據悉，香港名人陳振聰的網友發了一條微博，稱自己所住大樓失火，但家中一尊木製佛像竟然完好無損。喜歡跟佛祖傾偈的陳振聰嘖嘖稱奇，寫了一條微博反應，竟輾轉傳給了中國「打假鬥士」方舟子；方舟子立刻回應，語帶揶揄，於是引發了一場陳方二人的微博舌戰，擇要如下：
陳：（對木佛像火中無恙）無以言表，不可思議，頂禮遍知佛尊。
方：還有無數尊葬身火海的佛像，你也別忘了頂禮。覺得這尊佛像不可思議，拿來點把火試試？
陳：你想試甚麼？能不能點着？
方：實踐是檢驗真理的標準。
陳：方老師，不要科學地不講理… 事實上我們認為，萬物都有生滅，就算是真金佛像，也有消散的那天。我們相信某種內在的力量，這個你不懂，我懂的。我們體會的是內因，你注重的是外緣。
方：你不要信仰地不講理嘛，既然認為萬物都有生滅，為甚麼覺得沒被燒不可思議？大樓裏還有很多東西沒被燒，你也覺得不可思議？
陳：相對真理才需要檢啊驗的，說到絕對真理，咱就只有體驗的份兒。所以，實踐是檢驗相對真理的唯一標準，體悟是了知生命本質（絕對真理）的不二途徑。
方：層次真高。絕對真理都能讓你體驗到，難怪敢說「這個你不懂，我懂的」。我們不上層次，就只能哼哧哼哧去檢驗相對真理了，哼哧了一輩子，還不如你體悟一下子！
陳：能跟你對話就挺不可思議的，不聊了，過年好。
陳振聰在香港神憎鬼厭，這微博舌戰被廣傳開去之後，網民（其中有不少是方舟子的粉絲）群起攻擊陳振聰，指他不學無術，散播迷信，例如其中一位就這樣寫：「陳振聰的講法已超過一般的習俗和信仰感情，意思就是說發生大火時，他就一定會找個佛像躲著，而方舟子卻用科學的標準去評斷這種講法，顯然用對了標準。」
陳方之爭，孰是熟非，大家怎樣看？
跟方舟子舌戰的不是陳振聰，是王菲。
回覆刪除就是陳振聽和王菲的不同，「網民」對此事會有不同的 treatment ，會由支持王轉為支持方。
回覆刪除Haha, thanks for sharing. Reminds us a little of our previous conversation on this topic though, eh Wong? :)
回覆刪除I don't know either Chan or Fong (but I do know of Faye Wong of course!), I would say they are both right:
Fong is correct to say that the best way to test whether there exists some "inner (godly) strength" that preserved the wooden statue from fire damage is to burn it and see.
Chan is correct to say that absolute truth cannot be tested in the conventional, empirical way (whether it can *only* be experienced, is another matter, I'm agnostic about whether there may simply be higher dimensional explanations we've just not yet been able to devise for such metaphysical truths).
The problem I think here is that Chan is mistaking what he observed empirically (that his Budda statue didn't sustain any fire damage) with what is "absolute truth". Empirical observations could well be tested empirically.
argh, sorry, "Buddha" rather than Budda!
回覆刪除poor irrational human
回覆刪除阿陳o岩o的，阿陳應該用一二億叫阿方收聲。而阿方比人仆完頭應認清醒o的。在歷史洪流中，權力及資源往往在陳的一方，當講理性可以得到上百億時，阿陳一定比阿方講理性：而阿方講的理性因太普通會沒人理。阿方得到的，只有一絲芳名。
回覆刪除睇下中國歷史，就知權力/真理/道德總是在同一方。權力/真理/道德只有在史書中裡才有分別，而那些分別只是過渡性的。阿方收皮啦，如果他做的是出於真誠，那他所希望成就的是不足道，是無用的。人的理性不會因阿方而多一點；也不會少一點。
Wong, just checked out your link to Chan's wiki page. Oh my god, so he's that feng shui guy who had romantic relations with that multi-billionaire widow who passed away a few years ago! I am in shock -- as I thought you were taking Chan's debate with Fong seriously! How naive of me! (And why would Fong bothered to argue with him given Chan's line of business?)
回覆刪除(oh and just in case it didn't came across properly the above was said with mock outrage :P)
回覆刪除阿彌陀佛！佛遇有云：色不異空、空不異色、色即是空、空即是色。受想行識，亦復如是。。。
回覆刪除諸位施主又何必執於方陳之爭，又豈可拘執於形相？
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除你這豈不是因人廢言？
Chainsaw Riot,
回覆刪除謝謝你替我解畫！
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除It looks like I was a bit too indirect this time.
