Should proselytisation by religious groups be allowed in Singapore?
The following is a letter to the Straits Times forum page (21 August 2009).
WRITING this letter has weighed on my heart for a long time, and I cannot agree more with Mr Harvey Neo (‘Timely reminder’, Tuesday).
Like him, I remember my sisters taking me to church to ‘share’ the good news with me in the 1970s. Unfortunately for them, even as a primary school child, I knew I wanted to be a Buddhist. As I grew older, I remember them asking, ‘Why must Muslims eat halal food? Isn’t chicken just chicken?’, to which I shot back, ‘Then why do you not eat food mum has offered at the altar?’ That somehow made them realise – to each his own practice and show respect for other religions.
I am fortunate to be married to an understanding Christian husband, but not before I stated before we married that that he should stop preaching to me and hoping for my conversion. Unfortunately, my other relatives seem a little overzealous and overbearing at times, commenting that I am ‘stubborn’ not to go to church, and since my husband is already a Christian, I should follow as a dutiful wife – ‘so you can be in heaven together’ – even though I have stated I am a Buddhist time and again.
They also have a fear of diluting their children’s faith and will not register them in a Buddhist-associated school, even though it is a few minutes’ walk away. As for my daughter, I had no problem with her attending a Christian kindergarten. I feel it only healthy we should not segregate schools according to their religion.
My mother is likewise not spared by my overzealous siblings. She was hospitalised a few times, and without fail, my siblings will organise church members to visit and pray. Being nice and not wanting to offend, she agreed.
They took a step further and suggested she attend church and convert, but she declined using the excuse that my father would not go. What shocked me was, to them, it was all right if he did not go, it is her choice. Do they not know that is like breaking them up? Does she have to tell them straight to the face, no, she does not want to go? She has since made it clear to my siblings that the church members should not be informed if she is taken ill again. My mother is so fearful of a death- bed conversion – she has witnessed a few – that she has considered booking a niche in a Buddhist columbarium.
As for myself, I have stressed to my daughter and husband that if death should claim me one day, I be given a simple Buddhist funeral and my ashes scattered over the sea. It has become a joke with my best friend, that I should go first as I need her to oversee it!
Jeannie Tan (Ms)
———
These are some of the comments published by the Straits Times on the issue of religious proselytisation. (Source)
MS CHAN LAI GWEN: ‘It is inevitable that a multi-religious society will see a spike in religious activity spurred by spiritual fervour. Proselytisation, or evangelism, in its mildest form will occur naturally. So banning it is impossible unless one views it as seditious and is quick to invoke the law. Such a measure will be detrimental to racial and religious harmony. We should accept and embrace an exchange of religious ideas and end the discussion amicably if disagreements arise.’
Evangelism
‘Each individual has a right to propagate his belief within reasonable limits.’
MADAM YEO MENG ENG: ‘Mr Harvey Neo’s letter on Tuesday (‘Timely reminder’) objects to Christian teachers, nurses and doctors who proselytise. While we must be mindful of causing undue offence, each individual has a constitutional right to freedom of religion, and to profess, practise and propagate his belief within reasonable limits. A more nuanced approach is not to eliminate all forms of religious values in the public sphere, but to decide what is appropriate.’
So what’s changed?
‘When I was a teenager, my classmates criticised my Catholicism. Recently, my teenage son was similarly criticised.’
MS JENNIFER WEE: ‘When I was a teenager in the 1980s, I was traumatised when Christian classmates at Anglican High School criticised my Catholicism, labelled my belief satanic and showed me literature for good measure. I am sceptical if such evangelism has stopped. Recently, my teenage son was similarly criticised for his Catholic beliefs. There must be something wrong with the view that it is all right to evangelise as not everyone is easily offended. Well, if there is a chance that someone may be religiously offended, then it shouldn’t be said.
Greatest threat
‘Proselytisation is most dangerous at workplaces where superiors try to impose their beliefs on subordinates.’
MR WILLIAM TAY: ‘As a student of St Joseph’s Institution in the 1960s, we had prayers in class and Bible Knowledge as a subject. But the LaSalle brothers who ran the school did not proselytise Catholicism to me. My work experience tells me proselytisation is most dangerous at workplaces where superiors try to impose their religious beliefs on their subordinates. It is also sad, as PM Lee noted, that some children stay away from their parents’ funeral because they believe the traditional rites are against their new 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
198) Jaded
I wish you will keep quiet before shooting your “mouth” off here…
“1.want to avoid suffering? don’t become a human being or animal
2.cause of sufferning…because you are a human being
3. end of suffering…. death
4. the path to end of suffering is don’t be a human being.”
And that’s what happen after he attain enlightenment as he has move out of the cycle of reincarnation and won’t have to go through suffering again…the problem is with yourself and only you yourself can get pass it…
Geez….how you go around shooting your mouth off without a substantial understanding of others shows us how jaded you are towards others…oh, that’s your nick right?
“In post 4 I showed that Dawkins’ argument against design in nature is surprisingly weak. I gave links to some of my writings that describe an alternative view. According to this alternative view, evolution is exactly as science says it is (with no Intelligent Design theory or other aberrations), but there still can be real design in nature.”
