Wow....I learnt a new phrase today - "militant secularism".
Prof Thio's speech in parliament was report in today's TODAY:
Prof Thio argued: “Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously-informed convictions in public debate.” They do so “by demonising a view as religious in attempting to make religious faith a cause for embarrassment, or to distract citizens from the merits of an argument by discounting a speaker whose values are shaped by a religious” faith. Such militant secularism is “a recipe for social disharmony”, she added.
Actually, she's right. The environment for public discourse at the moment seems to me, a little lop-sided. One one hand, views based on religious convictions are easily demonized and discounted because of the religious affiliations of the proponent, while the opponent camp is relatively free to scream foul at every turn of the debate. I can understand and accept this if the secular voices are un-organized and free roaming, but if the secular views are part of an orchestrated chorus, shouldn't they be subject to the same criticisms and scrutinies levied against religious groups? I mean, isn't organized secularism just another religion?
I have raised this issue previously, independently of Prof Thio (whom I am not acquainted with at all), but it appears that she is voicing similar reservations that I had.
Posts
Six Years
13 years ago
52 comments:
"isn't organized secularism just another religion?"
Not in the strict sense of the word, of course. Certainly secularists do not claim to have a divinely-inspired mission to shape the nation according to the will of a diety, or their interpretation of the same.
But if an ideological group claims that their belief are absolute and infallible, and tries to stamp out all questions and challenges to them, then in that respect it becomes "just another religion".
(Not sure if the first attempt got through. Nice to see we disagree again.)
I think that contemporary history has shown that there is something in man that needs to and actually craves to believe something deeply.
Karl Marx called religion the opium of the masses, but communism turned out to be the heroin of the workers. Nazism, while trying to destroy Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism, tried to build a new religion out of a mish-mash of old German gods and misinterpretations and rantings of pre-WWI Austrian demagogues. Closer to home and time, there was the amazing and sad scenes of Chinese waving little red books and smashing symbols of ancient China, but replacing the stones and wooden statues with pictures of Mao Zedong.
More critically, Prof Thio put out a good point that religion and secularism is not mutually exclusive. Many secular values merge with and agree with religious values. How can you sack or persecute a Christian or a Muslim who dedicates himself/herself to family and country because of his/her faith? Religion, rather as a divisive hammer, can be a glue that holds society together when managed and guided wisely. Leaders should be wise to realize that many noble ideals and motivating forces stem from religious beliefs. This is even more important when we realize that people craves a religion, whether or not there is a deity or human behind it. Hence religions should be co-opted into countries and policies, not persecuted and excluded.
Finally, from this recent AWARE debacle, we must stand firm and fight for secularism's true meaning. It should be a common ground for all religions and atheists in a country, not a ring that excludes people with religious beliefs. This has been used by homosexual proponents to push out anybody with beliefs contrary to their own. We must also not allow so-called, or pseudo-secularists to occupy the high ground whereby they could equate acceptance of homosexuality with secularism.
Anon,
I think you manage to identify why some ideologies are destructive - an unquestioning faith in the infallibility of the ideology, and an intolerance of challenge to that faith. These can be the features of many political ideologies, but it is the cornerstone of all religions (OK, let's leave Buddhism aside for this discussion...).
The facts that "[m]any secular values merge with and agree with religious values" and "many noble ideals and motivating forces stem from religious beliefs" are not reasons to accept that religions have a place in public policies, because secular values can exist without religions, and that noble ideals and motivating forces can come from non-religious sources. People can be good without religion, and people can do good things without gods telling them to.
Any set of values, when deeply believed in and dearly held, can be a potent force, be it for good or evil. How do we sieve the good that comes with a set of values from the bad? Through reason and discourse. But religions, by their very nature, defy reason, and gods (like Hitlers and Stalins) brook no arguments. I believe we should aspire towards a political system that does not rely on a cult of a deity or personality, but one which encourages participation, discourse based on reason, and accountability to our fellow men.
As for your final paragraph, I think you, like Dr Thio, are mistaken in thinking that there is such a thing as an organised secular homosexual-proponent force in Singapore. As far as I can tell, the people who rallied behind the Old Guard were a mish-mash of people with different agendas who have come together to fight something they perceived as a greater threat. I myself supported the Old Guard on my blog as a militant atheist (alongside "moderate" Christians whom I have little else in common with) and as a "supporter of love" - a term I just made up, since I don't qualify as a gay rights activist - alongside "secularists", although I will fight for love against secular homophobes in the blink of an eye too.