Yan,
回覆刪除你太 cynical 了。
Meshi,
回覆刪除因人廢言固然不對，因人立言也有問題，此為本文之主旨也。
Wong,
回覆刪除//你太 cynical 了。
我有這自覺。
得閒寫篇文講下乜叫犬儒呀。
Yan,
回覆刪除想到有趣的論點才會寫（倒要查查為何"cynical"譯作「犬儒」）。
件事其實最爆炸﹐係後來王菲同方舟子係新浪微博爆發筆戰...
回覆刪除唉...好明顯有人信佛不明佛理﹐將帶有怪力亂神的道教同佛學混為一談...雖然話佛道合一係“歷史遺留下來的問題”﹐但信佛者“佛道不分”﹐信埋晒怪力亂神的一套﹐又如何能夠做到心無罣礙﹖
btw﹐你轉述的筆戰內容﹐係王菲同方舟子的筆戰內容來的﹐特此通知
回覆刪除http://info.wenweipo.com/index.php/?action-viewnews-itemid-42237
文少,
回覆刪除//好明顯有人信佛不明佛理﹐將帶有怪力亂神的道教同佛學混為一談...雖然話佛道合一係“歷史遺留下來的問題”﹐但信佛者“佛道不分”﹐信埋晒怪力亂神的一套﹐又如何能夠做到心無罣礙﹖//
- 正是。很多自稱信佛的人其實一點佛理都不懂，只是吃素念經拜佛像而已。
"Snowdrops,
回覆刪除你這豈不是因人廢言？
2/10/2011 6:48 上午"
Oh, not at all. Because I have not taken back any of what I said in my very first post - in fact, I stand by every single word of what I said above :)
My point about Chan wasn't that what he said was disqualified automatically because he happened to be that (in)famous feng shui guy. I was wondering simply why Wong posted this debate as if it was a serious theological debate by sincere practitioners on either side (as per my initial reading), when in fact one party has been a demonstrable fraud even when it comes to his own feng shui beliefs.
Also, if Fong is serious about tackling falsity and misinformation, why choose to tackle Chan? Not only has Chan himself already shown himself up in a court of law that he was a mere charlatan even when it comes to his profession of feng shui, but feng shui practitioners (like other faith-based practitioners) aren't going to change their beliefs just because they have shown to be based not on facts. Again, going back to what I debated with Wong originally the last time.
"Snowdrops,
回覆刪除It looks like I was a bit too indirect this time.
2/10/2011 7:59 上午"
Yes, serve me right for not clicking on the link first before responding! But I hope my contributions above have actually helped to illustrate the point that one could indeed have a meaningful debate if we simply based it on the ideas communicated rather than on the apparent authority of the speakers concerned (and thus it is just as pointless to parade one's real qualifications a la Shen as it is to parade one's false qualifications a la Chan).
//正是。很多自稱信佛的人其實一點佛理都不懂，只是吃素念經拜佛像而已。 //
回覆刪除原來我之前get唔到你寫乜添...哈哈
我認為呢個topic是可以深化討論的﹐你甚至可以另寫一文來解說一下(笑)
我覺得有此現象﹐一方面係因為儒釋道合一的歷史造成的﹐另一方面則緣於漢傳佛教的傳教理念
(1)儒釋道合一後﹐道教教義溝入大量佛教人物同宇宙觀﹐而當時無普及教育﹐民眾教育水平較低﹐民間信仰將誤將道教教義當為佛學道理。
例如﹕我阿婆拜黃大仙卻認為自己信佛﹐全因黃大仙廟大雄寶殿內有佛像﹔又例如有D明星用道教心態去拜四面佛﹐卻以為自己信佛
(2)佛教傳入中土後﹐自稱為大乘而要普渡眾生﹐但佛門中人深知各人悟性不同﹐為用佛理導人向善﹐於是衍生出一D簡易而易做佛理﹐相對較少講一D儀式的背後意義﹐例如說“食齋可積善德”﹑淨土宗主張“念阿彌陀佛可死後往生到極樂國土”等等。
"（倒要查查為何"cynical"譯作「犬儒」）。"
回覆刪除I know right? The Chinese phrase sounds more like "cowardly" than "cynical" per se.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//But I hope my contributions above have actually helped to illustrate the point that one could indeed have a meaningful debate if we simply based it on the ideas communicated rather than on the apparent authority of the speakers concerned//
- Absolutely.
文少,
回覆刪除//例如﹕我阿婆拜黃大仙卻認為自己信佛﹐全因黃大仙廟大雄寶殿內有佛像﹔又例如有D明星用道教心態去拜四面佛﹐卻以為自己信佛//
- 好例子。
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//"（倒要查查為何"cynical"譯作「犬儒」）。"
I know right? The Chinese phrase sounds more like "cowardly" than "cynical" per se.//
- Perhaps you've mixed up 「儒」and 「懦」.