Designing is a by-product of the subversion of human evolutionary goals. What he is saying here is that because the human brain is said to be mechanistic and seemingly rigid, it would therefore be incapable of creativity. That’s pseudoscience essentially. A rudimentary understanding of the adaptive nature of the human brain and its plasticity would be adequate to understand that matter can be manipulated by human beings to achieve human goals. And that includes even the matter that which our brain is. And then he talks about how there are perfection in the things humans design contrary to the imperfection that Dawkins supposedly claim. Perfection is an illusion. It flies directly oppositional to evolution for it assumes that there are matters in this world that can be perfect enough to not ever evolve again. As the cliche goes, “the only certain thing in life is change”.
“In post 5 I showed that Dawkins’ ideas about the origins of religion are irrelevant to the truth of belief in God. Even if religion comes from lowly evolutionary sources, it may still turn out to be partly true. Also, I offered my own suggestion for a source of religious belief.”
I agree with his claim that even if religion is the product of backward civilization, it can still be valid. But I absolutely reject his suggestions of a transcendence in our world. Order is beautiful because it aids our everyday lives. The same goes for goodness. In short, aesthetic claims are simply the elevation of what’s advantageous to ourselves to a higher consciousness. The day he finds a deformed baby beautiful and good and then attribute it to some form of intelligent designer, then I’ll probably believe him. Until then, it’s just circular logic really.
“In post 6 I took on Dawkins’ claim that religion causes evil. I pointed out that his many examples of religious evil are examples of “bad” religion (as defined in the post). These examples show that “bad” religion causes evil, but they tell us absolutely nothing about “good” religion (also defined in the post). Also, I showed that Dawkins’ polemic against faith works only against unreasonable, morally insensitive forms of faith. ”
If believers execute the commandments expressed in holy books, then religion should be held accountable for its role in the evil exacted. If we are to accept that god’s words are eternal and fundamental to our every existence, then there’s no reason to believe that it would be malleable to human societal rules in any period of our history. When god orders the killing of the innocents, he is endorsing murder on anyone who opposes him, certainly not a specific group of people in a specific period of time. It would be ludicrous to argue that god has to appeal to the senses of humans when he could test abraham’s faith without realizing that abraham has difficulty understanding his will.
“In post 7 I pointed out two places where Dawkins grossly misrepresents the ideas of opposing thinkers. These examples don’t bear directly on arguments about God, but they raise doubts about the credibility of the book.”
I shall no respond then.
“In post 8 I showed that the higher percentage of atheists among scientists and other educated people proves nothing about the truth or rationality of atheism. ”
Scientists function on the scientific method which revolves around observations of evidence, a methodology aligned with that of atheism (No evidence of god, therefore no god). Granted, not every scientist used the same method in the workplace to understand religious beliefs. Some knowingly suspend their skepticism in order to reconcile with their religious beliefs. But I dare say here that any individual who has examined religious claims, searching for conclusive evidence, will inevitably become an atheist by virtue of his failure to find any.
“In post 9 I rebutted Dawkins’ claim that science rules out miracles. I did not argue for the reality of miracles, but I showed that some miracles might be compatible with science.”
Miracles are not compatible with science until proven unequivocally. There’s a distinction between justified beliefs and knowledge. One can argue that there are miracles in this world when he says that praying to taoist gods for 4D numbers helped him strike the lottery. But chances are, he would not be able to replicate his success consistently and frequent enough to qualify his claim as a scientific one. It’s a justified belief at best.
“In post 10 I exposed Dawkins’ harsh anti-religious rhetoric for what it is: a form of discourse which, if used in other circumstances, might be considered hate speech. Also, I pointed out some bad reasons why people might find The God Delusion convincing.”
I find it hard not to be emotional when confronted with lies brazenly spread around. Don’t we all? There’s a limit to political correctness. And the so called “bad reasons” he has to offer? As I’ve addressed them in prior posts, religion is causally related to evil and it’s certainly not sophistry to portray it as such.
Budamax1952, I am no great believer in religions and for that matter even in the concept of God. I am nearer to the rationalist and hence not restrained from commenting liberally. I am only against people boasting about their own religion and running down the religion of others and trying to convert others to their religion, especially targeting the vulnerable (the very young and old) knowing full well that they are from other faiths. I respect the faith of others and their beliefs and practices. I am also interested in the subject of spirituality and have attended several talks given by visiting theologians at churches, temples and mosques.
I have no doubt that you are a Buddhist. Congrats. I have always considered the Buddhists the most rational and peace-loving relative to practitioners of all other faiths. Your comment reflects this – very measured and composed, devoid of acrimony. Thanks for your explanation – another tutorial for me!
Peace be unto you and all.
202) Yamamoto on August 24th, 2009 11.05 pm
,
Hey, Yamamoto, please refute my reasoning instead of crying foul.
Tell me which one is not true or illogical.
Suffering is inherent in human being. Life is not bed of roses only death is.You will roses and other flowers thrown on your dead body.
You see where I am coming from? Which great leader didn’t suffer and was looking to escape from it. Jesus suffered 3 days in hell for you and me and everyone else in order to free you and me.He didn’t try to escape or avoid. He went through it to free mankind of eternal wrath and condemnation. Suffering is human.Being a Christian is suffering too. As I said only death is bed of roses.
