IF YOU’VE never been to an inter-religious dialogue, my advice to you is this: go for one.
Having attended one myself yesterday, I must say it has been a real learning experience where I’ve picked up a new fact or two about other religious faiths. The experience has also made me realise that Singapore is truly a unique place where different faiths can co-exist together in harmony.
(Photo: Religious conflict is a tragedy Singaporeans have managed to avoid after independence. Courtesy of Jordi Martorell / Creative Commons)
I’m not trying to sound like I’m speaking from some official government channel, but this is my insight fashioned from my interactions with the crowd who attended the dialogue.
My impressions
The monthly inter-faith dialogue was organised by South East Community Development Council, a quasi-governmental body that ensures the smooth running of the various estates in Singapore. While I feel generally positive about the whole dialogue, there were several things that I feel can be improved.
For example, for much of the dialogue, I felt that the various speakers and participants were too politically correct. A lot of niceties were exchanged, but they did not say anything substantially meaningful. Instead, such “harmony” talk dragged down the whole event, almost reducing it to a useless homily not unlike a boring Sunday sermon.
Face it, as much as we love harmony, talking about harmony is boring. I suppose the reason why people come for such dialogues is to learn about other faiths and to clear up certainmisconceptions and contentious issues about religion. Fortunately, during the Q&A session, things got a little bit more interesting when several interesting questions were asked.
Being slightly peeved by all this talk about harmony and how religions should always seek to agree, I spoke up during the session and talked about “constructive disharmony”, and the need for constructive conflict rather than destructive conflict. While we should seek to find commonality among different faiths, there is also a need to sort out what the differences are, and what Truth is.
The fact remains that the Hindu Truth differs from the Christian Truth and the Buddhist Truth. My sense was that the various religious leaders were trying to assert their version of the Truth up on stage, but without overtly doing so. Already you see a contestation of beliefs, so why pretend it doesn’t exist?
Thankfully, some of the religious leaders on stage did talk about the need to have robust debate as well, which gave me a sense of relief.
What happened at the dialogue
The whole event started with participants breaking up into groups and doing various activities together.
Firstly, we had to split into pairs and “exchange hats”, meaning we try to tell one another what we know about each person’s religious faiths. My partner was a Buddhist, so I had to tell him what I knew about Buddhism.
After that, we had to play a game where the group was split into two, and each subgroup had an architect. The job of the architect was to form a symbol using his group members to represent inter-faith relations. I was volunteered by the rest to be the architect, so I had my comeuppance by making them get down onto the floor and form a heart shape.
The whole session concluded with a discussion of interfaith issues.
After the breakout session, we gathered into the main hall where we listened as various leaders from the different religious faiths spoke out about religious harmony from their point of view. This was then concluded with a Q&A session.
What I’ve learnt
Nonetheless, despite some slight misgivings, I came out of the event learning more about other religious faiths, and getting a better sense of the overall religious landscape in Singapore:
1) Buddhists don’t believe in a God.
Actually I was quite surprised to learn about this, because my impression was that they teach that anyone can become god — or Buddha — by attaining nirvana. But I left the dialogue with even more questions. If they don’t believe in a God, then how do they answer the question of origin? How did things come to be, and who created the law of karma? These things can’t always have existed, can they?
2) Hindus believe that everything is God.
An analogy was given of a spider’s web. The spider can be likened to God, and the web the universe. However, since the web comes from within the spider and is a part of it, then the web can be described as God as well. However, if that’s the case, then I’m still puzzled by the Hindu worship of various gods like Shiva and Vishnu. Why worship these specific gods when everything in life should be worshiped, say the computer in which I type this article on?
3) Conversions out of Islam
One area of concern I have about Islam is the topic of religious conversion. This is because I’ve heard of stories where a Muslim who wants to convert out of Islam is ostracised by the Malay community. In Singapore, the Malay community and Islamic faith are intimately intertwined. So if you are born in a Malay family, it would automatically mean that you are a Muslim.