So no, it wasn't a case of secularism vs. religion, but a whole bunch of people pissed with a group of people trying to impose their values on a public organisation that affects the many, when that set of values is founded not upon reason but on belief, and when their actions may result in harm to others.*
(* - Now undoubtedly the New Guard may have thought of the AWARE CSE the same way, but AWARE does not defend the CSE as a divine dictat, and the results of a CSE vs. 'abstinence only' programmes can be discussed intelligently, and there is no evidence of 'harm' in the form of 'a generation of lesbians' seen yet.)
AngryDoc,
"But if an ideological group claims that their belief are absolute and infallible, and tries to stamp out all questions and challenges to them, then in that respect it becomes "just another religion"."
I don't think it was ever brought to the extreme was it? I don't think there was any attempt by anyone, certainly don't recall the new guard attempting to stamp out all questions....in fact it seemed like it was the converse that was true, the old guard supporters straightaway cried foul because of the religious affiliations of the new guard. It was immediately assumed they could not hold office because of their strong religious (personal) convictions.
I really don't think Christianity places itself above questioning and challenges. It has been whacked through the ages, and bibles have been burnt.
But I digress. The point is in this debate, the default appeared to be that somehow opinions were not valid if they were based on strong religious convictions, and that only secular views are acceptable.
"So no, it wasn't a case of secularism vs. religion, but a whole bunch of people pissed with a group of people trying to impose their values on a public organisation that affects the many, when that set of values is founded not upon reason but on belief, and when their actions may result in harm to others.*"
Actually, AngryDoc, it was really a case of a bunch of angry people who felt done in against another bunch of people who felt they had been done in.
From where I sit (my armchair at 6am in the morning..)...both sides demonized the other as being part of an orchestrated movement to hijack the AWARE mission. I actually don't think that either was true. The new guard wasn't part of a organized church mission, just a bunch of like-minded people who wanted to see certain things happen. Likewise, the old guard wasn't 'hijacked' by an organized militant gay group, but merely populated by a bunch of like-minded people who wanted to see certain things happen.
Misperceptions all round. This is how wars often begin.
In response to Anon, I pulled this definition off the internet:
secular, Adjective
1. relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things
2. not connected with religion or the church
3. (of clerics) not bound by religious vows to a monastic or other order [Late Latin saecularis]
It seems to me (pre-morning teh-see), strictly speaking, a Christian expressing opinions about non-church things are also secular, despite having opinions shaped by religious believes. Secularism isn't about the source of your beliefs, rather the object of your opinions.
So actually we are all secularists. Nice to know we have some unity here.:)
I think religion has been unfairly tarnished by relatively few world events. By contrast, the reality is that most major crimes to humanity have secular origins.
I am of the view that 'secularism' (whatever it may mean, is as much a belief system as any religion, and we should not hide behind that label as if it automatically confers a higher level of credibility.
Dear Angry Doc, I think that the point has to be made that people will have strong feelings bordering on religious fervour, whether they believe in a religion, or from human teachings.
I personally believe that irrational and violent actions can arise from both religious and avowedly non-religious beliefs. The actions of Communists, Nazis and Maoists are comparable to the worst of the Inquisition and Muslim extremists.
However, as you pointed out, noble ideals do not just emanate from religions. But since the religious are here to stay, we should tap on their altruistic motives to serve society.
Moreover, both secular and religious values share much common ground, and many so-called secular values sprung from religions.
What we must guard against are people who proclaim themselves to be secular, then try to dictate to everyone else what secular values should be, because they deem religious values to be irrational and inapplicable to all.
"certainly don't recall the new guard attempting to stamp out all questions..."
I was referring to religions in general, and not the New Guards per se. The new guard did not stamp out questions - they tried to dodge them.
"I really don't think Christianity places itself above questioning and challenges. It has been whacked through the ages, and bibles have been burnt."
Within themselves religions (Buddhism aside) generally claim their teachings to be absolute, true, and infallible. Of course others may disagree, and when political powers are not in favour of religions you have whacking and bibles being burnt, but that happens to all types of groups all the time. What religions are trying to achieve now is to protect themselves from criticism using legal means and not through reason; this they have achieved in the UN and also in our laws.
"Actually, AngryDoc, it was really a case of a bunch of angry people who felt done in against another bunch of people who felt they had been done in."
I totally agree.
"The new guard wasn't part of a organized church mission, just a bunch of like-minded people who wanted to see certain things happen."
This I disagree, but since neither one of us are part of the new guard, we cannot say for sure, can we?
John,
I believe I have addressed your points in my second comment.
What I find ironic is when you wrote:
"...they deem religious values to be irrational and inapplicable to all."
