Sunday, November 29, 2015

Pygmalion Effect : A Phenomenon That Every Leader Must Consider

Pygmallion is a character in a Greek myth. He worked as a sculptor and one day he created a woman statue which was very perfect and beautiful. Enamored by the beauty of his own making, Pygmalion begs the gods to give him a wife in the likeness of the statue. The gods grant the request, and the statue comes to life..

Based on that story, social psychologist Robert Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) conduct an experiment to see the impact of expections put on someone to his performance.  The work of Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968), among others, shows that teacher expectations influence student performance. Positive expectations influence performance positively, and negative expectations influence performance negatively. Rosenthal and Jacobson originally described the phenomenon as the Pygmalion Effect.
“When we expect certain behaviors of others, we are likely to act in ways that make the expected behavior more likely to occur.” (Rosenthal and Babad, 1985)
Some practical tips related to Pygmallion Effect that can be implemented in our daily life if you are a teacher or leader in a company.

  1. Never forecast failure in the classroom or workplace. If you know a test/task is particularly difficult, tell your students/follower that the test is difficult but that you are sure that they will do well if they work hard to prepare.
  2. Do not participate in gripe sessions about students/follower. Faculty members/leaders who gripe about students/follower are establishing a culture of failure for their students, their department and their own teaching.
  3. Establish high expectations. Students/follower achieve more when faculty/company have higher expectations. When you give students/employee a difficult assignment, tell them, “I know you can do this.” If you genuinely believe that your students/employee cannot perform the assignment, postpone the assignment and re-teach the material.

Setidaknya ada 2 orang hebat yang saya tahu dari kisah hidupnya mengalami efek pygmallion ini, dimana mereka mendapatkan posititive and high expectations dari orang-orang yang mereka hormati dan sayangi sehingga memberi mereka power untuk menjadi sukses. Kedua orang tersebut adalah Darwin Silalahi (CEO Shell Indonesia) dan Handry Satriago (CEO General Electric Indonesia).

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Peperangan Yang Pertama dan Terutama

Peperangan pertama dan yang terutama (dan juga yang paling sulit) adalah perang terhadap diri sendiri. 
Terhadap ketakutan, 
kemalasan, 
kesombongan, 
keserakahan,
amarah


Kemenangan terhadap diri sendiri akan mendahului kemenangan terhadap tantangan hidup lainnya yang berasal dari luar diri sendiri. 

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Percaya kepada apa/siapa?

Sebagai seorang pemimpin, dalam memutuskan suatu hal tidak boleh berdasarkan pendapat/saran orang lain tanpa memperhatikan data/fakta/analisa pribadi si pemimpin. Tidak boleh. Mengapa? Karena setiap orang punya kepentingannya masing-masing dan motivasi yang seringkali hanya untuk keuntungan pribadi. Padahal seorang pemimpin bertanggung jawab untuk nasib semua orang yang dipimpinnya.

Oleh sebab itu keputusan harus berdasarkan data, fakta, dan anisis pribadi sebagai seorang pemimpin. Itulah keputusan yang akan adil bagi semua orang.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Filosofi Rumus

Hari ini ketika mengikuti kursus tank inspector, saya diingatkan lagi untuk TIDAK sekedar menghafal rumus, tapi yang lebih penting adalah memahami filosofi rumus tersebut. Misalnya contoh rumus perhitungan thickness minimum localized thinned area dari rumus API 653 dibawah



Ketika menghadapi rumus tersebut, saya harus terlebih dulu menanyakan "Apakah rumus diatas make sense buat saya?".

Misalnya dalam rumus diatas, thickness minimum yang dibutuhkan untuk shell tanki bisa tetap dioperasikan, nilainya berbanding terbalik dengan S (stress maksimum yang diizinkan).

Apakah itu make sense?

Pikirkan lagi. Misalkan kalau seandainya suatu material pelat shell tipe "X" memiliki nilai S besar, artinya material pelat tersebut mampu menahan stress yang besar dan tidak mengalami kerusakan. Sehingga material tersebut hanya membutuhkan ketebalan yang lebih kecil saja dibandingkan material lain yang punya nilai S yang lebih kecil. Berarti logislah kalau nilai S besar, maka nilai t akan kecil dan sebaliknya.

Kemudian makna E, joint eficiency itu apa sebenarnya?

  • Analogi pertama. Ketika kita hendak membangun suatu jalur dengan jalan aspal yang punya kekuatan menahan beban hingga 10 ton. Lalu jalur tersebut akan melewati sungai, dan kita bangun jembatan dengan kekuatan menahan beban hanya 8 ton. Maka ketika kita hendak melewati keseluruhan jalur tersebut, kita HANYA akan memakai kendaraaan yang punya beban maksimal 8 ton saja.
  • Analogi kedua. Tetapi seandainya kendaraan kita tidak akan pernah melewati jembatan berkekuatan 8 ton tersebut, maka kita bisa memakai kendaraan hingga 10 ton.
  • Analogi ketiga. Lalu misalkan kekuatan jalan aspal 10 ton dan kekuatan jembatan kita desain 12 ton. Jika kita ingin melewati jalur tersebut, kita HANYA akan memakai kendaraan yang punya beban maksimal 10 ton, BUKAN 12 ton, karena kita tidak ingin jalan aspal kita jebol.

Jembatan yang menghubungi dua daratan tersebut ibarat joint antar shell tanki. Dari analogi tersebut kita tahu bahwa joint efiency tidak akan pernah lebih besar dari 1. Karena beban kendaraan maksimal kita tetap mengikuti jalan aspal 10 ton sekalipun jembatan kita desain 12 ton.

Sehingga untuk kasus korosi yang jauh dengan joint (jembatan-red) dimana jaraknya lebih besar dari 1 inch, maka E-nya 1(ingat analogi kedua).Tetapi untuk yang dekat dengan joint, maka nilai E nya mengikuti tabel 4.1 pada API 653.