However, a chat with the Muslim Imam (I forgot his name) made me understand that such emotional reactions from the family and community is not just exclusive to Islam, but to other faiths like Christianity as well. Instantly I was able to relate the Christian experience, where a believer who wants to opt out of the church is often faced with concerned enquiry from his churchmates.
As a result, a “backslider” often leaves quietly, choosing to make himself uncontactable to the rest. The backslider’s situation is also not helped if his or her family is Christian.
The Imam told me that in the case of Islam, families will usually reconcile with their children after the initial emotional trauma, despite there being some religious bigots around. There is also the issue of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) — the Islamic religious council in Singapore — counselling the ex-Muslim about his or her conversion, after the backslider informs MUIS of the decision.
But I was told that they have nothing to fear, as the counseling session is meant to ascertain if the religious conversion is genuine. If this is so, MUIS will then inform the family of their child’s decision, and advice the parents to respect it.
However, while this process may seem innocuous, I do wonder if there is any coercion involved in practice still. After all, MUIS is an Islamic body, and the counselors are surely Muslim who have a vested interest in ensuring a person remains Muslim.
Final thoughts
One major area of concern I have with this dialogue however is that it is ultimately still government-driven. I wonder if citizens are taking their own initiative to organise their own dialogues, instead of leaving everything to the state.
Also, it seems that very few people I know have actually attended such sessions. Perhaps if Singaporeans are encouraged to organise their own dialogues, greater awareness and understanding between different faiths will result.
As a start, various religious clubs in the varsities can organise religious debates in the universities and schools. The objective is not to incite disharmony, but to create better understanding among groups. Even individuals can do their bit by blogging about inter-religious issues and discussing contentious issues that has to do with religion.
While we may be deterred by the Seditions Act and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, we will be safe as long as we are constructive in what we write about.
But the most important thing we must remember is that we need to get out of stale soliloquy about the merits of harmony, instead discussing constructively about what we both agree and disagree with. Ironically, one of the ways to foster harmony is to focus on conflict, because it remains the most effective way to generate interest.
In that sense, government officials can take a page from journalists, who are maestros of contention. After all, the journalism student is often taught that conflict often makes the best stories.
This article is also published in Irreligious, the author’s blog on Christianity and religion.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
My same sentiments too as I think after 2 decades of Racial Hamony we are still not very much different than before.
Frankly, I think that it is a myth – that we may never get to accept a person of another faith just because he is from another race ior faith.
It is a touchy issue though and I appreciate the state’s involement in trying to harmonise a very delicate issue.
The recent promotion of a Malay to be a BG shows that even the country also has issue with race.
Alot of the policies are merely lip service and not much action.
Heyy there,
I hope this serves to clear some doubts that you have about Buddhism. Basically, sentient beings survive in Samsara, also known as the six realms of existence. Therefore, in Buddhism, it is safe to assert that a God or Gods is not akin to a Buddha. The various paths of Buddhism serve to lead people out of Samsara which is plagued with sufferings. Nirvana is the gaining of enlightenment and parinirvana is the final passing beyond Samsara when an enlightened being dies.
Nowhere in the Pali Canon, are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is indifferent to all theories on the origin of the universe[7] and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara. It is important to understand that the Buddha did not expressly say that creation did not occur or that there is no creator. Instead, Buddhist focus is on the effect the belief in theories of creation and a creator have on the human mind. The Buddhist attitude towards every belief is one of critical examination from the perspective of what effect the belief has on the mind and whether the belief binds one to samsara or not.
The Buddha declared that “it is not possible to know or determine the first beginning of the cycle of existence of beings who wander therein deluded by ignorance and obsessed by craving.” Speculation about the origin and extent of the universe is generally discouraged in early Buddhism.
Buddhism is likened to a boat which people board in order to leave the sea of sufferings and to dock at the shore which is a metaphor for nirvana.