Are we capable of love without god in our lives? And if so….WHY THE HELL DO WE NEED HIM? LOL :D
Meditaional practices taught by the Buddha have scientifically been studied and is shown to produce significant real changes to the body and results in a happier mind. That is why the Buddha never try to answer questions pertaining to the origin of universe etc. He only advised his followers to practice and do good and the results can be proven to be real. See link below for example. Many of these interesting results have been published in serious peer-reviewed scientific journals. In a way, the Buddha has left with the world, I am not sure about other religions, something that is beneficial and can be verified scientifically.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html
Research has shown that religious people tend to be healthier than non-religious people. Big deal. Still says nothing about whether religious claims are true or false. Oh and btw, drugs produce the greatest pleasure known to man by increasing our dopamine levels to unprecedented levels. Let’s all start taking drugs, shall we? :D
//209) OriginalResonance on August 25th, 2009 12.59 am Research has shown that religious people tend to be healthier than non-religious people. Big deal. Still says nothing about whether religious claims are true or false. Oh and btw, drugs produce the greatest pleasure known to man by increasing our dopamine levels to unprecedented levels. Let’s all start taking drugs, shall we? //
But drugs are additive and harmful.
Jaded @ 206
Jesus suffered 3 days in hell for you and me and everyone else in order to free you and me.
You see, thats why sometimes some people will feel disturb by this sentence you wrote. Why? You address this to Yamamoto. Is he a christian? Did he believe that Jesus free him? I am involve too because you mention everyone else. Its always about sensitivity or the lack of it that you are showing.
These are some typical cases i mentioned earlier that occur frequently in our society. I was approached by christian before to share their religion. After i politely declined twice , they could utter something like what you mention, further continue to demine my religion that my gods or idols could not have done.
Jaded, by the way, according to my religion, the earth was a very difficult place to live in because of a demon who terrorised the people. The Jade Emperor, was cultivation this land for you and me. In order to save you and me and everyone else, he rose to challenge it. He suceeded in defeating it. Hence, he is proclaimed the Jade Emperor the supreme sovereign of all.
Just wanting to share my religion. You can always approach me if you are interested.
Correction for my post @ 211
After i politely declined twice , they could utter something like what you mention, further continue to demean (instead of demine) my religion that my gods or idols could not have done.My apology.
“Are we capable of love without god in our lives? ”
If you can breathe without the air
If you can see without your eyes
If you have brought yourself to your own birth
and can DIRECT your own internal organs at
will,
Then maybe you might be capable of your own
things without God in your life. ;-)
OriginalResonance (#200, #203, #204),
I wonder …. did you really bother to read this guy’s refutations in detail? And incidentally, he is an Agnostic, not a Theist.
His Refutation against the Argument from Improbability is quite long too.
Your counter-argument to this Agnostic’s Post 4 is interesting too. I suppose that while counter-arguing Post 4, you forgot that the standard Argument From Evolution is that Evolution determines the structure of the Brain, which in turn determines everything we call “aesthetic” and “Creative”. But you undermine this Central Atheist Argument when you say that even the brain is malleable to Human Creativity. So then, you have just proven that human creativity is something transcendent to evolutionary biology, haven’t you?
As for you feeling emotional over lies, I am sure me and Jaded feel just as emotional over the lies you are spreading about our religion, and the Agnostic feels just as emotional over Dawkins’ Brazen lies about major philosophers like Spinoza and Descartes, as well as Agnosticism in general. Honestly, your emotional appeal argument has little merit.
“Miracles are not compatible with science until proven unequivocally.” I thought one of the key principles of Science is that nothing can ever be “proven unequivocally”?
Seriously, all I can see from your “Refutation” is the same shallowness of philosophical inquiry I see in Dawkins. But well, I did expect that.
OriginalResonance (#193),
Religion is not a “Fantasy Indulgence”!!!!!! I have been patient with you so far, but you are really pushing the limit….
This discussion thread seems to be getting out of hand. Think it would be best to shut it before everyone gets all emotional and riled up here.
206) Jaded on August 25th, 2009 12.21 am
Jaded the Baby, you were the one crying foul and shooting your mouth off, sprouting nonsense…
Buddha has already attain enlightenment before his death, and to him, death was the release from this world and the escape from the reincarnation cycle…
Sorry Jaded, I don’t believe that Jesus suffer for Me, for you perhaps…but not for me…so don’t anyhow sputter nonsense again ok? For me, it is buddha who went through the suffering which lead to the development of buddhist teaching…and I won’t say he suffer to free you….since you are not a buddhist…
oh yes, btw Jaded, “Hey, Yamamoto, please refute my reasoning instead of crying foul. Tell me which one is not true or illogical.”
Likewise, you have always been the one crying foul, trying to play the martyr here…and saying false and illogical stuff….so speak for yourself please
Sigh
Judging by the reaction from this forum, i think/believe that the goverment need to level the playing field once again.
Proselytisations should not be encourage at all in public sphere AT ALL!
All devotees should lead by examples and if there are real candidate wishing to convert (after they are moved by their action and morality), they can approach the ‘legal’ instititution ie church, temple and mosque etc.
This is perhaps the only way to ensure religion harmony that we take for granted.
Sigh sigh sigh
[216]
No, stick to status quo.
TOC can always issue a precaution to anyone found guilty of ad hominem, or delete his/her post and then post a message to keep all informed of its action. That should suffice as notice to all participants to keep within the rules of engagement.
To TOC: Can you tell us the reason[s] for prohibiting the quoting of passages from the Bible and/or other religious text ? What about quoting only verse[s] ref no?
The Bible/Quran is freely available for perusal from the Internet. When we are discussing a subject such as God or religion, everything seems to become intertwined. And sometimes points can only be made clear or meaningful by quoting directly from the source.