Intinya, selalu pahami filosofi suatu rumus dan tanyakan pada diri sendiri apakah rumus itu make sense buat anda.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Tank Inspector


  1. Untuk Konstruksi (bukan rekonstruksi yaa), WPS dan welder/welding operator harus dikualifikasi menurut aturan standard ASME Section IX
  2. Untuk Re-konstruksi, WPS dan welder/welding operator harus dikualifikasi menurut aturan standard ASME Section IX, API 650 Section 9, dan API 653 
  3. Untuk welding pada tangga (ladder) dan platform asemblies, handrail, stairways, WPS mengacu pada AWS D1.1, AWS D.1.6, atau ASME Section IX. (Umumnya aturan di ASME IX lebih ketat dibanding AWS)
  4. Essential Variable dalam Prosedur dalam ASME Section IX artinya apabila ada perubahan pada kondisi pengelasan akan mempengaruhi mechanical properties pengelasan tersebut. 
  5. Sesuai ASME IX QW 322, jika seorang welder sudah tidak pernah mengelas sesuai dengan sertifikatnya selama 6 bulan lebih maka kualifikasi welder tersebut sesuai sertifikatnya dinyatakan expired
  6. Ref API 650, identifikasi atas welded joint (sambungan las), dapat dilakukan dengan salah satu cara berikut : hand- or machine stamped adjacent to completed weld atau membuat record yang mengidentifikasi welder untuk setiap joint.
  7. Ketika lowest shell course didesain dengan stress material grup IV, IVA, V, atau VI, maka anular bottom plate yang di butt-welded harus digunakan.
Acceptance Standards NDE pada API 650 :
  • MT: ASME Section VIII, Appendix 6 (Paragraphs 6-3, 6-4, 6-5)
  • PT: ASME Section VIII, Appendix 8, (Paragraphs 8-3, 8-4, 8-5)
  • RT: ASME Section VIII, Paragraph UW-51 (b)
  • UT: For welds examined by UT in lieu of RT, acceptance standards are in API 650 Appendix U. For UT when RT is used for the requirements of 7.3.2.1, the acceptance standard is as agreed upon by the Manufacturer and Purchaser.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Profit!

Profit adalah keuntungan yang kita dapatkan karena melakukan sesuatu. Sesimpel itu.

Seringkali profit dinilai dengan uang, tetapi menurut saya profit sebaiknya dilihat lebih dari sekedar uang, misalnya relasi, dan pengalaman (experience).

Jika profit diukur dengan uang, maka profit adalah berapa besar nilai uang yang kita dapatkan. Dihitung dari besarnya pendapatan dikurangi dengan biaya operasional.
Jika diukur dengan relasi, profit dalam hal ini berapa banyak relasi dan kualitas relasi yang kita jalin karena melakukan sesuatu, misalnya bergabung dalam komunitas tertentu.
Jika diukur dengan pengalaman, profit adalah berapa banyak pengalaman yang kita dapatkan karena melakukan sesuatu, misalnya dengan membantu job desc seseorang, kita mendapatkan pengalaman (wawasan) tertentu.

Dan tahukah anda, seringkali, profit relasi dan profit pengalaman ini begitu berharga dan bisa saja lebih besar nilainya dari profit uang yang didapatkan. Manusia yang hanya memikirkan uang sebagai acuan profit, akan sulit melihat hal tersebut.

Lalu, apakah kita berdosa jika bekerja dengan mengharapkan profit?
Terlalu naif kalau kita katakan "ya".
Terkadang orang yang berpikiran naif seperti itu berpikir bahwa jika salah satu pihak diuntungkan, maka pihak yang lain pasti dirugikan. Well, pemikiran seperti itu sangat dangkal dan hanya menilai profit dari uang saja.

Lalu pertanyaan berikutnya yang muncul, apakah bisa kedua pihak sama-sama profit? Saya yakin bisa. Tergantung niat saja sebenarnya. Dan ingat profit tidak semata-mata dinilai dengan uang saja. Namun, jika kita berurusan dengan orang yang kikir, maka akan sulit sekali mendapatkan keuntungan dikedua belah pihak karena orang kikir hanya berniat mengeruk keuntungan sebesar-besarnya dari pihak lain untuk dirinya sendiri. Selalu ada win-win solution yang menguntungkan kedua belah pihak.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