Hope it helps. Love.
Better dont Discuss about GOD!
Just Accept the existence of the Great Religions and don’t be critical abt others!
Live and let live! We will go to a better place than now!
///I’m not trying to sound like I’m speaking from some official government channel, but ….///
Why the need to sound so apologitic and to qualify that you are not speaking from some govt channel. So waht is wrong if you do sound that way. Politically incorrect to sound this way in TOC?
One atheist academic, Daniel Dennett suggested that religions (all major organised ones) be included into school curriculum. Basically, so that everyone learns what you have learnt.
quote letter:”..,how do they answer the question of origin?”
my questions to that question… why must there be an answer NOW? If we do not know, so what?
4) lobo7
Religous Knowledge was introduced in schools some years back and then scrapped. I do not know why.
Problem with such dialogues is that atheists are missing. Atheism, not political correctness, should be the key ingredient to dilute the overtly religious influence of each religion represented. There is a Secular Humanist Society active in Singapore and their leaders should be present to represent atheists.
Hi Lobo76 #4,
Religious Knowledge was scrapped off from MOE Curriculum because instead it only made students more aware of their religious differences, thus leading to increased religious segregation in school. Religious Knowledge failed to bridge the differences across people of different religious background.
smallvice (#7),
This is an inter-faith dialogue, not an anti-faith dialogue.
Lobo (#4),
Dennett’s proposal does not work if everything in every religion is included in the syllabus, because some aspects in each will clearly contradict – or at least, appear to do so on the surface – each other.
Of course, we can reduce it to a third-person perspective that covers only the descriptive aspects, but then that is already in social studies syllabuses.
Plus, Theology is as abstract as philosophy. Studying one religion’s theology is hard enough; any student who can even master a second religion’s theology fully has to be more genius than Einstein.
Smallvice,
actually, there were quite a few free thinkers and secular humanists at the event, though I’ve never gotten a chance to speak to them. But they were not represented on stage I guess. But does the society you’re talking about have a website?
Terence,
5) The word “Ecumenism” is a great word, but it is also very hollow. It is hollow because its openness isn’t really open at all. A great analogy for Ecumenism would be the parable of the Levite and the Tax-Collector, where the Tax-Collector sobs on the ground in repentance while the Levite says a thanksgiving prayer for everything in which he is better than the Tax-Collector.
That’s exactly how religious leaders approach inter-faith dialogue, like a Levite coming into a room of Tax-Collectors. The Levite prays because he is supposed to display piety and love; in the same way, the religious leaders are politically-correct to exude an aura of love.
But they are here for monologue to each other, not dialogue with each other.
6) Harmony is “boring” because nobody talks about real harmony. Real Harmony is simply beyond what anyone would love to consider, even religious leaders. The most they will talk about is Tolerance, which is actually one level lower.
Inter-faith dialogues are basically people trying to discover avenues to assimilate others into their faiths. So naturally, they are ineffective.
7) Talk about differences would be usually avoided, because it would lead to criticism and mutual conflict. The purpose of inter-faith dialogue is to reduce conflict between the members of each religion.
8) Actually, they don’t contradict with each other on the Deepest Level. But the Deepest Level is … well Deep and inconvenient for most religious groups to go to. And our State itself is unwilling to go there. So then…
Suffices to say, all are Faces of the Truth. The Full Truth is far more complex.
9) Apologetic Debates, anyone?
13) As WD (#2) stated, Original (Theravada) Buddhism does not believe in the existence of a god. Buddha is just a sage who has attained Nirvana, not a god. Some variants of Mahayana (Syncretic) Buddhism do treat Buddha as a god alongside Krishna or Guan Yin however.
The Dalai Lama explained that the Buddhist perception of the Universe and Time is as an endless (at both ends) series of Thought-Flashes. One Thought Flashes into another continuously. Some elements follow, some elements don’t.