Values aside (which can be good or bad regardless of their source), religious *beliefs* are irrrational, and if we cling to a set of values solely because it is religion-based, then it becomes a problem in public debate. If you keep religions and allow them to engage in public policies because of the good values they may have, then you also encourgae the irrational beliefs behind them.
And of course, they are inapplicable to *all*.
I have to agree with Angry Doc in that religions are fundamentally irrational. The apostle Paul who prided himself in being a logician, said so himself. Religion can only be 'logical' if certain basic assumptions are true, and since these cannot be proven beyond all doubt, faith must necessarily be 'illogical'.
But Angry Doc doesn't get away lightly. All human belief systems and philosophies are to some extent or other dependent on certain basic assumptions which are not necessary true. So even non-religious lines of thinking are only 'logical' in so far as their basic premise or assumptions are 'true'. Since this 'truth' can drift with time, the validity of the logic cannot be assumed, and will not be universal.
Hi Angry Doc, I think that many religions preach responsibility, love for the family, altruism etc. Not irrational at all! ; )
Perhaps you are trying to say that the base where the beliefs spring from are not secular?
If a religions teaches a doctor to be altruistic, it does not mean that the doctor is irrational, right?
Applying this principle to the AWARE debacle, I think that mainstream Singapore would prefer to deem homosexuality not to be taught as 'normal' or 'neutral' to kids, which is the same stand made ba a few religions here.
People who proclaim themselves to be secular are trying to promote homosexuality acceptance as a secular value, or even a secular virtue. But secular values here, if defined as common space for all religions and all atheists and agnostics, are in common or majority agreement that homosexuality acceptance is wrong.
Religious values should not intrude into society only when they preach values that are exclusive only to that particular religion.
But it may be a moot point as there are so many religious people in Singapore, so religious values would be part and parcel of society here.
Dear Angry Doc, it appears to me your argument is clouded by your prejudicial view of Aware exco led by Josie Lau and team. Your argument would be more credible when you set aside this value judgement and focus on the discussion around Militant Secularism
"All human belief systems and philosophies are to some extent or other dependent on certain basic assumptions which are not necessary true. So even non-religious lines of thinking are only 'logical' in so far as their basic premise or assumptions are 'true'. Since this 'truth' can drift with time, the validity of the logic cannot be assumed, and will not be universal."
Bingo! That's why I enjoy discussing things with you, gigamole.
Very true, but what distinguishes religion from 'secular' ideologies is that religions usually claim themselves to be immutable, while secular ideologies do not and as you mentioned can 'shift' and move with the changing 'moral zeitgeist'.
"If a religions teaches a doctor to be altruistic, it does not mean that the doctor is irrational, right?"
If the doctor believes in a religion, then insofar as his religious beliefs are concerned, he is irrational.More importantly, however, is the fact that a doctor may be atheist and alrtuistic, or religious but not altruistic.
You may be right about the current majority attitude to the CSE, but the point is within the secular framework we can shift the moral zeitgeist.
"Dear Angry Doc, it appears to me your argument is clouded by your prejudicial view of Aware exco led by Josie Lau and team."
Not true, anon - my prejudice comes from being a militant atheist. :)
My ire is directed at the irrational thinking behind most religions, and not specifically at the new guard.
'Very true, but what distinguishes religion from 'secular' ideologies is that religions usually claim themselves to be immutable, while secular ideologies do not and as you mentioned can 'shift' and move with the changing 'moral zeitgeist'.'
But we also know that secular ideologies can be as extreme and violent and demand the full devotion, as much as any religion.
The religious belief may be 'irrational' (as you deemed it), but the end-result is highly beneficial to society. Values that are derived from avowedly atheistic teachings may shift and adapt, but can be wrong too.
I understand that you are trying to put across the point that since 'secular' thoughts do not have a deity to concern themselves with, it should reasonably lead to a more appropriate response to society's problems.
However, religions too teach people to do good. Religious people are here to stay. And 'secular' policies can also make wrong choices.
It is also difficult to put a line and separate atheist/secular/agnostic values from religious ones.
"But we also know that secular ideologies can be as extreme and violent and demand the full devotion, as much as any religion."
Yes, I've already addressed that in my second comment.
"The religious belief may be 'irrational' (as you deemed it), but the end-result is highly beneficial to society."
And it can also be highly detrimental. Do not just look at the good, John. acknowledge the bad too.
"Values that are derived from avowedly atheistic teachings may shift and adapt, but can be wrong too."
Values that are derived from religious teachings may not shoft and adapt, but may still be wrong, which makes it worse.