What You Miss When You Take Notes on Your Laptop

Even in my relatively short foray into office life, I notice that few people bring a pen and notebook to meetings. I’ve been told that over the years, the spiral notebooks and pens once prevalent during weekly meetings have been replaced with laptops and slim, touch-screen tablets.
I suppose it makes sense. In a demanding new age of technology, we are expected to send links, access online materials, and conduct virtual chats while a meeting is taking place. We want instant gratification, and sending things after the meeting when you’re back at your desk feels like too long to wait. It seems that digital note-taking is just more convenient.
But is longhand dead? Should you be embarrassed bringing a pen and paper to your meetings? To answer these questions, I did a little digging and found that the answer is no, according to a study conducted by Princeton’s Pam A. Mueller and UCLA’s Daniel M. Oppenheimer. Their research shows that when you only use a laptop to take notes, you don’t absorb new materials as well, largely because typing notes encourages verbatim, mindless transcription.
Mueller and Oppenheimer conducted three different studies, each addressing the question: Is laptop note taking detrimental to overall conceptual understanding and retention of new information?
For the first study, the researchers presented a series of TED talk films to a room of Princeton University students. The participants “were instructed to use their usual classroom note-taking strategy,” whether digitally or longhand, during the lecture. Later on, the participants “responded to both factual-recall questions and conceptual-application questions” about the film.
The students’ scores differed immensely between longhand and laptop note takers. While participants using laptops were found to take lengthier “transcription-like” notes during the film, results showed that longhand note takers still scored significantly higher on conceptually-based questions. Mueller and Oppenheimer predicted that the decrease in retention appeared to be due to “verbatim transcription.”
.....results showed that longhand note takers still scored significantly higher on conceptually-based questions..
But, they predicted that the detriments of laptop note taking went beyond the fact that those with computers were trying to get every word down. In their second study, Mueller and Oppenheimer instructed a new group of laptop note takers to writewithout transcribing the lecture verbatim. They told the subjects: “Take notes in your own words and don’t just write down word-for-word what the speaker is saying.”
These participants also watched a lecture film, took their respective notes, and then took a test.
They found that their request for non-verbatim note taking was “completely ineffective,” and the laptop users continued to take notes in a “transcription like” manner rather than in their own words. “The overall relationship between verbatim content and negative performance [still] held,” said the researchers.
In a third study, Mueller and Oppenheimer confronted a final variable — they found that laptop note takers produced a significantly greater word count than longhand note takers. They wondered, “Is it possible that this increased external-storage capacity could boost performance on tests taken after an opportunity to study one’s notes?” So while the immediate recall on the lecture is worse for laptop note takers, do their copious notes help later on?
For this study, participants “were given either a laptop or pen and paper to take notes on a lecture,” and “were told that they would be returning the following week to be tested on the material.” A week later, they were given 10 minutes to study their notes before being tested.
And again, though the laptop note takers recorded a larger amount of notes, the longhand note takers performed better on conceptual, and this time factual, questions.
This final test clarified that the simple act of verbatim note taking encouraged by laptops could ultimately result in impaired learning. “Although more notes are beneficial, at least to a point, if the notes are taken indiscriminately or by mindlessly transcribing content, as is more likely the case on a laptop than when notes are taken longhand, the benefit disappears,” said Mueller and Oppenheimer.
the longhand note takers performed better on conceptual, and this time factual, questions
Though your days of cramming for tests may be over, you still need to recall pitches, dates, and statistics from meetings. That’s why we take notes in meetings.  And while there are plenty of ways to work smarter with digital tools, you may remember more if you leave the laptop or tablet at your desk and try bringing a notebook and pen instead.
Write your notes in your own words. It’ll encourage you to process and summarize what is being said rather than just regurgitating it
In addition to your mode of note taking, be extra aware of what you’re writing. Are you focusing more on recording what a speaker is projecting on a slide show, rather than actually listening to what is being said? Write your notes in your own words. It’ll encourage you to process and summarize what is being said rather than just regurgitating it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, not every meeting is the same, so you need to be able to distinguish what type of meeting you’re attending. Bring your laptop or tablet if you know you’ll need to just record a few key dates or a to-do list — and if you need access to materials or the internet. But keep in mind that meetings such as presentations, progress reports, and performance reviews contain information you need to stick. If you ditch your digital ways, and bring the pen and spiral notebook; your memory may thank you.

Source : https://hbr.org/2015/07/what-you-miss-when-you-take-notes-on-your-laptop

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Ilmu Baru : Strategi Investasi Reksa Dana Saham

Saat ini, saya mulai tertarik dengan investasi reksa dana. Saya belajar tentang reksa dana mulai dari yang paling dasar. Dari sebuah buku, saya belajar jurus untuk bisa memaksimalkan profit dan meminimalkan loss dalam investasi reksa dana.

  1. Saat market (IHSG) sedang up, beli secara Cost Averaging (CA) pada awal bulan.
  2. Saat market (IHSG) sedang down, beli secara Swing Averaging (SA) dan tambah volume pembelian (prinsipnya "Beli saat murah, Jual saat mahal"). Atau opsi II (kalau tidak mau repot), beli secara CA pada akhir bulan.
  3. Saat market (IHSG) sedang sideway (mendatar), beli secara SA. Atau opsi II (kalau tidak mau repot), beli secara CA pada akhir bulan. 
Swing Averaging (SA) :
  • Pada saat MA 10 (Moving Averaging atau sering disebut Simple Moving Averaging) berada diatas EMA 30 (Exponential Moving Averaging), MA 60, dan MA 200, maka beli RD ketika market menyentuh garis MA 10, atau EMA 30, atau MA 60.
  • Pada saat MA 10 diatas MA 200, maka beli RD ketika market menyentuh MA 200.
  • Saat MA 10 dibawah EMA 30, MA 60, dan MA 200, maka beli RD setiap kali persimpangan MA 10 dengan EMA 30, MA 60, dan MA 200. (Catatan : MA 10 harus menembus ke atas EMA dan MA tsb).
  • Saat MA 10 dibawah EMA 30, MA 60, dan MA 200, maka beli RD ketika market diatas/menembus MA 10
Bila dalam 1 bulan sinyal membeli RD belum muncul dari chart market, maka boleh digantikan dengan membeli RD secara CA akhir bulan bila market sedang down. Atau membeli RD secara CA awal bulan berikutnya bila market sedang up.

Market Timing

Jika market down tajam hingga menyentuh MA 200 dan kemudian dibawah MA 200, lakukan pembelian RD dan tambah volume pembelian ketika market mulai naik diatas MA 200.

Catatan : MA 10 > MA 200, market tetap diatas MA 200 pada keesokan harinya.

Monday, June 29, 2015

We have no idea what lies ahead..

Once upon a time there was a farmer who had only one horse, and one day the horse ran away. The neighbors came to condole over his terrible loss. The farmer said, "What makes you think it is so terrible?"

A month later, the horse came home--this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"

The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbors were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"

A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbors congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.

- An eastern folklore -

Berapa kali kita terlalu cepat komplain akan hal-hal buruk yang terjadi pada kita/pada orang lain?

Misalnya ketika seorang lumpuh karena ditabrak oleh pengemudi yang mabuk, kita berkata "seandainya Tuhan mencegah hal buruk itu terjadi pada-Nya".
Kita tau apa sih tentang masa depan?
Mengapa kita tidak bersabar dan percaya penuh pada-Nya?
Bukankah rancangan-Nya bagi orang yang percaya adalah yang mendatangkan damai sejahtera (Yer 29:11).