[#215 New Renaissance]
“Religion is not a “Fantasy Indulgence”!!!!!!”
Maybe; maybe not. But it is certainly an area that we should discuss freely and openly.
And when it comes to the God of Abraham, I have a lot to discuss, and I would, if allowed, use the Bible, wherein he is portrayed as a father-figure, to say things about him, based on textual evidence.
Are you a Christian and, if so, are you familiar with biblical stories?
[#213 Rainnes MURTABA]
What is this God you are referring to?
The so-called Intelligent Designer, Creator of the Universe, of everything you see around you and of all the stupidities or examples of unintelligence that pervade our existence?
Are you one of those who think that God created humankind unto his image, for a special purpose, for example to worship him [or it, or she or he, or some bizarre combination of?] and be happy with him in Never-never-land?
Tell us about this God of yours.
#207 OriginalResonance
“Are we capable of love without god in our lives? And if so….WHY THE HELL DO WE NEED HIM? LOL ”
But of course we are, or some of us are, capable of living our lives with love, without reference to any god or any imagined being.
There are people, and I am one of them, who have carefully assessed their own beliefs and the beliefs of those around them, particularly those linked to the existence of God/god, and who have arrived at the conclusion that God/god is a creation of humanity, not the creator of humanity. While we have lots of evidence of the ingenuity and creativity of humanity, there is no empirical evidence, not even an iota, of this being they call God/god.
The creation of God/god has been one of the reasons for some, or much, of the suffering of humanity throughout the ages.
To God/god believers: Would you please reflect on what the world was like say, 5,000 years ago and now?
The vast improvements to the living standards of humanity, you cannot deny, are the result of human ingenuity and creativity, arising from the help of science and technology, not religion.
To Christians on this thread: I would request you to read, in the event you are still ignorant, about the suck-egg type of advice given by the God of Abraham to the Hebrews, which can be found aplenrty in the Old Testament. And if you tell me we should relate to the times when such things allegedly took place, when people were horridly ignorant, my response is to ask you to think of God being a stupid creator for creating a bunch of ignorant or stupid people as his followers or chosen people.
How can you tell whether your wife is being unfaithful? Read Numbers 5.11 -31.
These lines tell you of your God’s testing procedures for any suspicion you may have been harboring about the plausibility of your wife being unfaithful to you.
Should Proselytisation be allowed?
If we can ‘allow’ advertisements, cultural celebrations, political discussions, ‘talk cock’ sessions, etc, the question ought to be, ‘should yet another point of view be allowed?’
In the sense that ‘proselytisation’ is an attempt to engender understanding and agreement, whether it is in the name of Jesus or Sony ought not to be an issue.
In the long term we all eventually die.
Time to close this thread. It is leading no where. Either you believe or don’t believe.
You may want to ex-atheist top scientist, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (the most advance discovery in biology todate) speak on “The Language of God”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y
to rwck,
If the belief in ‘God’ can lead to greater expressions of love amongst some, so be it.
If many are capable of love without god, ask yourselves if this is not, in part, due to our learning the intricacies of love via the byproduct of religion as manifested in social relationships and mores. We may not have to be an adherent of a faith to be incorporated into its perspectives through the social practice of its tenets.
As for empirical evidence being required for the proof of the existence of God. Whilst i do subscribe to the scientific method, i’m also aware that it narrows our ability to understand on the basis of the methods it utilises to discern reality. Let’s not forget that that which science can prove today, it could not prove yesterday. Does that mean that that which it can prove today is not true given science’s inability to prove it yesterday? If anything, science enables us to discover sensorial reality. However, and simultaneously, it can serve to blind us to our other senses with its general focus on the empirical and the ensuing underdevelopment of our other senses.
There is God in science.
Her/is name is The Inductive Method. That is, ‘the inference of general laws from the consideration of specific instances’. In other words, with attention to that which science cannot explain via the deductive method, the idea of the empirical may be expanded. That, sir, is God. God, as an idea, is the final bulwark against the arrogance of modernity – where people believe that they have arrived upon the shores of the promised land and believe themselves to be on the right course. Much is institutionalised then, and the people move on without questioning the fundamental variables that comprise the foundation of ‘civilisation’. Such periods have existed throughout the high-points of various civilisational histories throughout human history.
God, given Her/is attributed omnipresence/omniscience/etc is the final illustration of the perspective, ‘there is more to that which you take to be true’; ‘that which you believe to be true might very well be evil, and vice versa.
Anyway, your arguments here are largely based on your depreciation/appreciation of Christianity. To attempt to comprehend God, one has to avail oneself of perspectival keys afforded us by various religions.
Finally, without the belief in God, science would not have existed. The belief in God gives carte blanche to the human imagination as it is simultaneously beyond complete human comprehension. In this, the human imagination’s boundaries were kept limitless and thus pregnant with the potential of creating science and overthrowing the old class system-embedded ‘religion’. However, narrowing the human imagination by a religious belief in science undoes the perspectival basis upon which science arose. In this, paradoxically, the humanist project is undone.
When in conversation with some ‘black metalists’ more than a decade ago who kept pondering on the question, ‘does God exist’?, i told them not to focus on that which civilisation has deprived us of the methods to discover. Rather, i directed, our inquiries ought to be geared toward asking the question, ‘Is it right to believe in God/s’.
amen
ed
Singapore is still at its infancy stage with regards to religious matters. There is not enough inter-religious dialogues like in th US. Religion has been given a certain deference which it does not deserve and this is the only discourse where deference is given. That’s why the religionists get bolder because their views are not challenged openly in open debates.
