20150317

基於知識優越感的反宗教態度


對我有點認識的朋友都知道,我年青時曾經是基督徒,而且是基要派的;也知道我現在的立場是反宗教,寫文章批評某些宗教信念和教徒行為時下筆辛辣、毫不留情。然而,他們未必知道的,是我不會一竹篙打盡所有宗教 --- 對不同的宗教我會有不同的看法;當然,有些宗教我根本認識不深,不會隨便批評。我最痛恨的、批評得最狠的,只是那些力圖將自己的宗教觀念和價值(例如反演化論和反同性戀)強加於別人身上的個別教徒和宗教團體。

雖然我不會一竹篙打盡所有宗教,也同意宗教有其正面的功用,更明白一些人的確需要宗教的慰藉,可是,我相信如果這個世界沒有宗教,整體而言會美好一點(甚至美好得多)。這不只是我的一個信念,而是我經過長時間觀察和思考所得出的結論;不過,若要論証,恐怕要寫一篇至少數千字的長文了。以後有興致時也許會寫這樣的一篇文章,今天我想多講幾句的,反而是一種我非常不認同的反宗教態度。

我稱這種態度為「基於知識優越感的反宗教態度」。有這種反宗教態度的人,往往高舉「科學至上」旗幟,因為自己的科學知識而有一種優越感,並以為自己是由於擁有科學知識而反對宗教,認為宗教信徒只是無知或愚蠢(或兩者皆是)才相信宗教。這種人從科學知識得到優越感,並透過反宗教進一步加強這種優越感,而這加強了的知識優越感又令他們更熱衷於反對宗教。他們的反宗教態度,最後便可能淪為一種獨斷論(dogmatism),跟他們取笑的宗教獨斷論只是五十步笑百步。

事實上,不少宗教信徒既非無知,也不愚蠢,有些甚至是頂尖的科學家、數學家、哲學家、或其他學科的學者。他們之所以有宗教信仰,是由於各種因素,不能一概而論,沒有一個簡單的解釋;他們的宗教信念即使是錯的,也不表示他們是無知或愚蠢。

我不知道有多少反宗教的人有這種基於知識優越感的反宗教態度,但我至少領教過一位。這位仁兄一向擺出「科學至上」的姿態,有一次我跟他談到宗教,提到 Alvin Plantingamodal ontological argument;我說這論證相當有趣和精密,值得思考一下,誰知這位仁兄連約略知道這論證內容的興趣也沒有,立刻嗤之以鼻,然後「聲大大」說 ontological argument 是十分可笑的論證。姑不論傳統的 ontological argument 是否可笑,我可以肯定地說,Plantinga 的 modal 版本即使仍然是無效的論證,卻一點也不可笑。這位仁兄表現出的,已近乎是獨斷論;另一方面, Plantinga 的學識和思考力,以我的判斷,比他高出不可以道里計。因此,雖然我也是反宗教的,也不同意 Plantinga 的立場,但我覺得可笑的,是這位有科學知識優越感的仁兄,而不是 Plantinga。

86 則留言:

  1. Professor, "基要派"應該是 "基教派"(基本教義派)是嗎?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 「基要派」是 "fundamentalist" 的英譯,也有人譯作「基本教義派」。

      刪除
  2. "我最痛恨的、批評得最狠的,只是那些力圖將自己的宗教觀念和價值(例如反演化論和反同性戀)強加於別人身上的個別教徒和宗教團體。"

    人人有權去支持或不支持"演化論"和"同性戀"。說到底是要提出理據。

    "力圖將自己的宗教觀念和價值強加於別人身上的個別教徒和宗教團體",其問題所在,是他們用錯了論據去"反演化論"和"反同性戀"。

    同樣地,支持"演化論"和"同性戀"的,同樣地用錯了論據去反對 "反演化論"和"反同性戀"。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你是沒看到原作者(你自己引用)所說的重點是
      『強加於別人身上』嗎?
      不是合不合理的問題,OK?