Correction, my dear Angry Doc.
"My ire is directed at the irrational thinking behind most religions, and not specifically at the new guard."
Our ire should be directed against irrational thinking (religious or otherwise). Both are just as culpable. I am not referring here to the starting assumptions which are usually not altogether unacceptable, but to the extent that believers subvert their own logic to suit their own purposes.
Religions believers do that often I must admit. And so do the mutable secularists.
"And so do the mutable secularists."
Damn mutants...
I think we essentially agree on the same fundamentals, but tend to have different angles when looking at issues. Interesting.
Hi Angry Doc, we are agreed that secular (or atheist) / religious values can be destructive/beneficial, good/evil, popular/unpopular.
I think we also agree that one cannot draw a line to say that values can only belong to one camp and not to the other.
Further, many beneficial and virtuous values are taught by both camps.
Hence i think it is too simplistic to say that one is a secularist, and hence one's values are intrinsically superior to the other camp, and again vice versa.
I think it is best to define secularism in Singapore as an area where there are shared values between atheists, agnostics, and the religious.
"Hence i think it is too simplistic to say that one is a secularist, and hence one's values are intrinsically superior to the other camp, and again vice versa."
I didn't say that, did I?
My point is that when your underlying conviction is "it is an abomination to God" or "this is the line that God has drawn that we do not want this nation to cross", then you are apt to ignore or twist facts to support that set of values rather than to submit it for debate in a meaningful manner.
Yep, I think generally we are more agreed than disagreed. There are some hobbyhorse positions that we clearly are a bit reluctant to let go of but ... it's really no big deal, I think.
I think John does have a point in that there are good and bad in both camps, and both are capable of considerable unnecessary vitriol. But notwithstanding Angry Doc's militant atheist view of the world, it would be hard to deny that basic tenets of law, and even human rights principles all have strong religious origins, despite having taken rather mutable paths.
Happy duan wu jie to all!! I have a sudden craving for some nonya bakchang.
Angry Doc,
Not trying to nit-pick, but.....
'Values that are derived from religious teachings may not shoft and adapt, but may still be wrong, which makes it worse.'
Regarding: 'My point is that when your underlying conviction is "it is an abomination to God" or "this is the line that God has drawn that we do not want this nation to cross", then you are apt to ignore or twist facts to support that set of values rather than to submit it for debate in a meaningful manner.'
The same can also be said of people who espoused secular values, and claim that anything that has a deity in it must be wrong or inappropriate for a set of particular circumstance. People who claim to be of no faith are as apt to make mistakes while having deep convictions.
Both camps have used the same argument.
The same point that i am trying to make is that there are many values that converge and are similar in people of all faiths and those of none. Hence I agree with Prof Thio's statement that it is sensible to have a 'thick' secularism in Singapore, secularism as defined as a common area.
Duan wu jie. How appropriate that it started to celebrate the death of a loyal and righteous official.
John,
I think we too agree on the fundamentals, but tend to see the better and worse sides of religions respectively.
Duan Wu Jie is just an excuse to pig out on the anniverary of the death of a coward who chose suicide over proactive action, isn't it?
'Duan Wu Jie is just an excuse to pig out on the anniverary of the death of a coward who chose suicide over proactive action, isn't it?'
Haha, that is certainly a valid point of view.
My Chinese history is a tad rusty, but i think the suicide may have sparked some reforms. Correct me if i am wrong. Still, i think that Qu Yuan committed suicide also to try to stir some conscience in his king.
Actually I see a different significance in duan wu jie....
It's origin is most likely astronomical and related to the summer solstice. At some point in time political zealots turned it into a commemoration of Qu Yuan's suicide. So now, depending on your 'religion' or lack of, you can regard him as a hero, or a coward.
But we can be agreed that it is a good opportunity to pig out.
"Duan Wu Jie is just an excuse to pig out on the anniverary of the death of a coward who chose suicide over proactive action, isn't it?"
Yo Rational Doc, you think it easy to commit suicide?
Consider the context.
The guy was a high ranking official. Rich and relatively influential. Certainly the king was not after his head either. and he had certainly tried everything he could under the feudal system.
U could accuse him of stupidity but certainly not a coward.
A better example of a coward is one who despite feeling strongly about an ideal (eg secularism) does not have the balls to challenge the norms openly.
You are right.
Suicide is a more complex issue than one of courage or cowardice alone.
And yes, you can call me a coward for blogging anonymously; but I hope what I write will be judged on the reason of my arguments and not the strength of my conviction.