I dont think there’s any significant different if we have open debate with the religionist.
The starting platform is totally different. Science and Logic does not applies to those that believe in Creationism (for example)
Therefore the only outcome is a standoff where to each its own.
But the question here is proselytisation, and its limit (if any).
Factors ie age limits and level of tolerance acceptable is a suitable way of regulating its effect on the mainstream society which is multi-religious based.
We have yet to reach a conclusion.
Sigh. Its a pointless debate when no common ground can be found to address such issue.
Ed (#226)
“Finally, without the belief in God, science would not have existed. The belief in God gives carte blanche to the human imagination as it is simultaneously beyond complete human comprehension. ”
Try applying the same argument to those in Woodbridge. If you can defend them this way, I’ll grant you the argument. When you live in this world that we all live in, it would be implored upon you to function only on logic and observations. Giving credence to all imagination will just open a can of worms. Making ontological claims about how god or life should be without proving so is nothing but the ramblings of a mad man. The sad thing is you’re not alone. The day you can imagine god without the utility of your material brain, inform me.
Kezu (#228)
There can never be a common ground when atheists demand evidence of the divine while the deluded believers take pride in being irrational, functioning on the premise that just because we humans do not know everything YET, there must be some form of higher esoteric understanding that only god can provide. In psychology, the term for this is confabulation i.e fill in the gaps with false memories.
“Ahh….but there is once a point in time, that the matyrs been kill were not the christians and the one doing the kills were….the crusaders….”
The same Crusaders who backstabbed their own Byzantine Christian allies? Since when did I call them matyrs?
”
Apology to JayF, JustKayPoh, Jaded,
I am sorry to use very harsh and hurting words on you…
This shouldnt happen in the debate, i offer my sincere apology to all three of you, particularly Jaded, as she is a female.
Post #218 (To-TOC-admin on August 25th, 2009, 9.39am)
You are right, i am getting too emotional, i shouldnt call them names, even though my intention is to demonstrate their way of argument…
Dear Moderator of TOC, please delete my post in these religious thread.”
No need for apologies. An insult is more than welcome by someone who fervently believes and is willing to go to defend it.
I do not agree with what you say and I will make fun of you for saying it. But I will not stop you from saying it.
230) JayF
You never called the crusaders Martyr…you were just saying that christians are the martyr getting killed now…when in fact, in the past, the ones doing the killing were christians and those been killed, those Martyrs were of another beliefs…
Yamamoto,
Dont forget the inquisitions, from spanish to portugese and etc.
Where the one killing and dying are both of the same faith but different denomination.
sigh sigh
Ed
It depends on how it is done…comparing a religion against a commercial entity and how they do marketing is simply…funny…
“In the sense that ‘proselytisation’ is an attempt to engender understanding and agreement, whether it is in the name of Jesus or Sony ought not to be an issue.”
If it is merely an attempt to engender understanding, we are ok with it…however when the people step over the line criticizing other beliefs and applying pressures using mean to convert others, thats a big no no…
however, that’s on my part…but there are those who will disagree with it and says that it is ok, as they benefit from it….look, if you are saying Sony as an example…why do they do advert/marketing? it is to create awareness and hopefully expand their customer base…so if you want something that is applicable for commercial entity to be applied to religion? how about religion generating profits just like commercial entity?
and 228) OriginalResonance, I totally agree with you on the part “Finally, without the belief in God, science would not have existed.”
Science have existed in China, and their beliefs in the past were that of buddhism, taoism etc etc….so how did they explain that?
[#225 ed]
Tks for the feedback.
“If the belief in ‘God’ can lead to greater expressions of love amongst some, so be it.”
Sure, I have no argument with that. If your beliefs make you a kind and charitable person, that would be exemplary of your beliefs and people who have benefited from your kindness and charity would no doubt appreciate.
“If many are capable of love without god, ask yourselves if this is not, in part, due to etc… to be an adherent of a faith to be incorporated into its perspectives through the social practice of its tenets.”
Well, there are people in the world who are totally atheistic, totally against religious beliefs, and yet capable of living a life of love and kindness toward others. Ask any atheist whether ethics or morality is a product or byproduct of religion and you will most probably receive a negative answer.
“As for empirical evidence being required for the proof of the existence of God. Whilst i do subscribe to the scientific method, i’m also etc …. other senses.”
Science deals with facts and scientific theories are not set in stone. As and when new info or new evidence is presented, calling for a reappraisal, any theory that is so impacted is then reviewed and revised or discarded where applicable. Please remember that a scientific theory is only accepted when it has been subjected to rigorous peer review. What cannot be tested or falsified is not science, whether or not it leads to underdevelopment of our senses.
“There is God in science.
Her/is name is The Inductive Method. That is, ‘the inference of general laws from the consideration of specific instances’. In other words, with attention to etc …. afforded us by various religions.”
God and science belong to different spheres. As an atheist I see nothing real in God; God to me is nothing more than a creation out of human imagination. This comment from John Desmond Bernal [1901-1971] says something about the nature of man: Man is occupied and has been persistently occupied since his separate evolution with three kinds of struggles: first with the massive unintelligent forces of nature, heat and cold, winds, rivers, matter and energy; secondly, with the things closer to him, animals and plants, his own body, its health and disease and lastly, with his desires and fears, his imagination and stupidities.