其實任何事情都可以訴諸神佛。那個沒被燒的佛像，如果有CSI一類去研究研究，都會找到一些例如佛像放在沒有被火波及的角落，或者佛像的材料較耐熱耐火等等的「俗世」解釋。但是如果人硬要去說，都可以說成是因為某神秘力量令佛像被放到該角落，或者令佛像較抗火。
回覆刪除關鍵在於，在「俗世」解釋上添加上「神秘」解釋，其實是一個可有可無的動作。俗世解釋已經由可驗證和合邏輯的角度去分析事件，那麽在之上加一個不可驗證神秘解釋其實是多餘。例如王菲信是佛有神秘力量，他可以說是耶穌發功玩弄佛門弟子，重點在於不可驗證，討論皆為自我堅持的吹水。人如方舟子和我，就會覺得有了俗世解釋就夠了，神秘解釋都是一廂情願的幻想吧了。
"- Perhaps you've mixed up 「儒」and 「懦」."
回覆刪除Indeed I have! Though my impression of "cowardly" was more influenced by the first word of "dog" -- that Chinese word for dog doesn't give me the English connotations of "doggedness" and valour, but more an impression of a scared little puppy for some strange reason?
"但是如果人硬要去說，都可以說成是因為某神秘力量令佛像被放到該角落，或者令佛像較抗火。"
回覆刪除Indeed. Some may choose to see serendipity as simply a matter of pure chance; others may take it as a sign from God.
"俗世解釋已經由可驗證和合邏輯的角度去分析事件，那麽在之上加一個不可驗證神秘解釋其實是多餘。"
I agree. Mythical explanations are a lot of times unnecessary and in fact often present a barrier to finding out the true mechanisms for how something happened.
On the other hand, people who have faith are probably not interested in the logical questions of How but on metaphysical questions of Why ("why are we here", "what's the meaning of Life", etc. etc.) So whilst I agree that "有了俗世解釋就夠了，神秘解釋都是一廂情願的幻想吧了。", people with faith perhaps do not mind so much that their beliefs and ideals are indeed "一廂情願的幻想吧了", as their object of truth is slightly different from what the non-religious seek.
Therefore a lot of times I feel that the two groups are merely talking at cross purposes at each other. The dangerous thing of course, is to confuse the two, as the Creationists have done.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//I was wondering simply why Wong posted this debate as if it was a serious theological debate by sincere practitioners on either side (as per my initial reading), when in fact one party has been a demonstrable fraud even when it comes to his own feng shui beliefs. //
I don't understand why a feng shui fraud cannot make a serious theological(should we use "theological" in this case?) debate, or why such a debate made by him shouldn't be treated seriously.
Personally I don't feel any difference on my view towards the debate before and after I have realized that it was Faye Wong but not Chan who took part in the debate.....perhaps it's because I am not Faye's fans?
Oh Wong I meant to thank you also for setting me straight re: 儒 :)
回覆刪除(re-edited to remove embarrassing redundant words!)
回覆刪除@Meshi,
If he's meant to be defending his beliefs yet he's already been shown to be fraudulent regarding said beliefs, how can he defend those in a serious debate?
"(should we use "theological" in this case?)"
Well, it touches on the existence or otherwise of God and one's particular brand of theistic belief, so I would say yes.
"Personally I don't feel any difference on my view towards the debate before and after I have realized that it was Faye Wong but not Chan who took part in the debate.....perhaps it's because I am not Faye's fans?"
Well, I'm a fan of Faye the singer but apparently even I could not stomach the idea of Faye the Buddhist evangelist (I'm deliberately mixing up my religions here :P), if she holds a line of reasoning similar to what Chan had done above in the quoted passage.
(Just to be clear I've not bothered to click on the Twitter link and haven't searched out what Faye had actually said to Fong on this whole matter).
@Meshi,
回覆刪除Just to clarify my position even further for you: Chan could indeed engage in this debate using his observation about his undamanged prized Buddha statue just like any other person without having to resort to claims about his authority, as that's his prerogative (whether he would get shot down on using such "evidence" during the debate is another matter). My point was that he talked about "Absolute truths" as if he really believes in them, and could access it personally, when he had already been shown to be fraudulent regarding those kind of truth claims. That's the reason why I said his "theological arguments" are inadmissible in a serious theological debate.
William,
回覆刪除//俗世解釋已經由可驗證和合邏輯的角度去分析事件，那麽在之上加一個不可驗證神秘解釋其實是多餘。//
- 所謂 theistic evolution 就是一個好例子。
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//Oh Wong I meant to thank you also for setting me straight re: 儒 :)//
- No problem.