      刪除
    2. //"力圖將自己的宗教觀念和價值強加於別人身上的個別教徒和宗教團體",其問題所在,是他們用錯了論據去"反演化論"和"反同性戀"。//
      //同樣地,支持"演化論"和"同性戀"的,同樣地用錯了論據去反對 "反演化論"和"反同性戀"。//

      你不知道俗語有話:「一人做事一人當」?
      如果真是有人「用錯了論據去"反演化論"和"反同性戀"」,那也不等於其他的人也都是用錯了論據去「反對 "反演化論"和"反同性戀"」呀?

      因為事實上並不是所有反對"反演化論"和反對"反同性戀"的人都是用相同的論據去反對的;
      他們之中有些人用這個論據,有些人用那個論據;你要指出用哪一個論據反對"反演化論"和反對"反同性戀"是用錯了。

      刪除
    3. 『強加於別人身上』implies that 人地"反演化論"和"反同性戀"必然是錯的 "反對",亦忽視了現有的法律及某些道德標準,是源自宗教。我衹指出 "個別教徒和宗教團體" // 用錯了論據去"反演化論"和"反同性戀" // -> 以致 "個別教徒和宗教團體" 的表達出現問題,令 "反對" 他們立場的 "反對者",唔 buy 他們的論據。{ 當然相方都有死硬派,雙耳是衹單向接收自已愛聽到 的論據。}

      // 那也不等於其他的人也都是用錯了論據去「反對 "反演化論"和"反同性戀"」呀?//

      那也不等於其他的人 ** 不是 ** 用錯了論據去「反對 "反演化論"和"反同性戀"」呀!

      // 你要指出用哪一個論據反對"反演化論"和反對"反同性戀"是用錯了。 //

      於此文章的範疇,並不合適討論這些 "論據"。乜你無發覺咩?

      - - - -

      簡單來說,達爾文版本的 "演化論" 絕對有問題 (,咁點解可唔可以 "反" 佢?)。廣意來看,"同性戀" 不祇是 "同性戀",亦無人下個絕對定義解釋何謂 "同性戀"及其應可��展的範圍 (,咁點解要我一定要 "支持" 佢?)。咁你所理解的"同性戀" 又是甚麼?!咁之後的 "雙性戀"、"物戀" 、 "人鬼戀" 等等 又要我一定要 "支持" ?你咪有好大權力?!

      我衹是指出王教授文章出現的盲點,你睇唔出嘅話,係你嘅問題。

      刪除
    4. "及其應可��展的範圍" -> "及其應可延展的範圍"

      刪除
    5. Reply 被抽走。煩請王教授找回。

      刪除
    6. //簡單來說,達爾文版本的 "演化論" 絕對有問題......//

      有問題係因為違背了宗教的教條教規或經文?

      刪除
    7. 不是。是 (今天來看) 達爾文犯上邏輯謬誤,及以他當時的知識,作出了 (以現今的知識來看) 錯誤或不全面的分析。因此在"演化論" 問題上,唔值得去駁。而正反雙方的論據,都不足以得出 "valid argument" 去令對方接受。

      刪除
    8. 『強加於別人身上』implies that 人地"反演化論"和"反同性戀"必然是錯的
      你呢句話已經前提都錯晒啦,你喺度UP乜野呀

      一件沒有標準答案、充滿爭議的事(例如各大宗教信仰、各大政治立場)都可以被用於強加於別人身上(例如強行傳教),所以話一個人『將自己的想法強加於他人身上』,唔一定會話緊呢個人的理據立論有錯!!

      至於呢個人係出於咩野而堅持己見(堅持到覺得自己的想法是唯一/最正確,到可以強加於他人身上的地步),就要個別探討才行!
      可以係因為呢個人本身有謬論,可以係呢個人本身有理性的見解,呢D野因人而異


      最後,個人立場(唔係同緊任何人討論,請勿對號入座)
      反同性戀,就像種族歧視一樣,根本完全沒有任何正當性可言
      別說甚麼同性戀愛不能生育……天下幾多選擇唔生育的異性戀COUPLE?幾多先天或後天不育?難道佢地都罪大惡極?更別說甚麼人人都係同性戀就人類會滅亡,而家唔係人人都生,人口都爆炸到就來滅亡啦,重要係唔止人類,而且連累埋其他生命物種,點計?