Sigh... what happened to reason and logic that everyone regardless of religion can understand in an argument? Or is using one's own religion as the explanantion good enough for the basis of any argument?
Angry doc
You said
"But religions, by their very nature, defy reason, and gods (like Hitlers and Stalins) brook no arguments. I believe we should aspire towards a political system that does not rely on a cult of a deity or personality, but one which encourages participation, discourse based on reason, and accountability to our fellow men."
I do not know about Buddhism or Islam, but as a Christian, may I challenge you to do a real study on the Bible and check out yourself if what is in it defies reason - as you put it. (Obviously I disagree with your view that Christianity defies logic). You can find tonnes of resources on the internet to help you with it as all of the discourses are publicly available. There is also centuries old studies and commentaries to refer to if you want - enough scholarship for seminaries and schools of learning to be built on. For starters, you can try reading the Bible - www.biblegateway.com
glassbox,
Is this... necessary?
Obviously we are both familiar with the arguments used by both sides and have not been persuaded by the other side. If we start this exchange we will just be reproducing all the arguments with no real chance of convincing each other.
I'm not trying to dodge the challenge, but I'm asking you to withdraw it because I think it will be a futile exercise.
What is a Secular country? In a Secular country, any legislation or public policy are formed based on "common sense", "logical thinking" , "benefits to the nation as a whole" blah blah blah , but never because of a religious view or commandment.
Secularist will react when the reason used for passing or withholding legislation because of religious practice or precept or commandment. Hence if a religious politician says that this law should not be repeal because of:
1. My religious say so
2. some logical reasons
3. some important benefits of keeping this law
4. some convincing reasons that bring out the problem of repealing this law
A secularist respond will be ok, agree with point 2, 3, 4. Let’s keep the law and keep point number 1 to yourself please,
However if only point 1 is given and nothing else, the respond will be "shut up and sit down" we are a secular country, do not mixed religious with public policies.
This is not militant behavior; this is called proactive reaction in response to an act of encroachment.
What is a Secular country? In a Secular country, any legislation or public policy are formed based on "common sense", "logical thinking" , "benefits to the nation as a whole" blah blah blah , but never because of a religious view or commandment.
Secularist gets annoy when the reason for the creation or modification of public policies/legislation is solely based on religious practice/precept/commandment etc.
Hence if a religious politician says that this law should not be repeal because of:
1. My religious say so
2. some logical reasons
3. some important benefits of keeping this law
4. some convincing reasons that bring out the problem of repealing this law
A secularist respond will be ok, agree with point 2, 3, 4. Let’s keep the law and keep point number 1 to yourself please,
However if only point 1 is given and nothing else, the respond will be "shut up and sit down" we are a secular country, do not mixed religious with public policies.
This is not militant behavior; this is called proactive action in response to an act of encroachment.
Brilliant summary, kopibox.
I will add that points 3 and 4 are things we can produce facts and figures on and discuss intelligently and come to a conclusion over, 2 something we can discuss on a common background, while 1 is something that we can't really have a rational discussion over, and indeed may risk running afoul of the law against "offending religious feelings".
And I will go one further to say that if we as a nation can look at public issues that way, we will be a *rational* nation, and we should then abandon the word "secular" as it seems to imply to many that being "secular" means we are willing to ignore or suppress the views of religious people, even when they present 2,3, and 4 without 1, or that we will accept irrational views if they are not "religiously-informed".
angry doc
I think it would be better if you could take some time to understand in depth one religion before you conclude that it 'defies reason'. Not that I think every religion out there can be reasonable or logically but I believe that when you use a sweeping statement to say that there is no logical basis for religious views and values, the fact is that many of these mainstream religions have existed for centuries. Many of them have very disciplined scholarships around them. So, wouldn't it make sense to study them? I cannot believe that scholarship can be built around 'non-reason' or 'il-logic' and yet to have survived for so long just on the premise of superstition and blind faith.
I anm suggesting you study Christianity only because I am a Christian and I study the Bible - you can choose to study Buddhism or Islam if you wish. I believe you will find equally interesting scholarship there that will defy your general understanding of religions.
There is also no point arguing about secularism vs religions - as you can only argue if you understand the latter. You won't know what secularism is until you know what religion us - human civilisation always had a religion - in various forms. It is only in the more recent centuries that this word secularism became more used. So having some context I believe will help in the understanding a lot better.
So I would say - yes, its necessary. I also don't see it as a futile exercise. You need to know the history of the contribution and disasters of religions to understand where it might bring us going forward. Otherwise, anyone who is arguing for secularism is just arguing it in a rather myopic perspective without context and really does not get us anywhere in making headway to 'progress' society.