14) Actually, Hindus believe that everything in nature is a manifestation of God, or the Brahman, as they call God. However, the highest-level Manifestations are the Trimurthi: Brahma (Creation), Shiva (Destroyer) and Vishnu (Preserver).
And Computers are not part of nature.
15) Yes, that happens.
16-17) That happens too. In fact, if you did that in the past if you are a Catholic, you could be excommunicated by your local bishop. Protestants, especially the Evangelicals, react much in the same way. They are happy for people to convert to their religion, but not people who convert from their religion.
aside) If you look at MUIS’ and the Archdiocesan Websites, each has their own page on the Catholic-Muslim Dialogue.
The Catholic Page mentions that the law permits Muslims to convert to Catholics
(Christians), and advises would-be converts to consult with their parish priests on the procedures. However, the same page excludes mention that a Catholic is permitted to convert to a Muslim.
Similarly, on MUIS’s Page, it mentions that the law permits Christians (including Catholics) to convert to Muslims, and advises people to consult with one of the member Mosques in MUIS. However, MUIS Page does not mention that Muslims are permitted to convert to Christians/Catholics.
aside) Incidentally, the article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on religious freedom was so hotly contested that the UN actually arranged a special commission on that article alone.
Hi Arix #10,
Mastering a second religion’s theology fully is an act of obstinacy, not genius.
Secular humanism is not an anti-religion religion. It is not a religion too.
Where does your misinformed religious motivation end? Perhaps it knows no boundaries. Haha…
smallvice (#13),
1) It is genius in terms of intellectual capacity. Whether you consider theologies as worth studying is another issue altogether.
2) It is at least another philosophy.
3) Where does your misinformed atheist motivation end? perhaps it knows no boundaries. Haha…
Haha.. theology requires intellectual capacity? That’s the best joke I heard today.
smallvice (#15),
Alright, brain capacity then, to memorize all the Holy Scriptures plus the thick theological discourses. Do you for instance know how thick the Summa Theologica is?
Brain capacity is definitely the more appropriate word. “Religious” and “Intellectual” are two contradicting adjectives after all.
smallvice (#17),
You know I disagree with you on that point. But yes, brain capacity was the more appropriate term.
10) Arix on July 6th, 2009 1.51 am
“Of course, we can reduce it to a third-person perspective that covers only the descriptive aspects, but then that is already in social studies syllabuses.”
The curriculum suggested is in the third person perspective I think. It doesn’t cover why people believe what they believe, only what they believe. It’s like that article, he finds out that Buddhism doesn’t not have a God, Hindus think everything is God…. that kind of knowledge.
p.s What exactly is in the social studies syllabuses?
Thanks for this article. Addresses much needed points. Some thoughts on your “questions”?
1. Why is a deity of any sort required in order to answer questions of origin? Plenty of thought systems and philosophies get by without the notion of conscious cosmic design.
2. I suspect the more prominent deities represent important cosmic principles (eg Shiva = creative destruction), that are perhaps missing in the specific context of the devout. I.e. you look for what you’re missing. Clearly you don’t lack for a keyboard.
The idea of the immanent was once part of Christianity too
3. Coercion is everywhere :)
lobo76 (#20),
Social Studies syllabuses discuss religious dress, religious ceremonies, and religious prayers. And also what they believe in.
The government treats religion (and race) as a subrational part of ourselves which needs to be delicately managed, rather than as as a source for self-understanding and -fulfillment. (‘Religion’ here should include secular humanism.) The emphasis on ‘harmony’ is symptomatic of this negative treatment of religion. Hence, institutional set-ups like the inter-faith dialogues are seen as performing a pragmatic role of a ‘crisis response framework’ only. This approach undermines our claim to being a truly multireligious, multicultural society.
puzzled (#21),
1) Nothing says that a deity has to be ‘conscious’.
2) Yes.
3) Christianity still has the “immanent”; that is what distinguishes Christianity from Islam.