Sunday, June 14, 2015

Something New (Random)


  1. Orang yang punya good self-confidence tidak akan pernah mencela orang lain. Biasanya orang-orang kecil dan "minderan" yang sering mencela orang lain. Ingat hukumnya : Smal minds talk people, average minds talk events, but Great Mind talk Ideas. Buat orang yg punya Great Minds, mereka ga punya waktu untuk membicarakan people (baca menggosip, mencela, menceritakan hal-hal buruk orang lain).
  2. The First step is the key. Seringsekali langkah pertama terasa sulit. Tetapi jika mampu melalui dengan baik, maka sisanya akan berjalan mudah. 
  3. Jangan pernah mendasarkan suatu keputusan atas dasar suka atau tidak suka. Para juara olimpiade tidak pernah suka bersusah-susah untuk latihan. Tapi mereka tahu, latihan, meskipun mereka tidak suka, harus dilakukan dan harus disukai kalau mereka ingin jadi juara. Fokuslah pada tujuan akhir dan berimajinasilah akan tujuanmu sehingga kau bisa menghadapi semua tantangan dalam ucaha mencapainya.

Friday, April 3, 2015

Burung Merpati

Menarik mengamati bagaimana karakteristik seekor merpati yang diciptakan oleh Allah dan digunakan untuk melambangkan karakteristik ilahi.
  • Dalam Injil, Roh Kudus digambarkan seperti burung merpati (Matius 3:16-17).
  • Merpati merupakan burung yang setia kepada pasangannya sama seperti kesetiaan Allah kepada umat-Nya.
  • Merpati merupakan burung yang digunakan untuk membawa pesan sama seperti orang-orang yang dipenuhi oleh Roh Kudus untuk membawa pesan kabar keselamatan bagi umat manusia
  • Dalam Alkitab, merpati juga digunakan sebagai korban sembelihan. Hal ini dimungkinkan bagi orang-orang yang miskin finansial sebagai pengganti domba yang harganya lebih mahal

Saturday, March 14, 2015

The Story Behind The Song : It Is Well With My Soul

Lagu yang berjudul "It is well with my soul" merupakan salah satu lagu kesukaan saya. Selain karena musik dan liriknya, juga karena lagu ini mempunyai kisah tersendiri saat diciptakan oleh Horatio Spafford (1828-1888).

Horatio Spafford adalah seorang pengacara dan pebisnis sukses yang memiliki cukup banyak properti. Dia memiliki seorang istri dan 4 orang putri dan seorang putra. Spafford juga dikenal sebagai seorang kristen yang taat dan merupakan teman dari penginjil besar D.L. Moody.

Namun pada puncak kesuksesan dan kebahagiannya tersebut, Spafford dan istrinya kehilangan putranya karena sakit pneumonia pada tahun 1871. Tak lama setelah itu, peristiwa kebakaran di Chicago tahun 1871 menghanguskan hampir semua investasi properti miliknya. Pada tahun 1873, Spafford menyusun rencana liburan dengan kapal bersama keluarganya dari USA ke Eropa melalui samudera Atlantik, untuk sekedar melepaskan kesedihan akibat tragedi beruntun yang mereka alami. Spafford juga berencana untuk terlibat dalam penginjilan D.L Moody ketika berada di Inggris.

Karena masih ada urusan bisnis di Chicago, Spafford memberangkatkan istri dan keempat putrinya untuk berangkat terlebih dulu ke Eropa. Beberapa hari kemudian dia menerima kabar bahwa kapal yang ditumpangi istri dan keempat putrinya mengalami kecelakaan. Keempat putrinya meninggal namun istrinya berhasil diselamatkan oleh pelaut dan tiba di Inggris. Segera Spafford menyusul istrinya dengan menaiki kapal.

Saat dalam perjalanan, kapal tersebut melewati lokasi dimana kapal yang membawa keluarganya mengalami kecelakaan. Sang kapten kapal berkata kepada Spafford bahwa dilokasi itulah kecelakaan terjadi. Saat-saat itulah Spafford menciptakan lagu yang kita kenal dengan judul "it is well with my soul". Dimana salah satu liriknya berbunyi When sorrow like sea billows roll; it is well, it is well with my soul.. 

Setiap lirik dalam lagu agung tersebut menggambarkan betapa tegarnya seorang Spafford ditengah kemalangan yang beruntun menerpanya. Cobalah untuk merasakan gejolak emasi Spafford saat menciptakan lagu ini sehingga benar-benar dapat menghayati pergumulan iman saat kemalangan datang. Betapa kuat iman dan pengharapan Spafford kepada Allah sang pemilik segala sesuatu. Saya memiliki keyakinan bahwa lagu-lagu yang lahir dengan pengalaman iman seperti ini tidak akan lekang oleh zaman.

When peace like a river attendeth my way,

When sorrows like sea billows roll,

Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,

It is well, it is well with my soul.

Chorus:

It is well with my soul,

It is well, it is well with my soul

*****
(versi Buku Ende)

1. Dung sonang rohangku dibaen Jesus i 
Porsuk pe hutaon dison 
Na pos do rohangku di Tuhanta i 
Dipasonang tongtong rohangkon 
Sonang do, sonang do 
Dipasonang tongtong rohangkon 

2. Nang dihaliangi sibolis pe au 
Naeng agohononNa muse 
Naung mate Tuhanku Mangolu ma au 
Utangki nunga sae sasude 
Sonang do, sonang do 
Dipasonang tongtong rohangkon 

3. Diporsan Tuhanku sandok dosangki 
Bolong tu na dao do dibaen 
Nang sada na so jujuronna be i 
Na martua tondingku nuaeng 
Sonang do, sonang do 
Dipasonang tongtong rohangkon 

4. Mangolu nang mate di Jesus do au 
Ibana haporusanki 
HataNa sambing do partogi di au 
Ai na tau haposanku do i 
Sonang do, sonang do 
Dipasonang tongtong rohangkon


Keturunan Orang Benar : A Father's Legacy

Saat menonton video Pak Ahok ketika menyampaikan sambutan, saya kembali teringat dengan sebuah penelitian menarik yang disinggung oleh Pak Ahok dalam sambutannya tersebut. Penelitian tersebut adalah penelitian tentang keterkaitan antara bagaimana cara hidup seseorang mempengaruhi keturunan-keturunannya kelak. Penelitian dilakukan oleh cendikiawan Richard Dugdale dan Benjamin Warfield terhadap keturunan Jonathan Edwards dan Max Jukes yang hidup dalam era yang sama (abad 18).