Very well then. gigamole, do let us know if you want us to stop...
I'll begin by saying that belief in a god without convincing evidence is irrational.
You'll list evidence for existence of god.
I'll reply that your evidence are not adequate evidence.
You'll disagree with me.
We cannot even prove our existence, and can only conclude, 'Because I think, I am'. Therefore, logic has limitations.
On a separate note, please check out the documentary in the link below. What has happened in the USA and on our shore is so strikingly consistent, I can only conclude that there is a gay agenda to undermine Christianity and our family in Singapore. Not logic, but facts. I expect Angry Doc to reject, but first do so by evaluating what Christians have to say with the evidences put before you.
http://www.nmatv.com/video/1180/Silencing-Christians-One-Hour-Special
"Therefore, logic has limitations."
Sure. Especially when it comes to 'proving' things we cannot provide evidence for.
I am overwhelmed. Wasn't really expecting so much excitement during my duan wu jie celebrations... :)
I'm not really keen to artificially stop any discussion unless it has become uncivil and offensive in any way, lest I get accused of asking anyone to shut up and sit down. :)
Any debate about religion between believers and a die-hard 'militant atheist' is pretty much going to be contentious. A large part of the difficulty lie in the fact that the starting assumptions are different. Couple that to the semantic ambiguities, and you have a predictably unresolvable debate. Interesting, academic....and probably not very fruitful.
I want to take you guys back, perhaps to a number of basic premises... and see if you can agree to these:
a] secularism is not the source of the idea, but rather, the object. By this I mean we can have a theistic assumption, or non-theistic/atheistic assumptions applied to essentially a secular object, for example, education, health care, military service, etc. Both approaches are equally valid and 'secular' because they do not apply to worship (which would make it non-secular).
b] Both theistic and non-theistic/atheistic assumptions have equal validity, but both require to be defended. This is not about secularism, which is the point of [a]. I don't subscribe to the notion that only theism require to be defended. Atheism also requires a defense.
I don't recommend we discuss [b], because that would be suitable for a religion/atheism blog type.
I believe, [a] is really the idea of secularism that Prof Thio tries to articulate. Having religious convictions does not automatically disqualify a proponent of an idea, when applied to a secular (worship) activity; at least not any more so than it should disqualify an atheist. We should be able to robustly and civilly debate any secular issue without discarding our basic belief systems.
Clearly this is only possible if we can agree to keep our minds open to alternative views, and not club each other to death, because our starting assumptions are different.
Cheers.
"Therefore, logic has limitations."
Sure. Especially when it comes to 'proving' things we cannot provide evidence for.
Well said, Angry Doc. But the knife cuts both ways.
I am now converted to kopibox's point of view when it comes to this current discussion - I am still an atheist, but I think the aim should be a rational society rather than a religiously-informed or secular one.
Re: [a] I am of kopibox's position - come up with 2, 3, and 4 and we can talk, but if your only argument is 1, whether it is religiously-informed or not, then it should not be considered.
Re: [b] I must nitpick. Atheism does not require a defence as it is a default position. However, views and ideologies not based on religions (e.g. democracy, human rights, animal rights) do need to be argued on the grounds of evidence or moral philosophy.
"Atheism does not require a defence as it is a default position."
Since when? 10000 BC? 2000 AD? 2009 AD?
Really. where is the "evidence"?
Because the angry doc say so? Is angry doc a god ... oops...
Even today, in secular\rational singapore,the majority of Singaporeans have a religion.
On the same topic, could some1 name me a successful "secular" country.
Japan? U know the PM has to visit some shinto shrine every year.
USA? In God we trust.
etc.
Maybe Singapore, but even the angry Doc isn't the biggest fan of PAP. And MM is defintely not atheist. in fact it seems that he believes in several religions. and he owns the red dot.
and rational people\society ... check out the STI\dow Jones. The vast majority of "normal" people are NOT rational.
PS:
1. "shut up and sit down" is most defintely a reactive response.
2. If there is a God, a higher power .. where would he have to appear before the mighty angry doc? just because he ask? Maybe the good doc was thinking of the genie from the magic lamp?
Anon,
By default I didn't mean status quo, but that intellectually, non-belief is the default position until evidence for a proposition is presented, examined, and accepted.
To illustrate, non-belief in the existence of smurfs, or asmurfism, should be the "default" position.
"The vast majority of "normal" people are NOT rational."
You may choose to be irrational. I don't. I don't think our nation should either.