22) Arix on July 6th, 2009 12.55 pm
Social Studies syllabuses discuss religious dress, religious ceremonies, and religious prayers. And also what they believe in.
Is there any source you can quote? I tried to google the syllabus.. but nothing on which you mentioned came up.
The closest I can find is in the Primary 2 syllabus, under Our Neighbourhood. It describes some holidays… maybe what people where during those holidays.. but that’s about it.
The secondary syllabus seems to be propaganda. Only Theme 4 has any mention of religion, and it seems to come from the Pledge, rather than any part of the syllabus being taught.
Source: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/humanities/
lobo76 (#25),
1) Primary 4B, Topic 5:
“Customs and Practices, dress, food and games of the different ethnic groups in Singapore”
This definitely will include a description of the religions under “customs and practices”.
And where did you obtain the Secondary Syllabus from? It is not on the site you mentioned.
26) Arix on July 6th, 2009 1.54 pm
Ethnic is rather different from religion…
e.g wearing a cheongsam, or a kebaya is not indicative of religion.
It’s more ‘racial’ topic, not a religious one. It MIGHT cover a little on religion as to what religion most of a particular ethnic group subscribes to.. but that is likely to be it.
It would be best if someone had children, and consequently a social science textbook…. or if someone who is a teacher of social science to give some comments. As it is, we are guessing here.
However, to further reinforcement my view there is no such content in our social science syllabus, here is an article that gave me such an impression.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=3103
p.s if you can refrain from bring up the AWARE part in the article, that would be great.
———————–
[And where did you obtain the Secondary Syllabus from? It is not on the site you mentioned.]
It’s the link right below the Primary syllabus?
# 2005 Social Studies (Lower Secondary Normal (Technical)) Syllabus (156kb .pdf)
Terence,
IMHO, I find your connotation that Malay= Muslim a very simplistic one. There are Indian, Arab and even Chinese Muslims. A good friend of mine was a Chinese Muslim and till today most people in Singapore ask him you are muslim but not Malay, you are Chinese but do not eat Bak Kwa and you are Muslim but cannot speak Malay and instead speak Chinese! Poor guy was told to do guard duty on Chinese New Year coz he has a Malay sounding name. When will people understand that Malay is a race and not a religion?
terence, your article itself explains why such inter faith dialogues will not work. What is needed for it to work is open mindedness, which was clearly not the mindset you approached it with. By open mindedness, I mean “to be without prejudice.”
While pretending to query, you take potshots at other religion, implicitly suggesting that Christianity has all the answers that the others dont. This is regrettable. What is needed is greater mutual respect for other faiths.
Likewise I also have many questions eg I don’t understand who created God. How come there was a serpent in the garden of eden and who created it? Also, if God is all knowing, wouldnt he have already known that the serpent would be there to tempt eve or Adam would eat the apple regardless of instructions? If there is a second coming, why cant there be a second tempting and second falling and everything starts all over again?
Please do not view other religion only from the context of yours. There can never be understanding this way.
My understanding of buddhism is, it is not against creationism, and what it talks about in dependent origins gels with the big bang theory. However, the main aim is, to put it simply, seek eternal peace through transcending the material world, which is similar to christianity. You do it through Jesus, the buddhists do it through the middle path.
As for Hinduism, I believe it is rather scientific just like everything in the world is made up of atoms and no energy is destroyed but transferred. Just because they do not worship everything as opposed to people who thank god when they hail a taxi or find an empty toilet cubicle does not make them any less worthy of respect and is a matter of perspective.
The point is, no religion is free from questions and no religion have all the answers. As long as they make one a better person in this world, it is good. All rivers flow to the sea, made of the same H2O. The transcendental does not discriminate or differentiate, it is the human mind that imposes “yours is false” or “mine is the real one.”