Jonathan Edwards hidup dari tahun 1703 - 1758. Ia dikenal sebagai seorang penulis dan misionaris keliling yang berpengaruh. Dia telah menulis banyak buku dan membaktikan hidupnya untuk memberitakan injil. Sedangkan Max Jukes dikenal sebagai seorang pemabuk keras, memiliki sifat yang tidak stabil (bermalas-malasan dan bekerja jika ada dorongan).

Hasil dari penelitian tersebut membuat saya tersadarkan lagi bahwa cara hidup seseorang akan mempengaruhi kehidupan keturunan-keturunannya. Dari penelitian tersebut, keturunan-keturunan Jonathan Edwards banyak yang menjadi :
  • Profesor : sekitar 65 orang
  • Hakim : sekitar 30 orang
  • Pengacara : sekitar 100 orang
  • Ilmuwan : sekitar 60 orang
  • Rektor universitas : sekitar 13 orang
  • Tentara : sekitar 75 orang
  • Penulis : sekitar 60 orang
  • Gubernur dan menteri : sekitar 80 orang
  • Senator : 3 orang
  • Wakil presiden Amerika Serikat : 1 orang (Arron Burr)
Bahkan faktanya, Jonathan Edwards sendiri adalah anak dari Timothy Edwars seorang pendeta yang merelakan sebagian gajinya untuk anak-anak yang kurang mampu sehingga bisa bersekolah. Ibu dari Jonathan Edwards bernama Esther Stoddard yang merupakan putri dari seorang penginjil. Jadi dapat terlihat bahwa Jonathan Edwards benar-benar tumbuh besar dalam keluarga yang taat kepada Tuhan.

Di lain sisi, keturunan-keturunan Max Jukes banyak yang menjadi pemabuk, pencuri, pembunuh, dan terlibat dalam prostitusi. 

Tentu saja, sebagai manusia kita tidak bisa menghakimi Max Jukes. Kalau Tuhan memberikan anugerah-Nya, bisa saja ada orang dari keturunan Jukes yang berbeda dari kebanyakan keturunan Jukes. Berbeda dalam artian menjadi orang yang baik dan berdampak positif.

Tapi setidaknya, penelitian ini memberikan pelajaran penting bagi saya bahwa orang yang hidup benar dan takut akan Tuhan, akan meninggalka warisan (legacy) yang baik bagi keturunannya. Warisan itu tidak melulu soal uang. Yang lebih penting warisan itu berupa iman yang teguh, nilai-nilai hidup, dan prinsip hidup yang akan membentuk karakter seseorang.


"Orang benar yang bersih kelakuannya--berbahagialah keturunannya. (The just man walketh in his integrity: his children are blessed after him)
-Amsal 20:7-

"Sebab aku teringat akan imanmu yang tulus ikhlas, yaitu iman yang pertama-tama hidup di dalam nenekmu Lois dan di dalam ibumu Eunike dan yang aku yakin hidup juga di dalam dirimu"
-2 Timoteus 1:5-

Salah satu buku karangan Jonathan Edwards.




Friday, March 6, 2015

Kalau anda benar-benar percaya ada Tuhan..

Kalau anda benar-benar percaya ada Tuhan,

  • Anda yakin kalau hidup mati seseorang sudah diatur oleh-Nya. Kalau belum waktunya mati, tidak akan mati. Kalau waktunya mati, pasti mati. Manusia tidak berkuasa sedikitpun atas hidupnya.
  • Anda yakin bahwa segala sesuatu terjadi adalah karena rancangan Tuhan/seizin Tuhan.
  • Anda akan giat bekerja selama masih hidup karena Allah juga senantiasa bekerja.
  • Anda akan berani untuk hidup benar dan taat walaupun hal itu membuat seluruh dunia menolak anda.

Who is with me?

Dalam salah satu video yang masih terkait dengan kisruh APBD antara DPRD DKI dengan Pemda DKI (Gub.Ahok), Ahok tampak sedang memberikan pengarahan kepada para bawahannya (Camat, Walikota, Lurah, dll) setelah peristiwa mediasi yang gagal antara DPRD DKI dengan Gub Ahok.

Dalam pengarahan tersebut, Ahok menawarkan opsi kepada para bawahanya apakah memilih ikut dengan APBD versi DKI atau APDB versi e-budgeting Pemda DKI. Untuk lebih lengkapnya silahkan baca di http://news.metrotvnews.com/read/2015/03/04/366311/kumpulkan-wali-kota-lurah-dan-camat-ahok-pilih-apbd-pemprov-atau-dprd.

Ketika Ahok menantang bawahanya untuk menentukan pilihan, saya jadi teringat kisah Musa yang menantang orang Israel yang saat itu membuat berhala patung lembu emas sebagai pengganti Allah. Saat itu, Musa sebagai pemimpin, tampil dan menantang orang Israel untuk memilih dengan bebas, apakah menyembah Allah atau menyembah patung lembu emas (Keluaran 32). Tentu setiap pilihan ada akibatnya.

Kadang kala, sebagai seorang pemimpin yang sudah menanamkan nilai-nilai dan visi kepada pengikut, anda perlu menantang pengikut anda untuk menentukan pilihan. Sehingga anda tahu, yang mana padi dan yang mana ilalang. Yang mana domba dan yang mana kambing.