"2. If there is a God, a higher power .. where would he have to appear before the mighty angry doc? just because he ask?"
God appearing before me would be a good way for examining the evidence regarding his existence, but I will make do with whatever good evidence you can present if he is currently unavailable.
"Even today, in secular\rational singapore,the majority of Singaporeans have a religion."
Once upon a time, majority believe that the world is flat, that all celestial bodies must revolve around the Earth
--------------------------------
" On the same topic, could some1 name me a successful "secular" country.
Japan? U know the PM has to visit some shinto shrine every year.
USA? In God we trust.
etc............. "
Misconception can be clarify by further reading, to understand the definition of a secular state, please goto -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
------------------------------
" rational people\society ... check out the STI\dow Jones. The vast majority of "normal" people are NOT rational.
and to make things worst, these irrational majority believe in illogical, imaginary stuff.
----------------------------------
You demand a logical/scientific process and then use "smurfs" as a comparison to god(or higher power)?
even for illustrative purposes ... u dun like Christianty. fine. u just want to bash it. ok. u think u know all that there is to know. yeah .. wonder why there is a need for ,say, the Bible college. but who cares right?
for the "angry doc is a self-described 'militant'; not a "militant secularist", but a "militant atheist" - angry doc thinks atheism is an intellectual position"
However, given the fact that u are breathing, alive and able to think ... surely a miracle ... perhaps the default position would be to prove the non-existent of God?
Now if u want to go down the path of darwinian evolution, what proof is there that evolution itself is not part of the plan of a higher power? and if u believe life begun as some sort of a chemical reaction, u too need to prove it in a lab. or at a minimum, as a doc, try reviving the dead. afterall , humans are lumps of walking flesh to u isn't it? Never mind humans, try the simplest single cell organism. Cant do it? but u are alive. and life happened. and when u are dead, u stay dead!
basically, u are spinning an essentially "chicken and egg" question into one that suits ur purpose/belief.
and my dear doc... u think u are rational. it may even be true to a large degree. but a group of individuals will never be "rational". because rational is relative (if u believe the world is not a clearcut B&W). what is rational to u might not be rational to others. and therefore as a group, humans will tend to make "irrational" decisions. to illustrate, religion aside, take the singaporean voter. PAP's policies benefits only the top 10 of the population. at best. the bottom 30% are in the pits. yet they are perhaps PAP's strongest supporters. Are they rational? No? Are u sure? Or do u think voting for a party that punishes u is a "RATIONAL" decision?
Oh one good news about God (at the christian one) is that he gave u absolute freedom to argue with him. really. of course at the end of the day there may be a reckoning. so u just have to make your own RATIONAL decision :-)
An u notice the inverted commas in "Secular".
From wiki ...
"A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country is officially neutral in matters of religion"
Yeah. Of course.
Malaysia is a "secular" state.
Really, if Anwar eats pork in public, his chances of winning are ...
Indonesia is a "secular" state, the wivies are wearing headscraves ...
In USA, california just ...
In German, Christian parties are the most influential ...
In Thailand, Muslims (in the south) are not oppressed and feel free to insult the King...
Albania is of course a "successful" nation ...
"Once upon a time, majority believe that the world is flat, that all celestial bodies must revolve around the Earth"
And your point is ...?
U may be interested to know that none of the major religions give a damn if the earth is flat\round\oval ... in fact if u read the history of Islam ... but u dun give a shit because u already know that u are right and there is nothing else that u need to know ... maybe we should have a Church of Kopibox :-)
Anon,
I don't know everything, but I know enough about online arguments between atheists and believers to know that all the arguments and rebuttals we post have been posted on other blogs and forums thousands of times before, which is why I was hoping we won't have to go through that exercise on this blog too.
But if you are still keen, we can do so.
"wonder why there is a need for ,say, the Bible college. but who cares right?"
The fact that people study Shakespeare's work does not mean that the events in his plays actually occured, or that they occured as he described them, or that we should base our life on what Shakespearean characters did or advised people do. Or for a more apt comparison: does the existence of madrasahs convince you that what the Koran teach is true? What about Hindu universities?
"However, given the fact that u are breathing, alive and able to think ... surely a miracle ... perhaps the default position would be to prove the non-existent of God?"
I do not see life and sentience as convincing proof of a supernatural creator. Scientists have gained some understanding on how life may have orginated on our world - they just recently created RNA in the lab; although they have not been able to create life, that is no reason to say that the version of creation myth that you have chosen to accept is true.
"what proof is there that evolution itself is not part of the plan of a higher power?"