      刪除
    9. 某匿名,你說DARWIN邏輯有錯,邊度同點樣有錯,大大方方指證好冇?
      再者,演化論只係DARWIN提出左個雛型,由19世紀以來,已經有不少頂尖科學家繼續研究演化論,你唔係以為DARWIN一個人的小錯大錯,可以推翻演化論下話?你估聖經咩?THIS IS SCIENCE! 科學唔屬於任何一個人,而係全人類的智慧成果,你話DARWIN有錯,唔代表演化論有錯。看來是你自己的LOGIC有問題。

      刪除
    10. 你咪嘥我時間!

      刪除
    11. // 達爾文版本的 "演化論" 絕對有問題 //

      // 你話DARWIN有錯,唔代表演化論有錯。// 吓????

      // 反同性戀,就像種族歧視一樣 ... //

      // 咁你所理解的"同性戀" 又是甚麼?!//

      // 演化論只係DARWIN提出左個雛型 //

      咁聖經可唔可以係個 "雛型" ?

      總之你唔識睇 "文" 都先去睇 "字"啦!唔該!總之你咪嘥我時間!我唔答你唔係我答唔到你,係無必要答你。你唔識的功課,唔該你自已去找答案,兼重看整個 thread。亦請你先學 "禮貌",唔該!

      刪除
    12. COME ON,你才是浪費別人時間

      聖經係宗教,演化論係科學
      我話演化論的基礎係DARWIN提出,但因為這是科學,所以就算DARWIN搞錯有咩關係?後人(其他科學家)可以繼續研究、去推翻又好完善又好,呢D野係可以論證,所以你唔可以因為DARWIN本人有冇搞錯(到底係乜野搞錯你又唔講)而推翻演化論,係要睇埋至今演化論的研究成果!OK?

      然後聖經卻係宗教的依歸,除非由『神』親自解答,否則後人點樣解釋都已經唔可能達成一個共識(所以先會有基督教、天主教、東正教、摩門教等等),。所以聖經LOGIC有問題,會動搖成個宗教的根基 
      而演化論就算DARWIN出左錯,如果佢個立論錯到七彩,早就冇人可以繼續研究,因為這是科學,需要論證!
      你明未呀?


      至於我所理解的同性戀是甚麼,我才要反問你,你係度UP乜

      同性戀就係兩個同性別的人相愛,包括但不一定等如同性性行為,因為好多人在單一性別環境中都會有同性行為,但佢地本人可能根本唔係同性戀。
      好簡單嘅野,你硬要複雜化,唔會令你講嘅野變得有道理

      你點樣定義同性戀都好,每個同性戀都有人權
      甚麼人獸戀、人鬼戀都係鬼扯,簡單講句,關同性戀X事咩

      (同性戀由雙方同意而『進行』,與異性戀並無分別,當然你要扯到戀童的話那根本就已經有法律問題,這一點異性戀完全一樣;
      至於人獸戀,我唔該你先話我知點樣可以肯定一隻動物『願意』同人類戀愛或發生性行為;
      至於人鬼戀,先假設你講的『鬼』係鬼魂唔係指『外國人』,咁唔該你先證明有鬼存在先啦。
      簡而言之,你講埋一堆荒謬例子,托咩)

      王教授個BLOG點解而家咁多你呢D連基本LOGIC同立論都唔合格的讀者?

      刪除
    13. 如果你嘅 "邏輯" 真係咁勁,請看看這條 thread 的起始留言係乜,而你又拉抯咗去邊。

      有 "三聚氰胺" 的毒奶講淡咗一百倍,你可否否定有 "三聚氰胺" 在內?