Sunday, February 22, 2015

Tinggi hati = Rendah diri

Menurut pemahaman saya dan yang saya yakini, rasa rendah diri adalah sama dengan tinggi hati (kesombongan/keangkuhan). Mengapa demikian?

Ketika seorang menyombongkan dirinya, maka dia sangat sulit untuk memikirkan orang lain. Kita tidak punya waktu untuk mengasihi orang lain ketika kita hanya sibuk memikirkan diri kita sendiri. Aku paling hebat, aku paling pintar, aku paling berkuasa, dsb adalah wujud dari rasa sombong.

Rasa rendah diri juga sama halnya dengan kesombongan. Ketika anda rendah diri, yang anda pikirkan adalah hanya diri anda semata. Aku jelek, aku bodoh, aku tak berdaya, aku miskin, dsb adalah wujud dari rasa rendah diri.

Kesamaan yang lain adalah ketika anda merasa sombong ataupun rendah diri, anda tidak akan punya waktu untuk mensyukuri hidup anda. Mengapa harus bersyukur ketika anda merasa bahwa anda adalah pusat semesta ini dan anda hanya memikirkan diri sendiri.

Saya yakin, orang yang rendah diri akan cepat merasa sombong ketika sudah mendapatkan hal-hal yang dulu membuat diri rendah diri (karena dulu dia belum punya, misalnya uang). Begitupula orang yang sombong akan cepat merasa rendah diri ketika sudah kehilangan hal-hal yang dulu membuat dia sombong.

Ingat, kesombongan berarti kehancuran sudah dekat. Rendah diri juga berarti kehancuran sudah dekat.

Jadi, keep our feet on the ground. Diatas langit masih ada langit. Tidak ada manusia yang sempurna. Tetap bersyukur dan lakukan yang terbaik dalam hidup kita. Segala kemuliaan hanya bagi Allah.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

How could we possibly know God?

I want just to pose a question: if such an uncaused, first cause exists, how could we possibly know him? C.S. Lewis thought about this problem in literary terms. He asked himself how Hamlet could meet Shakespeare, his creator. And he concluded that no way could Hamlet bring about such a meeting. But then it dawned on him, that they could have met and known each other, if Shakespeare had taken the initiative and written himself into the drama as one of its characters. Then Hamlet could have met his creator.

And that is what Christians believe that God has done. The entirely good and holy, uncaused, first cause has taken the initiative and entered our world and meets us uniquely in Christ – God made flesh and dwelling among us – that we might know him, love him and live our lives in the ultimate of fulfilling and transforming relationships, that of knowing God himself.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Faith and Facts

The amazing story of Charles Blondin, a famous French tightrope walker, is a wonderful illustration of what true faith is.
Blondin's greatest fame came on September 14, 1860, when he became the first person to cross a tightrope stretched 11,000 feet (over a quarter of a mile) across the mighty Niagara Falls. People from both Canada and America came from miles away to see this great feat.
He walked across, 160 feet above the falls, several times... each time with a different daring feat - once in a sack, on stilts, on a bicycle, in the dark, and blindfolded. One time he even carried a stove and cooked an omelet in the middle of the rope!
A large crowd gathered and the buzz of excitement ran along both sides of the river bank. The crowd “Oohed and Aahed!” as Blondin carefully walked across - one dangerous step after another - pushing a wheelbarrow holding a sack of potatoes.
Then a one point, he asked for the participation of a volunteer. Upon reaching the other side, the crowd's applause was louder than the roar of the falls!
Blondin suddenly stopped and addressed his audience: "Do you believe I can carry a person across in this wheelbarrow?"
The crowd enthusiastically yelled, "Yes! You are the greatest tightrope walker in the world. We believe!"
"Okay," said Blondin, "Who wants to get into the wheelbarrow."
As far as the Blondin story goes, no one did at the time!
This unique story illustrates a real life picture of what faith actually is. The crowd watched these daring feats. They said they believed. But... their actions proved they truly did not believe.
Similarly, it is one thing for us to say we believe in God. However, it's true faith when we believe God and put our faith and trust in His Son, Jesus Christ.
-----
Note: In August of 1859, Blondin's manager, Harry Colcord, did ride on Blondin's back across the Falls.
Charles Blondin

Can you give a good definition of biblical faith? How does it relate to science?
I don't like the word "faith." Not because faith isn't valuable, but because it's often deeply misunderstood. "Faith" in this twisted sense is what you use when all reason is against you. It's religious wishful thinking, in which one squeezes out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will. People of "faith" believe the impossible. People of "faith" believe that which is contrary to fact. People of "faith" believe that which is contrary to evidence. People of "faith" ignore reality.

Some suggest we cannot find facts to support our faith, nor is it preferable to try. This is silly. We're enjoined to have faith in part because we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
I think part of the confusion is because Christians are often told to ignore circumstances, meaning that we're not to get overwhelmed or discouraged by them because God is bigger than our troubles. "Have faith in God," we're told. I think that's good counsel as far as it goes, but sometimes it breeds misunderstanding, implying that faith is a blind leap that has no relationship to fact.
Some suggest we cannot find facts to support our faith, nor is it preferable to try. Faith is not the kind of thing that has anything to do with facts, they say. If we have evidence to prove what we believe, then that takes away from real faith.

Somehow these people think that genuine faith is eviscerated by knowledge and evidence. We've made a virtue out of believing against the evidence, as if that's what God has in mind for us. This is all wrong.
Think about it for a moment. J.P. Moreland has suggested that if this is really the Christian view of faith, the best thing that could happen to Christianity is for the bones of Jesus to be discovered. Finding His bones would prove He didn't rise from the dead. When Christians continue to believe that He did, then, they would be demonstrating the most laudable faith, believing something that all the evidence proved was false.
This is silly. We're enjoined to have faith in part because we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. If we're encouraged to believe because of the resurrection, then that proves this other view of faith is false. It may be the view Christians hold in many cases, but it is not the view of the Bible. It is not the view of Christianity.

