Hi Leon!
How have you been? long time no news from me, eh... assuredly I still remember our interesting discourse... Since it's Thaipusam today, I've some spare time to write...
Thanks for the tolerance you've been showing to me and Janet... It's a tolerance that regards religion (not only CHristianity but all religions) as a kind of placebo pill... heheh, it is not absolutely true but it can be a kind of emotional crutch that weak people cling to and we may as well let them be since it does them some good... (but we know better, dun we?)
The version of freethinker you described is one who says that 'u can believe whatever u want to' is actually certain that none of these religious beliefs are objectively true... in fact none of them is true, cos we all 'know' that naturalism is true. That is a conclusion not based on necessary proofs, but also a factor of 'community' (ie depends on who you read, Carl Sagan? Darwin? Dawkins? Infidels.org?) and also 'desire' (as Michael Polanyi convincingly argued in the
acclaimed Personal Knowledge, all knowledge including scientific knowledge is a function of personal commitment)
The atheist Schopenhauer even went so far as to say that that 'rationality' may just be a mask to hide our desire for moral autonomy and will to power... heheh... may i add, autonomy apart from God. If naturalism is true, we make up our moral rules... that's a very tempting desire!
Well, personally I respect that view of tolerant 'certainty'... (if naturalism is true, after all, then all religions are at best placebo pills tat have no benefits than some psychological boost) but it is essentially saying (with considerable certainty) that none of the religions in the world is true, but only beneficial as crutches. I want none of that, of course... who needs a crutch when in reality we
could do without one? heheh.... It's a rather condescending view on any religion inc. Buddhism not least, if u ask me... :) If CHristianity is not true, I want none of it and thank you for bursting the illusion... heheh... but if it's true, I owe it to you to do the same, right? That's why I enjoy our continuing debate in a
respectful manner...
The CHristianity I affirm has a different angle on tolerance... we affirm that *some* things are true, therefore contrary claims are false.. this is no more bigotry than saying 1+1 is not equal to 3. At the same time, we affirm that other religions are not all false... they also contain some truth...
This is not based on blind faith, as we discussed earlier, there are many credible scientific evidences that point to an intelligent designer so much so that an atheist of antony flew's stature gave up on atheism after decades of championing it! heheh... that's not blind faith, I'm sure... reading his interview, i dun think he's senile either! haahha...
www.caseforcreator.com/home/.php
if someone is certain without a reasonable basis, by all means, puncture the ego-based certainty... i'd help... but i dun think you have addressed the more reasonable CHristians who hold their faith rationally... the more extreme fundies, yea! but christianity at its best, not yet?
It's easy to critique any religion on the basis of its abuse... But why not let's interact with the CHristian faith and atheism at its best, in its finest moments?
Warmest regards
Dave
How have you been? long time no news from me, eh... assuredly I still remember our interesting discourse... Since it's Thaipusam today, I've some spare time to write...
Thanks for the tolerance you've been showing to me and Janet... It's a tolerance that regards religion (not only CHristianity but all religions) as a kind of placebo pill... heheh, it is not absolutely true but it can be a kind of emotional crutch that weak people cling to and we may as well let them be since it does them some good... (but we know better, dun we?)
The version of freethinker you described is one who says that 'u can believe whatever u want to' is actually certain that none of these religious beliefs are objectively true... in fact none of them is true, cos we all 'know' that naturalism is true. That is a conclusion not based on necessary proofs, but also a factor of 'community' (ie depends on who you read, Carl Sagan? Darwin? Dawkins? Infidels.org?) and also 'desire' (as Michael Polanyi convincingly argued in the
acclaimed Personal Knowledge, all knowledge including scientific knowledge is a function of personal commitment)
The atheist Schopenhauer even went so far as to say that that 'rationality' may just be a mask to hide our desire for moral autonomy and will to power... heheh... may i add, autonomy apart from God. If naturalism is true, we make up our moral rules... that's a very tempting desire!
Well, personally I respect that view of tolerant 'certainty'... (if naturalism is true, after all, then all religions are at best placebo pills tat have no benefits than some psychological boost) but it is essentially saying (with considerable certainty) that none of the religions in the world is true, but only beneficial as crutches. I want none of that, of course... who needs a crutch when in reality we
could do without one? heheh.... It's a rather condescending view on any religion inc. Buddhism not least, if u ask me... :) If CHristianity is not true, I want none of it and thank you for bursting the illusion... heheh... but if it's true, I owe it to you to do the same, right? That's why I enjoy our continuing debate in a
respectful manner...
The CHristianity I affirm has a different angle on tolerance... we affirm that *some* things are true, therefore contrary claims are false.. this is no more bigotry than saying 1+1 is not equal to 3. At the same time, we affirm that other religions are not all false... they also contain some truth...
This is not based on blind faith, as we discussed earlier, there are many credible scientific evidences that point to an intelligent designer so much so that an atheist of antony flew's stature gave up on atheism after decades of championing it! heheh... that's not blind faith, I'm sure... reading his interview, i dun think he's senile either! haahha...
www.caseforcreator.com/home/.php
if someone is certain without a reasonable basis, by all means, puncture the ego-based certainty... i'd help... but i dun think you have addressed the more reasonable CHristians who hold their faith rationally... the more extreme fundies, yea! but christianity at its best, not yet?
It's easy to critique any religion on the basis of its abuse... But why not let's interact with the CHristian faith and atheism at its best, in its finest moments?