      如果我天生鍾意"莊"人沖涼、鍾意吸毒、鍾意... ,你做乜 "強加" 你嘅法律於我身上?

      點解你一定要我同意你啲謬論?特別當你根本無提出令我信服的理據?

      我話 "物戀",可唔可以係指 "購物狂" ? 我話 "人鬼戀",若係指 "人 Ghost 戀" ,你做乜强加你嘅意見在我身上,要我 "先證明有鬼存在"?咁你又點證明 你真係天生 "同性戀" 、 "雙性戀"、 "物戀"、 "人鬼戀"?

      如果我天生"購物狂",買完嘢、碌完咭,點解唔可以攞我新買啲貨物,去找咭數?你做乜一定要我比錢找咭數,咁強加於我身上?

      你咪就係那種 // 雙耳是衹單向接收自已愛聽到 的論據 // 的人囉。我洗乜聽你嗡? 你當你真係有咁大權力,你支持乜,我就要支持乜?!

      荒謬!

      "至今演化論" 已不是 // 達爾文版本的 "演化論" // 。無人可懷疑 DNA,亦無人可以用 DNA research 去否定宗教。但有人利用 // 達爾文版本的 "演化論" // 去否定宗教,而原來 // 達爾文版本的 "演化論" // 原來係有 問題,咁様呢種 "否定宗教" 的行為,便要重新檢視。

      // 達爾文版本的 "演化論" // 是個有問題的觀察報告。並加插了不必要的 implication 的報告。

      "至今演化論" 即 DNA research 已同 // 達爾文版本的 "演化論" // 無關。若你混淆這兩者的關係,係你荒謬!

      你憑乜要我一定要我支持你所相信的? (Now we are back to the first post of this thread.)

      刪除
    14. Blog site 食 reply,請王教授尋回。謝謝。

      刪除
    15. 匿名,你癲夠未???????

      我一開始就係回應你,『強加於別人』才是宗教教條的問題
      然後你回應我,話指責人地『強加於別人』本身就IMPLY人地個理據係唔合理,所以我先會再回應
      之後我講的都係你自己帶出的題目,例如同性戀定義、DARWIN

      我從來都係回應緊你講過嘅野,
      你話我扯開話題,你痴完線未?

      你真係笑X死我了
      你到底點解會將人鬼戀、戀物、人獸與同性戀相比?
      點解?!

      戀物,你定義為D咩中意SHOPPING,根本就只係購物狂,唔涉及戀愛或性愛,其本質與同性戀有何『可比性』?!
      你痴完線未?

      重有,一開始就係你自己將DARWIN=演化論
      所以你話DARWIN當年有錯=演化論已有問題,不值駁斥

      我講過幾多次,DARWIN當年搞錯D乜X野都好,唔代表今日的演化論成果有錯!!!
      所以就算『"至今演化論" 即 DNA research 已同 // 達爾文版本的 "演化論" // 無關』,咁又點呀?我一開始就係話兩樣野冇關啦,係你自己混淆視聽咋!!!

      痴線架你,邏輯又亂、又亂咁UP
      笑死人,又要定義呢樣嗰樣,結果定完義你個DISCUSSION變得更無厘頭,呢個BLOG、又或者,任何一個BLOG有你呢D咁嘅讀者真係慘咯

      刪除
    16. 你重未明我講乜,你就 "過 Thread" 啦!

      刪除
    17. //我話 "物戀",可唔可以係指 "購物狂" ? 我話 "人鬼戀",若係指 "人 Ghost 戀" ,你做乜强加你嘅意見在我身上,要我 "先證明有鬼存在"?咁你又點證明 你真係天生 "同性戀" 、 "雙性戀"、 "物戀"、 "人鬼戀"?//

      其實你講嘅呢啲"雙性戀"、 "物戀"、 "人鬼戀" "購物狂" 唔係淨係同性戀者先會做,異性戀者也一樣會做架。
      既然不論你係同性抑或異性戀,你都可能會"雙性戀"、 "物戀"、 "人鬼戀" "購物狂" “鍾意"莊"人沖涼、鍾意吸毒、鍾意... ”,
      即係話,無論係同性戀或異性戀,裡面都有好人亦有壞人,
      既然係咁,點解你一定要將啲異性戀嘅人都係一樣會可能做嘅嘢全部歸嗮落同性戀嘅人處呢?