What proof is there that it is? If you are going to claim that everything that was previously explained by religion but has now been explained by science to be part of a plan of higher power, then what I guess you win. But of course someone from another religion might claim that it is part of the plan of *his* god and not yours...
"basically, u are spinning an essentially "chicken and egg" question into one that suits ur purpose/belief."
I don't know which of my arguments you are referring to specifically here.
The paragraph about whether societies are rational at large is irrelevant to this discussion.
Anon, you make many assertions without providing evidence, and do not seem to udnerstand the concept of burden of proof. May I suggest we be more focussed on our current discussion by having you list evidence for the existence of a god?
Thank you.
You are getting closer to the crux. if we allow religious view to dictate public policies, we will ended up like our neighbor where the state is secular with inverted commas. Think deeper, broader and you will discover the need for secularism.
The point on majority is to show that an idea or belief is not necessary true just because the majority thinks so.
I am receptive to new development or empirical proof that my idea, value, belief need a version upgrade or a full migration.
Feel free to provide some if you have something new to share.
I don't see the need for an institution. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Need to go back to work. bb
Do you have like a brochure for your church. kopibox? I would like to join. :)
"I don't know everything, but I know enough about online arguments between atheists and believers to know that all the arguments and rebuttals we post have been posted on other blogs and forums thousands of times before, which is why I was hoping we won't have to go through that exercise on this blog too."
I was hoping so too...If you ask me, it's a pointless debate. That's why I suggested we don't into [b].
I think it is really Angry Doc's thesis, "Atheism does not require a defence as it is a default position." that has drawn us to this second round of debate.
Personally I cannot see that as being acceptable in any way. All belief systems need to be proven and validated, and no one position can be argued to be a default position. For example I could just as easily argue that atheism is a positive rejection of a God principle, or vice versa. So you see, it is really a stand-off.
Consequently, [a] should be what it is about, that there should be space in public discourse to respectfully accomodate all view points, theistic, atheistic or any others, so long as they can be properly qualified. Once we are clear about each other's starting assumptions (right or wrong) we can then at least begin to rationalize (hopefully logically) an outcome.
It's all about being 'inclusive' mah....
:)
btw, majority is not about being right....it's about being democratic.
"I could just as easily argue that atheism is a positive rejection of a God principle, or vice versa."
Then it's a matter of semantics like you said. I will say that non-belief in a god counts as atheism, while "a positive rejection of a God principle" is militant atheism.
But it's all semantics and there is no universal definition yet, so let's not waste words on that, shall we?
Dear Kopibox
I am well aware of the need for "secularism". In fact my religious beliefs is quite specific about it.
But the fact is that true "secularism" (my interpretation of angry's definition) is not going to happen in a democracy. Not on planet Earth within the next 10 years. variants of my faith being the greatest offender :-p
Unless God appears before Angry Doc and makes him 2 stone tablets :-)
No. I do not believe in forcing my beliefs down your throat. I expect that my god can do that himself .. eh in his own time and if he wishes to. amen. :-p
and angry doc, the fact that bible college exist and using the analogy of shakespeare is that most folks have only superficial knowledge on a certain subject but insists on "belittling" (pardon my limited vocab) it ... for whatever reason. and existence of hindu uni tells me that there some be more to hinduism than some Indian stories and many of us seem to believe.
the rambling on rational societies .. u started it ... and u are insisting on logical rational thinking from an irrational majority. is that ...?
re gigamole's [a] and even kopibox's [1] ... allo .. free speech. democracy. u can reject it but u still have to consider it first. and majority wins. haha.
And finally as u say, semantics. burden of proof falls on both parties in a discussion\debate. gigamole's [b]. C'mon. U are a doc with the 200 IQ and me the irrational anon who could be the missing link (to our chimp ancestors) ... if anything I should get the handicap ... just kidding ... its pointless. If either of us could prove it .. we wouldn't be on this blog.
Cool 5pm finally. have a good weekend.
Yeah....cool guys....
it's mostly semantics and not worth going to war over.
With this, perhaps we could agree we had a reasonably 'fun' debate, and probably a reasonable time to lay the matter to rest, at least for awhile.
Thanks very much guys.
By the way, I finally manage to get my bakchangs from Joo Chiat, even though they cost me an arm and a leg.
Have a great weekend.
"u are insisting on logical rational thinking from an irrational majority. is that ...?"
No, that would be logically impossible. I am for converting the irrational majority to rational people who are able to think critically.
Is this what "I am for converting the irrational majority to rational people who are able to think critically." refers to, Angry Doc?
See this: http://www.massresistance.org/index.html
Post a Comment