“Finally, without the belief in God, science etc ..”
You are free to continue with your beliefs. And I suppose you have read OriginalResonance’s response, vide #228.
Anyway,
humans are the one who perverse thoughts….we twist words to fit into our own agenda….
when something benefit us, we will utlize it…when it brings harm, we bury it or hide it…isn’t that seen here in singapore society *ahem*
Yamamoto (#234)
“and 228) OriginalResonance, I totally agree with you on the part “Finally, without the belief in God, science would not have existed.”
It was Ed who spouted this nonsense. I’m an Atheist. Why would I be this dumb? LOL :D Why are you guys obfuscating such a simple issue? We are born to be scientific, unless you’re telling me that babies do not use their senses until they learn of its use in science textbooks.
“Science have existed in China, and their beliefs in the past were that of buddhism, taoism etc etc….so how did they explain that?”
Human beings are complex. Those who believed in the existence of the underworld in the Tang Dynasty were also capable of using science to invent paper. It’s only when they abandon empiricism for bad philosophy then they screwed up. Think TCM, an ancient art that has no scientific basis other than the efficacy of some of the herbs the practicioners use. Using that to argue for the validity of TCM is like saying NTUC supermarket is a pharmacy because you can find fruits and vegetables there which are proven to be beneficial to our health. Think of it this way, the Chinese could make contributions to science DESPITE of their irrational beliefs in only certain aspects of living.
to rwck,
Firstly, thank your for your response.
“Well, there are people in the world who are totally atheistic, totally against religious beliefs, and yet capable of living a life of love”
That response evidences your missing my point. I have no doubt that there are (though the concept of atheism might itself be a fallacy…but that is another issue). My point is that ideas when persistent or pervasive enough embeds itself in our experience of things to the point that we might be unwitting practitioners of various faiths, ideologies, etc, without realising it, but attribute our practice of it to our own volition instead of our being an adherent of a faith.
From a personal experience, i never knew how indian culture had contributed to my rejecting the identity of ‘being indian’ by way of my family socialising myself into a skeptical, cosmopolitan or inclusive way of looking at things, amongst others. It was only 2 decades later that i traced the roots of this act via a psychological evaluation of the means via which my subconscious mind was influenced.
“God and science belong to different spheres.”
A true scientist does not only utilise the scientific method to discern reality, but keeps one’s mind open to the scientific method being amenable to change in the face of the supernatural or that which it’s methods are yet to be structured to discern – that is how science was born in the first place. That is why, for instance, at one time, psychic ability might have been discounted by science, but now, it is being studied. In this, the scientific method and the perspective founding it might be open to revision and refinement.
“God and science belong to different spheres. ”
I think i have sufficiently proved that they aren’t by the association of the idea of ‘God’ with the Inductive method. You need to be able to perform a paradigmatic shift to be able to appreciate that point.
“Please remember that a scientific theory is only accepted when it has been subjected to rigorous peer review. What cannot be tested or falsified is not science, whether or not it leads to underdevelopment of our senses.”
That is quite the dogmatic view of science. Being a scientist myself, i cannot accept such a stance as it goes against the foundations upon which science was built. The methods used to discern reality can at the same time impose the risk of our discounting realities or phenomena that our methods cannot explain. That is the embedded problem of all religions be they scientific or otherwise. Please remember that the underdevelopment of our senses is not the purpose of science. Rather, it is the study of the potentials, propensities and insights of our senses that concerns science.
“You are free to continue with your beliefs.”
That is not the question here.
postscript : i have to note that your quoting me and ending off with ‘etc etc’ tends to take my statement out of context and thus presents your response as answering my point…which it doesn’t. In this, it simply allows you to reiterate your point without answering my counter-point which is glossed over with an ‘etc’. I’m sure that is not your intention, though that is certainly the effect.
By the way, i am actually in agreement with most of your points. However, my scientific scepticism does not allow me to take any formulae which purports to discern reality without question. The only thing we can be certain of is the certainty of human fallibility. Whilst science certainly has alleviated humanity of a significant portion of this malaise, it is still a product of human fallibility.
to OriginalResonance,
I’ve read your replies and have to say that your stance is most Confucian and takes the world and the status quo as is, whilst attempting to make the best out of a product of the fallibility of humanity. Not progressive i’m afraid. You can rest assured that all the ecclesiastics of the past would have adopted your approach as well. Giving carte blanche to imagination ‘opening a whole can of worms’?! As i said, most Confucian of you.
If only more christians in Singapore are not of the type that think they are the only one with the truth, all the problems will not have arised. Read latest article in newsweek titled “we are all hindus now”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155/output/print
[#237 ed]
Tks for the response.
Now to clarify; due to space constraint, this post is divided into two or parts.
[1] Regarding your postscript.
[1a] Please note that each post is limited to a maximum of 500 words; any post that is in breach of this ruling [laid down by TOC] may not be accepted for publication, hence the abbreviation of excerpts from your post. I excerpted from your post as an indication of which area I was responding, and nothing more. If you had numbered your paragraphs it would have facilitated the use of paragraph number as a basis of reference. Any reader who is interested in following the discussions can always refer to the full text in your post.
[1b] I am glad to hear that you are actually in agreement with most of my points. That’s a huge relief!