      刪除
    18. Back to the first post of this thread !

      If you can't read and can't think logically, don't post reply on this thread.

      刪除
    19. 而家係你話//我話 "物戀",可唔可以係指 "購物狂" ? 我話 "人鬼戀",....//吖嘛,乜你講啲嘢原來係發噏風?不堪一擊?

      刪除
    20. You can't read Chinese, and you are dumb. So don't waste my time and "強加" your stupid opinion on me.

      刪除
    21. 你點知我 “can't read Chinese”?梗係你 "強加" your stupid opinion on me“喇..

      刪除
    22. Stupid is as stupid does. 哈哈哈

      刪除
  3. Dear Wong,
    can i say any person could be "既非無知,也不愚蠢" and "既無知或愚蠢" at the same time ?
    a 頂尖的科學家、數學家、哲學家、或其他學科的學者 could be extremely wise, critical and knowledgeable in their academic field, yet in other area, eg religion, very "既無知或愚蠢" as they do not use the same critical / logical / analytical mind to challenge their faith ( or do not see the need to do so ).
    if you, philosopher Wong, have very sound / logical / irrefutable not to believe in certain religion, isn't those who believe in it relatively "既無知或愚蠢" ?
    dr Who

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. // if you, philosopher Wong, have very sound / logical / irrefutable not to believe in certain religion, isn't those who believe in it relatively "既無知或愚蠢" ? // Not really. They may have good arguments that I don't fully understand.

      刪除
    2. 首先,每個人都有其盲點,佢數學叻科學叻唔代表佢選擇既野一定要合邏輯。
      等於盲目既愛情,信仰更加係一種超越左邏輯同理性既感覺,我地成日用邏輯去駁斥情感其實唔會有結果

      啊儘管如此,我依然非常中意恥笑佢地。

      刪除
  4. Dear Wong,
    You said, " 可是,我相信如果這個世界沒有宗教,整體而言會美好一點(甚至美好得多)" I think it is very impossible as human nature are selfish. My standpoint on religion is a matter of choice. No one should force upon their opinion so as to achieve or maintain their status quo with or without the hinder agenda. Even one choose to believe in a religion, one should have a freedom to practice at his own pace and own discovery. I cannot take the guilt blame in religion generally. You have to do this or that otherwise you will be punished by hell fire. HELL NO!

    In fact, I ask myself this question a lot. What make those good people good? Is it because of their morale, their culture, their education.... I know there is not a single answer but I think it is related to high level of self awareness and self conscious. I know it is a fact that there are more atheists in Scandinavia countries than other parts of world. One of the explanation is because these countries are well off. People in those countries are more highly educated and believe human can control and solve their problems together.

    I am waiting for you to write on this subject : how the earth would be a better place without religion. By the way, do you know anything about Islam? They always claims themselves to be a religion of peace but as an outsider, I found it is the most patriarchal religion among all. Men have absolutely say about what should a woman wear or do. When I read the articles related to those issue, the ideology always back up by the sacred test. How could God be just if women are treated unjustly? Would you write about it in another article?

    Rosemary

    Rosemary

    回覆刪除
  5. The greatness of a religion is judged by how it treats those who do not believe it.
    It is always in my mind that the ideal God’s task for His followers is “To comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable”. Unfortunately all organized religions failed in both areas.
    Religion has its place in our civilization. If nothing else it gives hope to those poor, sick and destitute in the world. We (or most of us) are fortunate enough living comfortably. However, the same cannot be said of millions of people in the world. I would not go that far to deny them a religion and hope.
    Rosemary, Something about Islam. I do not know much about Islam either. But I do know that the Koran includes Moses and Jesus as two of their prophets and quotes their sayings. Like any other religions Islam has many divisions and sects. People perhaps only see the sensational news in the media without understanding what Islam is. By the way Islam has no monopoly of violence and brutality and injustice. If you read about the 2000 years history of Christianity, you may find there is no shortage of violence and brutality and injustice.