Frankly, if religion is merely an exercise in wishful thinking for me, I wouldn't wish up Christianity. It's far too inconvenient. Indeed, it seems that's part of the reason people hold many of the ludicrous religious views they do. They're appealing. They wish God was impersonal, because an impersonal God can't make the kind of demands on them that a holy God can. An impersonal divine force doesn't cramp their style on Saturday night. Eastern religions are high on individual liberty and low on individual responsibility. That's appealing.

Biblical faith isn't believing against the evidence. Instead, faith is a kind of knowing that results in action.
No, biblical faith isn't believing against the evidence. Instead, faith is a kind of knowing that results in action. Let me explain what I mean.
If we want to exercise biblical faith--Christian faith--then we ought first to find out how the Bible defines faith. The clearest definition comes from Hebrews 11:1. This verse says, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Now, there's something very important in these words. We see the word "hope," we see the word "assurance," and we see the word "conviction"--that is, confidence. Now, what gives us confidence?

If you buy a lottery ticket, do you hope you'll win the lottery? Yes, of course you do. Do you have any assurance you'll win the lottery? Absolutely not. You have no way of knowing that your ticket is any better than the millions of other lottery tickets out there competing for the same pot.
But what if you had x-ray vision, and you could see through the gray scratch-off coating on the lottery tickets you buy at the supermarket? You'd know if you had a $100, $200 or a $1,000 winner, wouldn't you? In that case, would you merely hope you'd win? No, you'd haveassurance, wouldn't you? You'd have assurance of those things you previously only hoped for. It would be hope with conviction, not a mere hoped, but a hope buttressed by facts and evidence.
That's why the Christian faith cares about the evidence, friends. For the biblical Christian, the facts matter. You can't have assurance for something you don't know you're going to get. You can only hope for it.

This is why the resurrection of Jesus is so important. It gives assurance to the hope. Because of a Christian view of faith, Paul is able to say in 1 Corinthians 15 that when it comes to the resurrection, if we have only hope, but no assurance--if Jesus didn't indeed rise from the dead in time/space history--then we are of most men to be pitied. That's what he says: We are of most men to be pitied.
This confidence Paul is talking about is not a confidence in a mere "faith" resurrection, a mythical resurrection, a story-telling resurrection. Instead, it's a belief in a real resurrection. If the realresurrection didn't happen, then we're in trouble.
The Bible knows nothing of a bold leap-in-the-dark faith, a hope-against-hope faith, a faith with no evidence. Rather, if the evidence doesn't correspond to the hope, then the faith is in vain, as even Paul has said.

So, faith is knowing, and that knowledge is based on evidence leading to confidence or conviction. But biblical faith is more than that. There's another element. Faith is not just knowing. Faith is also acting. Biblical faith is a confidence so strong that it results in action. You're willing to act based on that belief, that faith.

Many of you know that my engineer, Bobby the Bouncer, got married today. Bobby has believedin marriage for a long time, but Bobby never exercised faith in marriage until he walked down the aisle and said "I do" to Jennifer. That's when he put his life on the line for what he believed to be true. He exercised faith.

Friends, Christianity is not denying reality. Biblical Christians don't deny reality, they discover reality. And once they've discovered it, they act on what they've learned.
It's the same way with biblical faith. It's not just intellectual assent. It's not just acknowledging that certain facts about Jesus, the Bible, the resurrection, or whatever, happen to be true. It's taking your life and putting it on the line based on your confidence in those facts.

Consider a guy who pushes a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tightrope every day. You've seen him do it so many times it doesn't even occur to you he won't make it. You believe with all your heart he can do it.
One day he comes up to you and asks, "Do you believe I can push this wheelbarrow across the tightrope without falling?" And you say, "Of course I do. I've seen you do it hundreds of times." "All right," he says, "get in the wheelbarrow."
Well, now we're talking about a whole different kind of thing, aren't we? The first is an intellectual belief, an acknowledgment of certain facts. The second is active faith, converting your knowledge to action. When you climb into the wheelbarrow, your belief in facts is converted into active trust.

Faith is knowledge in action. It is active trust in the truth. You go to the airport. You say, "This plane goes to New York. I believe it. I'll get on the plane. I'll invest myself in the things I believe to be true." That is biblical faith.

So, when someone asks me the question, Are faith and science compatible?, I'm going to immediately ask for a clarification. What do you mean by faith? If you think faith is mere fantasy and science is complete fact, well then, fantasy conflicts with fact, doesn't it? If faith is a blind leap in the dark, if faith has no concern for the facts, you're in trouble.
If, however, your faith is an intelligent trust in what can't be seen that's inferred from evidence that can be seen--if your faith is a commitment to reality, to acting on what you have good reason to believe is true--well then, there doesn't need to be any conflict at all.
Friends, Christianity is not denying reality. Some people think it is. I'm sympathetic to them because some Christians act as if faith is a kind of sanctified denial. But that isn't what biblical Christianity is about. Biblical Christians don't deny reality, they discover reality. And once they've discovered it, they act on what they've learned.
Indeed, if Christianity is true, in the deepest sense of the word, then it must fit the facts of the real world. So, when we discover the facts of the real world, they can only support Christianity-- if Christianity is true--given that you've interpreted the facts of the world correctly and you've interpreted the scriptural teaching correctly.
Christianity does comport with the facts. If science and religion both have truth as their ultimate goal, then there's no inherent conflict between the two.