@Wong and Meshi:
回覆刪除I finally clicked on that second link (I'm quite wary about accessing mainland sites due to previous bad spyware/malware experience), and realised that Wong had wittily substituted Faye for Chan in the Twitter dialogue quoted above. Re-reading all my comments on this thread above, I'm relieved to see that there are no logical inconsistencies on the points that I've been making, even when Chan has turned out to be Faye, after all.* Phew :)
(*Of course Faye may not be as blatantly fraudulent in her religious beliefs as Chan -- her case is more about being sincerely (mis)guided? -- but her idea of "absolute truth" being personally experienced is still unfounded in her case as she didn't experience the fire herself and the statue is not hers but in some other building, and she merely read about it just like everyone else, so for her to use this example to attest to the truthfulness of her beliefs is still questionable, though her lack of credibility is a different type from Chan's).
wong網主玩嘢:)
回覆刪除這個例子不說，因我對王菲會怎樣信佛有點成見，雖然我喜歡她的歌。
我從自己身上領悟到，人是會因應說話的人在自己心中的地位，把其說話加減份量。第一次發現大人也會錯的時候，有點疑惑。大慨是在同學仔面前，將家裏大人的話當事實來講，但被反駁。到不知第幾次，也要提醒一下自己，小時他們當然是高高在上，但他們是常人呢，你忘了嗎?
對尊敬和佩服的人，我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。例如，特別聰明、很多時候被證實有先見之明的高人。每一次他的論點被證明是對的，其可靠程度就不期然被提高。後來，當然是出現矛盾，小的立即捍衛高人的話起來（是在捍衛那話的內容，還是捍衛說者？還是我的信念？），同時猛往另一頭找破綻。如果找不到，被逼接受，高人都會錯！其實我早知沒有人是永遠對的。真是老外說的：「duh！」。這個我很自覺，不時需要提醒自己。隨年月，小的也算是有些進步，但間中還是會fall prey to this.
把老媽的話當耳邊風當慣了，她說x是紅的，就會反射性的想：那麽x大概不是紅的。忽然有次聽清楚，x真是紅的啊！又要設立多個check.
（我的中英文都沒半桶水，寫這麽多，好玩但頗累，有英文但想不到達意的中文，就順手溝入英文算了。請見諒。）
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//I'm relieved to see that there are no logical inconsistencies on the points that I've been making,even when Chan has turned out to be Faye, after a ll.//
- As far as those points are concerned, there shouldn't be inconsistencies.
shiren,
回覆刪除//對尊敬和佩服的人，我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。//
- 這是人之常情，只要不是太盲目便成了。
//有英文但想不到達意的中文，就順手溝入英文算了。請見諒。//
- 沒所謂呀！
羅渣加把口：
回覆刪除這二人的對話根本就是各說各話，驢頭不對馬嘴！彼此的語境不同，說了也是白說，side gas！
這令我聯想到有一男一女在對話------
女：嘩，日落果陣係 magic hour，好浪漫呀！
男：車，呢 D 只係睇既人心情唔同，查實日落係一個自然現象，地球根據恆常不變的自轉規律，每分鐘運行...（下刪五千字）
女：（怒）我話係浪漫就浪漫啦！你識乜？！
男：（頭一仰，不肯示弱）我同你講既係科學！做人都係清醒 D 好！
......
結果當然係大纜都絞唔埋啦！
同一位沈浸於宗教氣氛中的講科學的課題，乃是自討苦吃！
Roger,
回覆刪除//同一位沈浸於宗教氣氛中的講科學的課題，乃是自討苦吃！//
- 的確是晒氣，但不表示沒有對錯可言，也不表示大家都是對的。
Wong，
回覆刪除“
//對尊敬和佩服的人，我也會覺得他們的話可信程度較高。//
- 這是人之常情，只要不是太盲目便成了。
”
是，人都有這傾向。如果盲目，自己會不會知道？
shiren,
回覆刪除//如果盲目，自己會不會知道？//
- 盲目的人通常都不意識到自己盲目（除非真的是雙目失明）。
如果真的講佛法的,那根本不會扯那麼多話題來的.
回覆刪除凡事皆為因緣果報,不究其因,佛像真係被燒左,只能嘆可惜,唯有買過一個;燒不到也只算幸運,之後盡量避免再失火才是上策.
之後扯去什麼相對絕對的,只會被他人有機反駁而已.
當然,那位方兄第一句就語氣不好,有心揶揄對方一番似乎也算是動機不良,不可取吧?
純純男子漢,
回覆刪除//那位方兄第一句就語氣不好,有心揶揄對方一番似乎也算是動機不良,不可取吧?//
- 也不算太過份吧！