    Samson
    Ontario, Canada

    回覆刪除
  6. (第一次用留錯位)
    首先,每個人都有其盲點,佢數學叻科學叻唔代表佢選擇既野一定要合邏輯。
    等於盲目既愛情,信仰更加係一種超越左邏輯同理性既感覺,我地成日用邏輯去駁斥情感其實唔會有結果

    啊儘管如此,我依然非常中意恥笑佢地。

    回覆刪除
  7. 人只要有思想和精神世界,相信很難不會出現有信仰和宗教。各種不同的宗教或信仰均源自於該人種或群體並帶有或反映出該個群體的歷史文化和習性。由於思想是無法禁止的,所以屬於思想一部份的信仰或宗教也被接受為「宗教信仰自由」。
    但問題相信最重要的是,在任何宗教信仰之下所產生的行為都不應該侵犯人權或凌駕於人權之上,聯合國的《世界人權宣言》http://www.un.org/zh/documents/udhr/ 應該可以作為判斷一個宗教是「好」還是「壞」的標準。

    回覆刪除
  8. When religions talk about believing, believing in, or faith (some people leaving comments here use these words too), many times, though not always, they are talking about believing without any evidence.
    Even though I quote Buddhist sayings often, but I am not one of them. I don't believe in transmigration, reincarnation, afterlife, etc, without evidence. It's kind of sad that most of them, even the zen people, believe in those things. But who the hell am I here to say things about them?
    Samson's "greatness of a religion... judged by how it treats those who do not believe it" is, to me, only as great as what it believes in. Again, who the hell am I here to say things about the greatness of a religion?
    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  9. //整體而言會美好一點(甚至美好得多)。這不只是我的一個信念,而是我經過長時間觀察和思考所得出的結論;不過,若要論証...//
    Whether the world without religions will be a better place or not I could not tell. But I will be very careful about a theory without empirical evidence. Utopia, on paper, sounds very good too. Marxism, on paper, sounds very good too.
    By the way, a lot of theories in science didn't survive because empirical evidence didn't support them. And many theories are still going on because we don't have any means to test them empirically.
    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  10. //一些人的確需要宗教的慰藉//
    I've read somewhere that religions will probably be with us for a long time, because many people need the psychological comfort from or dependence on it. That's my paraphrase. I can't remember where I read it, so I can't cite the work. I can't remember if the writer said something like despite our scientific knowledge.

    Wong has written something on the meaning (or meaningfulness?) of life. That makes me think about it somewhat. But I am lazy, as usual, and forget about it very soon.
    A have a thought. Would having meaning in life without religious belief be a psychological comfort or dependence other than that from or on a religion?
    I am not saying that it is a bad thing. I would definite agree that it could be better than believing in a religion.
    Maybe I'm just a crazy guy because I don't need something like that.
    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  11. //雖然我不會一竹篙打盡所有宗教,也同意宗教有其正面的功用,更明白一些人的確需要宗教的慰藉,可是,我相信如果這個世界沒有宗教,整體而言會美好一點(甚至美好得多)。//

    這個說法也頗有意思,「如果沒有宗教」,若按照人類演化的歷史過程來看,在古代,因為科學水平不高,很多自然現象對當時的人們來說都是個謎,迷信的人相信比現代多得多。
    而迷信的人是比較容易成為宗教信徒的,可能因此信教或信神的人所佔的人口比例也比今天高很多。
    但隨著社會和科學發展,今天信宗教的人已是呈現出一個遞減的趨勢;若照此發展下去,假以時日,宗教可能真係會有消失的一天。
    當然,那可能已是數百甚至上千年以後的事。若又按照人類演化的歷史來看,隨著人類愈來愈文明,人類相互之間衝突/戰爭的頻密程度也是呈現一個遞減趨勢,那很多年之後,世界可能比現在太平得多,應該是所謂「明天會更好」。
    這個「如果沒有宗教」是可能的,但會是在很多很多年以後的事。