Most importantly, religion should not, in its instructions, create animosity, conflict and disrespect, bearing in mind certain religious commands were made in context to a pre-globalised environment centuries ago which may not necessarily be relevant now, for example the equality of women. That is the danger of literal truths and blind faith without wisdom.
religion itself does not create animosity,
its those in positionof influence within the given religion who uses it to his or her personal gain/advantage.
some (the more prominent 1s) religion these days in local context is becoming more like a thinly guised form of idol worship, with the main man (i dunno got women anot…) as the idol, not the religion.
besides, can those of us here still remember who said that the (insert the place of worship) is the best place to find a husband/wife? :)
lobo76 (#27),
“Ethnic” does include “religion” within its rank, although only religion in the “organized” sense. And the textbooks have to describe the religion followed anyway.
It would be significantly better if we could flip through the actual textbooks. I base my interpretation on the Social Studies textbook that I studied with in Primary Four.
Perhaps, I admit, that might be somewhat outdated.
Okay, I shall not mention the AWARE issue.
miceisnice (#30),
That is a very insightful comment.
thots #29,
in no way have i suggested that Christianity is superior to all other religions. Please elaborate if you think I am making that assertion.
On the contrary, I personally have more questions about Christianity than all the other religions, because it was the faith I grew up with.
#28 anakin,
the reality is that islam and the malay community is closely intertwined and almost inseparable. To leave islam is almost like leaving the malay community. That is the point I was trying to make.
#29 thots///While pretending to query, you take potshots at other religions implicitly suggesting that Christianity has all the answers that the others don’t///;;;;;;;#33 Terence///On the contrary, I personally have more questions about Christianity than all other religions///;;;;Terence i think thots have a valid grievance because in your article there are questions under Bhuddism, Hinduism, and Islam but nothing under Christianity (why not?). And now that you are caught with your pants down you do have some strange excuses, which don’t go down too well where the non-Christians are concerned.
Terence, with due respect to you,i feel thots conclusions are genuine, because after re-reading your article, i can see therein not only a superiority complex but also a lot of hints of sarcasm; pardon me if i am wrong.
33) Terence on July 6th, 2009 8.09 pm
thots #29,
in no way have i suggested that Christianity is superior to all other religions. Please elaborate if you think I am making that assertion.
————————–
it is this part, where you ‘suggested’ that your religion is superior by virtue of having ‘answers’ to some questions. … just look at the ‘chain’ of questions…
FYI, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have a God (the FSM itself). I think they got ‘answers’ to origin as well. Does it mean those are ‘real answers’?
oopss.. somehow the quote text disappeared. Here it is again.
“If they don’t believe in a God, then how do they answer the question of origin? How did things come to be, and who created the law of karma? These things can’t always have existed, can they?”
It is not uncommon for a person of certain religious affliation in Singapore to become totally oblivious of his/her bias towards other belief systems when he/she is so totally immersed in it and have always surounded himself with like thinking people with similar beilief system, so much so when when he make potshots, it is a subconcious involuntary and automatic reaction whenever he percieves that his belief system seems to be questioned, and thus challenged.
As for the religions always seeking to find common ground to agree in this inter-faith group, it is a worthwhile effort, as there is no need to seek for more uncommon ground. There are far too many already.
By being cautious, and treading carefully , gingerly and respectfully, and agreeing to disagree on unreconcilable areas, then there is hope for religious harmony.
lobo, KopitiamApek,
it is not uncommon to start questioning from a certain vantage point, in this case from the perspective of Christianity. This is because it is familiar as a launching pad for me. This does not mean that I view a certain perspective as superior to another, because I have not come to that decision yet.
Besides, even if I do think that Christianity is superior to other religions (which I DO NOT), this is a case for one to make, and one shouldn’t be discouraged from thinking so, but he must be able to argue his case. I do think that TOC is not the place for theological debate however, so I will refrain from doing so.
It will be foolhardy for me to say I am not biased. Who isn’t? But nonetheless it is possible that in spite the inherent bias one has, it is still possible to be as objective as one can be, and that is what I strive to do.