[1c] Science if I am not incorrect does not embrace a 100 percent certainty; and that’s why scientific theories are understood to be provisional, to be challenged, reviewed, revised, or discarded or maintained as the case may be.
[2] My response: “ Well, there are people in the world who are totally atheistic, totally …..receive a negative answer ” to your comment: “If many are capable of love without god, ask yourselves if this is not, in part, due to etc… to be an adherent of a faith to be incorporated into its perspectives through the social practice of its tenets.”
[2a] I cannot see how I have missed your point. Atheism is not a faith. Atheists are capable of love and atheists are people who do not believe in God. I cannot see any relevance in this part of your sentence: “ask yourselves if this is not, in part, due to etc… to be an adherent of a faith to be incorporated into its perspectives through the social practice of its tenets.”
[3] Your explanation: My point is that ideas when persistent or pervasive enough embeds itself in our experience of things to the point that we might be unwitting practitioners of various faiths, ideologies, etc, without realising it, but attribute our practice of it to our own volition instead of our being an adherent of a faith. From a personal experience, i never knew how indian culture had contributed to my rejecting the identity of ‘being indian’ by way of my family socialising myself into a skeptical, cosmopolitan or inclusive way of looking at things, amongst others. It was only 2 decades later that i traced the roots of this act via a psychological evaluation of the means via which my subconscious mind was influenced.
[3a] I am unclear what it is you are projecting here.
[3b] Is this something to do with Richard Dawkins’ concept of “memes”?
Continuation of my #240 [to ed]
[4] Your views: A true scientist does not only utilise the scientific method to discern reality, but keeps one’s mind open to the scientific method being amenable to change in the face of the supernatural or that which it’s methods are yet to be structured to discern – that is how science was born in the first place. That is why, for instance, at one time, psychic ability might have been discounted by science, but now, it is being studied. In this, the scientific method and the perspective founding it might be open to revision and refinement.
[4a] My views: science does not deal with the supernatural, but this is not saying that no scientists believe in God or the supernatural. Of the scientists [majority from US and UK] who are affiliated to the US National Academy of Sciences, about 80-90 percent are said to be atheists. “Psychic ability” is apparently an area that comes under parapsychology but claims made by parapsychologists are open to criticism by scientists as they are not explainable by accepted principles of science.
[5] My views: “God and science belong to different spheres ”
[5b] Your views: I think i have sufficiently proved that they aren’t by the association of the idea of ‘God’ with the Inductive method. You need to be able to perform a paradigmatic shift to be able to appreciate that point.
[5c] Unable to share your viewpoint.
[6] My views: “Please remember that a scientific theory is only accepted when it has been subjected to rigorous peer review etc”
[6a] Your views: That is quite the dogmatic view of science. Being a scientist myself, i cannot accept such a stance as it goes against the foundations upon which science was built. The methods used to discern reality can at the same time impose the risk of our discounting realities or phenomena that our methods cannot explain. That is the embedded problem of all religions be they scientific or otherwise. Please remember that the underdevelopment of our senses is not the purpose of science. Rather, it is the study of the potentials, propensities etc.
[6b] Sorry, you can think what you want. I stand by what I have stated in [6].
[7] Your views: Finally, without the belief in God, science would not have existed. The belief in God gives carte blanche to the human imagination as it is simultaneously beyond complete human comprehension. In this, the human imagination’s boundaries were kept limitless and thus pregnant with the potential of creating science and overthrowing the old class system-embedded ‘religion’. However, narrowing the human imagination by a religious belief in science undoes the perspectival basis upon which science arose. In this, paradoxically, the humanist project is undone.
[7a] My views: “You are free to continue with your beliefs.”
[7b] Your response: That is not the question here.
[7c] Sorry, I don’t subscribe to your statement that “without the belief in God, science would not have existed”.
Ed (#238) Giving carte blanche to imagination ‘opening a whole can of worms’?! As i said, most Confucian of you.
Here’s what I said: “Giving credence to all imagination will just open a can of worms.”
First you accuse me of holding confucian beliefs without clarifying your argument. Then you purposefully omit parts of my argument just to construct a strawman. I will not grant u a rebuttal until you prove that you’re a worthy interlocutor.
to rwck,
Thank you very much for considering some of my points. As stated, i cannot but agree with just about all you have to say.
However, i reiterate, the best favour one can afford science is to keep alive the basis upon which it is founded – scepticism in the face of the belief that any particular, or contemporary, formulae can discern all of reality.
I.
All formulae for such ventures are predicated on our awareness of the sensorial tools that are at our disposal and not on all the tools that are at our disposal. In essence, it is this that fueled the spirit of the Reformation and Scientific Revolution. The demise of such a spirit ushers in the phenomenon of ‘modernity’ which returns civilisation to the auspices of the dogmatism of those times it displaced. It is this realisation that motivates much of my inquisitive ventures, along with my ‘opposition’ to your views.
You asked about the relevance of 2, 2a & 3.
II.
My point there is that when we say that atheists, etc, are capable of love without religion, we have to simultaneously acknowledge that their ability to articulate love without religion might very well be due to religious influence on civilisational and cultural evolution. Hence, it is very difficult to say that ‘we are’ despite this or that phenomena.
III.
One final point. I have never, for the past 2 decades, allowed myself the luxury of disagreeing with, or not subscribing to, anything unless i can prove why it is not true. It is only with such a perspective that the journey toward truth becomes, albeit unwitting, a collaborative venture, and it is only then we afford ourselves the opportunity to refine, revise, or revolutionise our views. If i can’t find anyone to disagree with me, then i will disagree with myself and inquire further. Hence, this, amongst a host of many others spread across various sites.