    但如果現在突然沒有了宗教,那即是十多億回教徒和數以億計的天主教基督教佛教....等等教徒都回复常人一樣,彼此沒有信念之爭,那的確是少了很多不必要的紛爭,世界應該也可以因此而平靜了很多。但可惜的是,這個可能性恐怕不會在短時間內出現。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. You are pretty much to have started a "religion" for yourself to believe that "但如果現在突然沒有了宗教,那即是十多億回教徒和數以億計的天主教基督教佛教....等等教徒都回复常人一樣,彼此沒有信念之爭,那的確是少了很多不必要的紛爭,世界應該也可以因此而平靜了很多。" which you may never prove to be true. Plus your implication when you said "回复常人一樣" is a fallacy. Nice try.

      刪除
    2. //You are pretty much to have started a "religion" for yourself to believe that......which you may never prove to be true. ....//

      你似乎不明白「如果」是什麼意思。 "never say never",fallacy者顯然係你。

      刪除
    3. Your IF-THEN-statement and your implied definition of "常人 / not-常人" are not universal truth. Thus either you made a fallacy or you were babbling.

      刪除
    4. 你唔知有句俗話叫做「多只香爐多只鬼」嘅咩?
      多咗不同信仰係咪多咗不同歧見多啲「鬼」先?
      多啲「鬼」係咪會多咗機會出現「鬼打鬼」呀 fallacy man?

      你認為少咗不同信仰,少咗歧見反而會多啲紛爭?你啲係咩logic呀?

      刪除
    5. 嗰位匿名又好鍾意講fallacy者:

      你睇下香港都知啦,泛民同建制係咪兩種唔同信仰呀?如果再加多啲其它唔同信仰例如本土派,愛字派,熱血派......你話係咪會多啲紛爭定會少啲紛爭呢?

      刪除
    6. 叉咗去第二處 is another fallacy。「多只香爐多只鬼」was not the theme of that particular IF-THEN-statement。It was about "常人 / not-常人"。If you cannot discuss within the logic framework, it is irresponsible babbling and no one needs to pay attention to your "big talk", and neither will I.

      刪除
    7. fallacy者:

      一啲都冇叉咗去第二處,你唔知「常人」係咩意思?你唔識得睇一句話嘅上文下理?
      嗱,成句話係咁講嘅:
      ”但如果現在突然沒有了宗教,那即是十多億回教徒和數以億計的天主教基督教佛教....等等教徒都回复常人一樣,彼此沒有信念之爭,那的確是少了很多不必要的紛爭,世界應該也可以因此而平靜了很多。”

      好明顯,當「如果」「突然沒有了宗教」時,並不等於原本是宗教信徒的人也會跟著「突然沒有了」,沒有了宗教不等於沒有了信那個宗教的人。

      既然那些人會依然存在,他們只不過是由「信徒」變為不是信徒的普通人,因此在這裡用「常人」來形容這些普通的人。

      如果你認為這是fallacy的話,那如果不是你的錯就顯然是你的理解能力太低,低於「常人」水平了。

      刪除
    8. 你咪死撑兼嘥我時間!

      刪除
    9. 你係喺度「賊嗌捉賊」定抑或係「惱羞成怒」呀?

      刪除
  12. Of course it is impossible to use this blog to conduct a lengthy debate on religion. I can only highlight a few of my points on the subject.


    >> The greatness of a religion is judged by how it treats those who do not believe it.<< I try to address the issue of tolerance. If a religion only talks to its faithful and in the meantime hates/tries to convert/ condemns/ even kills those who do not agree with that religion, what will the world become? Would many of the world problems come from the intolerance between religions?