Am I making potshots? Far from it. I respect every perspective and every religion and what they have to offer. But this does not mean all are equal. And as to which is more superior to another, that’s for one to reason.
There are two types of religious harmony we can choose from. The first one assumes that all views are equal, thus there is no room or need for debate. The second respects the fact that some views may be closer to the Truth than the others, and while we may disagree, we respect each other. I am of the latter school.
ask me what i think of christianity, the first few nouns that flash my mind are “takeovers”, “evangelism” and “the little bride”.
I beilef a person choose a certain religious faith because it is in harmony with his thoughts, his self, and his spirit.
And it is true one shouldn’t be discouraged from thinking that is religion is best suited for him. But this is different from thinking that it is the BEST religion.
When one is at peace with himself, he see no need to convince everyone else. So the need able to argue his case would seem rather redundant.
Debating about religious beliefs is like, for the lack of a better example, whether char kway teow or french fries is better .
There will be perpectual debate.
May your days be free from wandering thoughts.
Terence #40,
“…even if I do think that Christianity is superior to other religions (which I DO NOT)…. I respect every perspective and every religion and what they have to offer. But this does not mean all are equal. And as to which is more superior to another, that’s for one to reason.”
So which religion do you think is superior? If it isn’t already yours, would you consider changing? It’s quite the rage you know?
40) Terence on July 6th, 2009 11.23 pm
“It will be foolhardy for me to say I am not biased. Who isn’t?”
ermm…. that is why we had to point it out to you. I understood, as KopitiamApek did, what you did was somewhat at a unconscious level. You just ‘appeared’ (to non Christians) to be acting superior (though not purposely), and you didn’t realised it.
Certainly, if you were being ‘purposeful’, you would probably not have gone for the dialogue in the first place.
Everyone is biased. No one doubts that. The issue then is if you can take criticism and wished to come across as being objective.
40) Terence,
“There are two types of religious harmony we can choose from. The first one assumes that all views are equal, thus there is no room or need for debate. The second respects the fact that some views may be closer to the Truth than the others, and while we may disagree, we respect each other. I am of the latter school.”
I’m not exactly sure what’s the difference between those two types you talk about actually.
What I don’t get is, why should there only be two choices – either all faiths are equal, or some is more ‘superior’ than others.
Are we that arrogant to presume that we know more about what is the ‘Truth’ than those who achieved some sort of spiritual transcendence regardless of faith?
I think the latter choice you talked about is not true respect and harmony at all. In fact it’s mildly condescending.
True respect means an acknowledgment that you do not know enough about the other faiths to comment on which is better, because all these faiths must’ve made some sense to attract so many followers throughout the centuries, and the faith that you chose/have is the one that makes the most sense to you. True respect is SEEING the value and beauty of the other faiths, and not just simply ‘agree to disagree’ but privately feeling smugly superior about one’s beliefs. True respect is seeing that the Truth that you hold is not the whole picture, but that every other faiths hold chunks of the larger Truth even though you may not know how they all actually fit together.
Anything less than that is mere tolerance.
hi Inix,
thanks for the compliment.
i think the deeply religious should sometimes step back once in awhile to reflect on their religious devotion. done correctly & periodically, it will act as a safeguard to prevent any form of abuse by persuasive & enigmatic “leaders” who may abuse the position of influence.
until then, most deeply religious persons will be too attached to the place of worship, religious leaders & even bonds with individuals that have formed over time. an attack, real or perceived will instinctively be responded with highly emotionally charged retort or outright condemnation.
i am getting a hint of superiority complex here somewhere.
come on, reasoning alone does not make 1 superior over another. that would be soo shallow.
if the Truth can be put in words, read 1 time like a book can liao. there would not be a need for places of worship where people gather. the money saved is no small change.
