

For today I'll play safe
No possibilities
In this way, suffocate
But tomorrow I'm free!

I'm resting up now
So that later I'm fast
And then maybe catch a moment
Before that moment is past

Oops, no, there it goes
Sun's already down
I just can't believe I'm taking this lying down

Build it up, build it up
All this pressure on me
Never had a torch
Never thought I could see
So I'll knock down these walls
And let out the craziness
I'm just thumping my chest
In the cold of the dark
I'm as warm as I need
'Cause of this energy
And I shouldn't fear these voices when the voices are me

I feel these wounds stepping down on me, nothing else but the feeling of hopelessness.

Today, it is the 12th of December; exactly one month from my last formal exam. But, there is a feeling inside, and somehow I find myself here, stagnant, as I dwadle whilst waiting for the little things to happen all around me. And, let's ponder about life.

Beliefs? Life and death; like day and night, they are absolute and that's that. I believe in my actions. I believe in my voice. And before one may think that I merely believe in myself, you are to be corrected. I do not believe in myself. Considering myself and my own mind, I suppose my greatest fear is not that I am inadequate. The deep fear that we are powerful beyond measure is indeed fearful. It is our light, not our darkness, that tiny speckle of light present in enclosed darkness, that I think most frightens me. Playing small does not serve the world, simply because there is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do, and our parents encourae us to do so. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. This fear, sometimes it pushes me, other times it gets the best of me; it is so deep that I believe this is the reason how people fall. And as we let our own lights shine as our fears encroach within us, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. There, perhaps I can have a guess that, as we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others? And what is it that is capable of that? A higher order that must be present. Basing this on animalistic behaviours, all creatures want to believe in something bigger them themselves. They cannot live without blind obedience, as they must follow something or someone. And to escape the pressure of that trust, those in whom faith is placed in turn look for someone higher them themselves. And then those people in turn look for someone even stronger. That is how all kings are born. That is how all gods are born. And looking back on history, they all still abide to mankind. Because from this point onward, the power of the god they foolishly placed their faith in will be truly witnessed firt hand. I believe that these gods, the ones that we place faith into; we give ourselves no choice but to believe in them because we are beneath them.

That is my aspect of looking at such matters.