Thank you for reading my responses. Keep well mate.
to OR,
Perhaps i misunderstood you, but ‘giving credence to all imagination will just open a can of worms’ would be a typically ‘confucian’ view – from-within-the-box thinking; inclined toward dogmatism; frowning on popular intellectual individualism; subservience to top-down dictates; ‘one way’ mentality; discounting of opposition; etc. I ‘omitted’ nothing as what you had to say complements what i included. By the way, one does not have to consciously hold ‘x’ views to be a practitioner of it. But, this is beyond the scope of this topic, so I’ll rest there.
“The demise of such a spirit ushers in the phenomenon of ‘modernity’ which returns civilisation to the auspices of the dogmatism of those times it displaced.”
Eternal cynicism is not science. It’s dogmatism to an isolated facet of science. As I’ve said, if nothing can be true, then scientists wouldn’t be invested in their efforts. What’s true today is true today. The only reason why theories have faltered and being shaken up over the years is down to the fact that evolution is an unrelenting mechanism of nature.
“Perhaps i misunderstood you, but ‘giving credence to all imagination will just open a can of worms’ would be a typically ‘confucian’ view – from-within-the-box thinking; inclined toward dogmatism; frowning on popular intellectual individualism; subservience to top-down dictates; ‘one way’ mentality; discounting of opposition; etc. I ‘omitted’ nothing as what you had to say complements what i included. By the way, one does not have to consciously hold ‘x’ views to be a practitioner of it. But, this is beyond the scope of this topic, so I’ll rest there.”
What has the acceptance of irrationality gotta do with the subjugation of individualism? What has the acceptance of irrationality gotta do with out-of-the-box thinking? What has the acceptance of irrationality gotta do with egalitarianism? It’s mysticism that you’re advocating. That the average Joe on the street can just come up with his own ideas on medicine which he can quite eloquently expound on and gain enough support from the ignorant masses to open a clinic, devoid of any peer-reviewed medical knowledge. But the ethical, liberal egoist in me will gladly turn one eye away from these shenanigans and leave these fools to their own devices. For I know that the cream de la cream of society will always rise up to the fold. Long story short, if religious believers can’t prove god’s existence, then there’s no god. When they have any scant evidence, then scientists will sit up and listen, regardless of the social status of the claimant.
“My point there is that when we say that atheists, etc, are capable of love without religion, we have to simultaneously acknowledge that their ability to articulate love without religion might very well be due to religious influence on civilisational and cultural evolution. Hence, it is very difficult to say that ‘we are’ despite this or that phenomena.”
Show me a baby who prays for her mother whenever he/she is left alone. Show me how religious the experience is when a baby hugs his/her mother. Until then, I recommend that you do some reading up on endocrinology rather than just giving your unqualified opinions on the nature of love, based on your narrow personal experiences and the concomitant convictions that you would adopt.
Correction (#245)
“What has the acceptance of irrationality gotta do with the subjugation of individualism?”
It should be: “What has the acceptance of irrationality gotta do with individualism?”
“You never called the crusaders Martyr…you were just saying that christians are the martyr getting killed now…when in fact, in the past, the ones doing the killing were christians and those been killed, those Martyrs were of another beliefs…”
Actually sir I believe you are getting the matyr and victim definition confused. Not all victims are martyrs but all martyrs are victims. A martyr is defined as someone who died wrongfully in defense of a cause. A bystander who happened to be at the wrong place and the wrong time is a tragedy but can hardly be counted as those who died for the cause. The citizens of Jerusalem cannot be called martyrs since they weren’t killed in defense of anything, just plain victims.
Not to discount the tragedy of Jerusalem, but you really ought to realise your liberal use of that word really is insulting to martyrs of all faiths.
ahhh Mr JayF, so it is right of us to judge whether people did die for a cause or not? we are not them, i believe, so perhaps to you it isn’t a cause….but to their people?
oh come on mr JayF, infact your example of Martyrs are the insult to all faiths, since based on differing perceptions, some aren’t martyrs…some just ask for it…
On the subject of proselytisation at the workplace*: it’s already bad enough that employees display religious objects at the workplace (many an Order by firm or organisation would restrict the open display of religious objects and artefacts, restricting them only to that being worn on the body).
Employees who feel as if this kind of display threatens their belief do the same. I’ve seen colleagues bring images to the workplace, and Christians and Muslims bringing their Korans and their Bibles, all brazenly ignoring orders that anything associated, in material form, with religion is not to be brought into the workplace, which is suposed to be a secular environment.
Superiors usually “close an eye”, if they don’t participate, and atheists, agnostics, or even those who refuse to actively profess religious belief in a secular environment just tolerate what is seen as a contravention of rules very clearly spelled out to all.
*Assuming a workplace that is not a place of worship.
I recall having read articles published in The Straits Times about the issue of proselytisation. The consensus was that it should not be allowed in work places -offices, hospitals, etc.
Where proselytisation is clearly taking place where it is prohibited, it should be reported to the management, or the governing authority, as appropriate.
Stricter and clearer guidelines need to be established if necessary and enforced stringently if they are to be of any value.
I think there is a time and place for everything. There is a time and place to proselytise and not to proselytise.
The problem does not lie with proselytisation per se.