Zefly,
“Are we that arrogant to presume that we know more about what is the ‘Truth’ than those who achieved some sort of spiritual transcendence regardless of faith? I think the latter choice you talked about is not true respect and harmony at all. In fact it’s mildly condescending.”
I think it’s not about who’s arrogant or not, but how we think we can derive at Truth. For me, I am a strong believer in rationalism, where we can get closer truth by reasoning. Therefore, we can get closer to Truth by reasoning alone.
On the other hand, I also believe that reasoning alone cannot bring us to the destination. This means that while we can get CLOSER to the truth, we may never attain a complete idea of it. If there is no value in reason, why the human obsession with science and philosophy?
I am not trying to feel smug about other religions. Rather, I aim to derive answers by reason, and to see where are the limits of reason. That is all I’m doing. I take NO pleasure in feeling superior over another religion.
Actually, I’m sensing a dangerous backslide into relativism. We must be careful to distinguish respect for others’ beliefs from the relativist viewpoint that there is no absolute truth or that we’re incapable of knowing it. No one can consistently be a relativist: even the person who argues for tolerance and respect holds them out as ‘objectively true’ principles.
Respect for others’ beliefs does not mean we cannot be convinced that there is indeed one version which is objectively true (although no currently existing religion may offer that one ‘right answer’), or that other versions are clearly false (Pastafarianism, for example).
Respect for others’ beliefs does mean listening to views we disagree with: “They’ve thought deeply about the matter, and arrived at a different conclusion from me, so perhaps they may have a point here.” So we should be prepared to accept that we are fallible, and may be mistaken.
But in our daily lives, we cannot and do not act from uncertainty; we try to act based on what we believe, in good faith and on the best evidence available at the time, to be true or right. And in that sense, we’re holding out those beliefs as ‘objectively true’, even if they are provisional and open to future revision.
Terence (#40),
To add on to Zef’s comments in #45:-
1) Perhaps you should make that vantage point clearer. You didn’t really state it; in fact, you went as far as to claim that you were like speaking from an “official government channel”.
2) Probably we should, since we have people like smallvice anyway who will try to convince everybody that all theology is nonsense.
3) Well, you must aim to transcend that bias in order to be objective.
4) Perhaps, you didn’t mean to, but some of your statements did sound like potshots. “If they don’t … then how …” is a rhetorical potshot, so is “why worship …”.
5) Actually there is a third school, that can be so dubbed the “Indian Blind Men” School after the famous Hindic (Hindu/Indian) fable. Basically, that each religion holds a partial truth, and some aspects of that truth are more more true than their counterparts in other religions, while other aspects are less true. This is not because of intentional lying or fabrications by corrupt religious leaders, but because each religion (“blind man”) senses the Divine (“elephant”) differently.
For instance, this school will argue that Hindus see the “exterior” aspect of God, while Christians see the “interior” aspects of God. So each takes a photo from its individual vantage point.
Thus, all religions can actually be integrated – if people are willing to try – into one Great Religion that describes fully all the aspects of the Divine. This even applies to Buddhism, although Buddhists love circumlocution to prove that they don’t believe in God. Actually they do, just in a far more abstract and less anthropomorphic form than the other religions. Buddhists do not believe in a god, but they do believe in God. Actually, Buddhism comprehends the “God is” in Exodus far better than the Jews themselves.
The Muslims make a valid criticism that the Christian focus on “God as Man” (i.e. in Christ) and the vagueness of the Trinitarian Doctrine dilutes the “God is” identity of God. But, they don’t express it in the proper language. The real ambiguity in the Trinitarian Doctrine is whether the “Son” is Jesus or the Christ. If the idea is that the “Son” is Jesus, then the Muslim critique is spot-on, but that is supposedly the Arian Heresy; if the “Son” is the Christ, then the question is: how much of Jesus is left in the Christ? If Jesus no longer exists in the Christ, then we are straying toward the Gnostic Heresy, which declared that there was no real Jesus in the first place.
Unsurprisingly, I belong to this school.