Warmest regards
Dave
Comments
I have never been intentional / deliberate
in my criticisms of religions like Christianity.
The reason why I have never gone all out to make Janet
"renounce" her faith is because I am fully aware that
many individuals do need religion to empower them.
However, trust me that religion (much less
Christianity) is not the only solution. My colleague
who is a very active member in Nichiren's Daishonin
(heard of this religion?), convince me of that.
Honestly, I do not want to deprive Janet of her
"crutch" when the time comes…
Nonetheless, I have a moral
duty to voice out my opinions along the lines of
freethinking when I see blind faith growing out of
control like a cancerous tumour. It is dangerous and
downright infectious. And it always hurts
anything/anyone that comes in the path of this
cancerous tumour. Imho, it is irresponsible on
anybody's part or any religion's reputation to
encourage such mindless behavior for the sake of
faith. This kind of behaviour is something I see too
much of in dogmatic (monotheistic) religions like
Christianity. That too considering the fact that
Christianity
today is a far cry from the more virulent version of
the past.
I have been to church countless of times (no thanks to
my uncle during uni years) and three Buddhist camps
(in the U) and I know what faith and a sense of
community (of believers) can do to uplift a person's
spirits and his/her approach in life. I concede that
such, is the goodness of religion and how relevant it
can be for this instance in terms of the present
turbulent times. I have absolutely no problem with
that. If someone tells me that he / she needs any
particular religion to complement his / her life, I
can accept that – may even encourage it. When someone
comes to you and tell you that they are certain
(impossible to be wrong for religious reasons) that
their religion is true (or the TRUTH) – that the
claims of their infallible scriptures must be taken
seriously, then, I am truly obliged to refute their
statements (to the best of my ability) and make my
stand as a freethinker. The problem with religion
today is that this certainty is the root of all the
religious problems in the world – from the disturbing
behaviour of Christian fundies in the US to the
fanatical zeal of Islamists. It wouldn't hurt to
puncture that inflated religious ego, would it?
BTW,
It is not fair to put freethinkers in this category,
when freethinkers' so-called "belief" is actually the
disbelief of all religious certainties (at their utter
expense – no paradise, no improved karma and no place
in Heaven). The bottom line is, I believe that
everyone is entitled to believe in whatever you want,
even UFOs if one fancies it but never assert one's
belief at the expense of the beliefs of others or
treat their infatuation of those beliefs much too
seriously than is necessary. Or else, I think it fair
that someone (anyone with the means to do so) should
rise to the occasion and bring them down to earth.
Btw your ideas of good faith do rhyme with my idea of
reasonable conduct/beliefs. My compliments to you.
While so, I still need to remind you that my
freethinking-ness was not (never) out of desire but
necessity…that imho is a major difference between us.
Appreciative of your position, LEON 14 August 2004
If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for
us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does
science do us a disservice in deflating our
conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the
Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring. [Carl Sagan, The
Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]
My fren, Leon (not to be confused with CDPC philosopher Leon Keith Jackson) is a freethinker, who tolerates religions as a kind of 'crutch' for people. His view of the world is modernist, he has high regards for science, rationality, unbiased analysis etc.
So his view is by rationally necessary, while my view is bcos I want it to be so.
Now, how wud a relativistic Christian who despairs of the possibility of objective knowledge handle this? He wud point out that none of us are 'unbiased'... which I also employed briefly in pointing out Michael Polanyi and the role of community in our knowledge. Depends on who you read?
The relativist wud probably invite Leon gently:
"Why dun you try to join our community and walk with us and experiment if the Christian story helps your spirituality?"
But I'd not risk taking that approach bcos' he already knows how community can reinforce a false belief and give a placebo effect to the believer. He wants none of it cos' he wants to be rationally honest.
"I dun need crutches thank you!" Not everybody is a postmodern in Msia, you have diehard modernist like Leon as well...
I decided to take the moral high ground in this instance...
1) Do not want to play into his view that religions are nothing but psychological crutches that have no objective reality. If it's a placebo pill, I want none of it... thank you. If my community's helpful hand is nothing more than a crutch i actually dun need, I'd rather walk on my own two feet.
Unless I can change him to a postmodern first, it makes no sense to ask him to 'try the christian metanarrative'. He's only too ready to dismiss it as YOUR story which is blind faith.
2) Meet him on scientific grounds... it's not faith vs science, my fren. It's good science vs bad science, when it comes to creation/evolution. Of course, i hafta be ready to pursue this further.
3) Who's more tolerant? My fren thinks he's debunking the certainty of fundamentalists who are intolerant of other beliefs. In reality he thinks all religions are false but tolerate them in the sense of allowing them to exist as placebo pills... (those sugar pills that doctors give to patients who think they need medicine but actually they dun!)
Following CS Lewis, I try to gain the tolerant high ground by saying... "Hey friend, if you're a naturalist, all religions must be false. But as a Christian I dun need to adopt that intolerant view. In fact, I can affirm that there are some truths in all religions, even the most bizarre ones!"
thanks for that early x'mas gift that you given to me. i find it most interesting, for the first time i
can finish reading a book within a month. before x'mas, i would have finish reading the book.
learned that only fools chase after winds and there is nothing new under the sun.
agree with you mulder was right cause the truth is out there.
the book came to me at the right time, thanks to you again. Nike