Source : 
http://www.str.org/articles/faith-and-facts#.VLsEWCuUdqU
http://www.inspire21.com/stories/faithstories/CharlesBlondin

The Strength of God & the Problem of Evil

What makes you think the ability to take away evil from the world has anything to do with God's strength?
I was thinking about this issue of the problem of evil.  I've read a number of books on it.  I've done a whole teaching on suffering, evil and the goodness of God.  I wrote an article called "Sophie's Dilemma" which we will have in our up-coming journal which will be coming out in June calledClear Thinking.  We had Doug Gievett on four weeks ago, who has written a whole book on the problem of evil and we talked about the issue - the ins and outs about it.  I was thinking about this the other day.  I often try to think through some of these issues and try to get a handle on this to see if there is a shortcut to the solution without undermining the real argument.

When we talked to Doug Gievett, he articulated for us the classical objection to the problem of evil.  The most damaging, potentially, objection to Christianity.  That objection is that there is something inconsistent that Christians believe about the nature of the world and the nature of God.  In other words, the Christian belief is contradictory.  As Dr. Gievett pointed out, having an argument that is contradictory is the worst thing that could happen to you, because it means your view is false.  Period.  So if it can be shown that the Christian view is contradictory then at least at that point of the Christian world view it is false. 

Here's how the objection is usually stated:  If God were all good, as you say, He would want to deal with the problem of evil.  And if God were all powerful, as you say, then He would be able to deal with the problem of evil.  Obviously, evil exists, therefore He is either not all good or He is not all powerful, or maybe He is neither.  In any case, the presence of evil in the world is disproof of the Christian view of God.  See how that argument works?  It is called a defeater.  This particular observation of an apparent contradiction defeats the Christian's viewpoint of God.
Now of course if the argument is sound, then Christianity has been defeated.  I think that is fair to say.  I don't think the argument is sound, though.  And we've talked in different ways about how Augustine has argued and C.S. Lewis has argued and others have unfolded this particular argument and for some it might have been complex.  Well, I'm going to give you a short cut.  Because what Doug Geivett said really stuck in my mind.  He questioned both of the premises.  And his question was, What makes you think that taking away evil in the world has anything to do with God's strength?  Because that is what the assumption is to make the point against Christianity. 

Here is how it can be played out.  This will make it very clear.  When someone raises this to me, I would tell them this story.  Say, Let's suggest that your claim is that you are the strongest person in the world.  More than that, you are the strongest person in the universe.  You can pick up an entire building.  You are so strong that you can pick up an entire city.  You are so strong you can pick up an entire country.  In fact, if you had a place to stand, you could lift the entire planet, even the solar system.  You have so much strength, you can do anything that strength allows you to do.  This is your boast to me.  I say, OK, let's see if you can prove that.  And you say, Just give me any test you want.  I say, If you are so strong as you say, then make a square circle.  You say, Well, I can't do that.  So I could say, You are not very strong, are you? 
You say, This has nothing to do with strength, does it?  Because no matter how strong I was, I could never make a square circle because making a square circle has nothing to do with power.  It is a self-contradictory concept, having square circles.  They can't be made by anybody regardless of how strong they are.  It is unrelated to the issue of power. 

Now, how does this tie into our discussion of the problem of evil?  Simply this.  God certainly is strong enough to obliterate evil from the earth or to have prevented it in the first place.  No question about that.  But is it a good thing that God created human beings as free moral creatures, capable of making moral choices?  The answer to that strikes me as Yes.  Because of God's goodness, which is what is in question here, God creates free moral creatures. 

Now we come to a different kind of problem.  What makes you think that strength has anything to do with God creating a world in which there are genuinely free moral creatures and no possibility of doing wrong?  You see, that's the square circle kind of thing.  It is just as ridiculous to ask God to create a world in which we have genuinely free creatures with no possibility to do wrong, as it is to ask Him to create a square circle.  It has nothing to do with His strength.  It has to do with the nature of the problem.  If you are going to have a particular good, morally free creatures, human beings that can make moral choices for themselves, if God is good, then He is going to create creatures that can be morally free, but that entails of necessity the possibility at least of evil in the world.  It has nothing to do with His power.  It is unrelated to the issue of power just like making square circles is unrelated to the issue of power.  It relates to the nature of the good universe that God created.  A universe that was populated by beings that were morally free.  Morally free creatures by necessity, by definition, have the possibility of going bad.  That's why that is not a good argument against the existence of God.  It just doesn't apply.  One could argue that it's a kind of category error because in this particular case, in the Christian world view, capability of dealing with evil has nothing to do with strength.  It has to do with the nature of the game itself. 

What's neat about the Christian point of view, is that God was capable of doing the good thing and creating morally free creatures that did go bad and still cleaning up the mess that they created in such a way that greater good results.  Now that's the result of a Master mind.

Source : http://str.w2.wadev.com/articles/the-strength-of-god-the-problem-of-evil#.VLsIgiuUdqV

What Science Can't Prove

Source : http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.VLsESSuUdqU

~/Media/Default/Article/science_beaker.jpg

If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God?

I often hear the comment, "Science has proved there is no God." Don't ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.
I'm not saying that because I don't like science, but rather because I know a little about how science works. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.

Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.
For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in the past can be explained adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam's Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don't exist.

Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.

I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. Why? Not because I've searched the entire universe to make sure that there aren't any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don't need to search the world to answer that question.
The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can't be real. A thing cannot be a square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence.
This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.

If you want to know something for certain, with no possibility of error--what's called apodictic certainty in philosophy--you must employ the deductive method.
There have been attempts to use the deductive method to show that certain ways of thinking about God are contradictory. The deductive problem of evil is like that. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would want to get rid of evil. If God were all powerful, He'd be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can't be both.

If this argument is sustained, then Christianity is defeated, because contradictory things (the belief that God is both good and powerful in the face of evil) cannot be true at the same time. The job of the Christian at this point is to show there isn't a necessary contradiction in their view of God, that genuine love does not require that there be no evil or suffering, and that preventing such a thing is a non-function of God's power. I think that can be done, and I've addressed that issue in another place (see The Strength of God and the Problem of Evil).
So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism.

You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.
Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.
The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.