    Humans always have some sort of religion since day one. The religions we know today are actually not that old. The Jewish bible was first written about 3000 years ago so the God was created 3000 years ago. Before that there may be an oral tradition. People may worship the sun/ the moon/ the mountain/ the water/ the animal, you name it and convince enough people to worship it. It is a religion in primitive form. Now we have organized religions run like a corporation. Will religion ever disappear? Not likely. When there is a need, someone will sell the goods.


    There is no need to prove a religious theory. Religion is a faith. “Faith” is defined as a belief that requires no proof according to any English dictionary. It is preposterous for some Protestant churches to witness the evidence of God’s revelation in order to convert people. The New Testament wants you to believe by faith, not by works (your actions).


    Is a religion better than the others? Not likely. Do all religions tell people to do good things? Not likely either. Then what is the best moral code of living? The Golden Rule is the closest to the ideal. “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”


    Samson
    Ontario, Canada


    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. //Is a religion better than the others? //

      Yes, a religion that do more respecting human rights is better than the one that do less or don't.

      “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

      It may not true if one like hot food but others may not.

      刪除
  13. 宗教信仰本身其實沒問題,問題是 holier than thou 態度,religious tyranny。我記起電影 Carrie (1976) 那位老母,心寒。可惜宗教霸道跟信仰本身很多時不能(或不易)分割,所以宗教既可載舟,亦可覆舟。宗教如果被[攻擊],那是因為他們推動把教義溶入社會政策。政教(政府宗教)永遠不能讓其合一,否則人類大禍臨頭。此點是無可置疑的。歷史及現今中東回教的政教合一,就是災難的見證。

    信仰你不能以客觀科學態度去研究分析。真正的信仰是心靈感應,faith is meant to be a deeply personal thing。人類對自己的智慧可能自視過高,整個人類歷史經歷 + 人類 collective wisdom/imagination 以外的領域,你如何去探索?就如螞蟻想攪明核子原理,暫時不可能,不過此是另一話題。坊間大部分之 organized religions,似 social clubs 多一點,[好]的是聯誼會,[惡]的是黑社會。唉。

    Religions don't kill people, people kill people。沒有了宗教,不會有其他藉口?宗教教義怎可能 sanction 殺戮?是教徒別有用心的去演繹教義。。。別低估了邪惡找藉口的天份。

    我想說的說:信徒要公開傳教或以他們的教義為理據,就要預了被人挑戰。但別人若只靜靜享受信仰帶給他們的心靈喜悅,那不關我的事,我們不應騷擾。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. //沒有了宗教,不會有其他藉口?//

      那至少是少了一個非常重要的並且是可以比較容易地影響和鼓動相當多信眾的藉口。

      刪除
    2. 沒有了宗教就沒有了以宗教為名之紛爭,但紛爭不會減少,只會換藉口。羅馬帝國當年逼害基督教,Nero 的原因是什麼?Spanish Inquisition,Ferdinand 的真正動機是什麼?沒有了宗教這個藉口,以上種種不會發生?宗教之爭永遠都隱藏部落,種族,領土,內部權力,既得利益者之爭。因為純粹依教義,沒有宗教(organized religions)會支持殺戮。

      你只看到宗教浮面明顯之壞,但好呢?你自己領略不到宗教的好就認定宗教沒有好?Don't throw the baby out with the bath water。 例如我說全球若立例讓所有一出生智商有缺陷,醫學判斷其一生要人照顧之人立即安樂死,以免拖累親朋戚友及社會資源,理論上是個[好決定],我們看到明顯利益的[好處],但實際上呢?

      刪除
    3. Horai,

      //沒有了宗教就沒有了以宗教為名之紛爭,但紛爭不會減少,只會換藉口。//
      紛爭會不會減少可能是一個數學問題:

      每一個「紛爭」可以被視為是一個不為零的正整數 n(positive integer);

      假設世上的紛爭為 n,
      那麼「沒有了宗教就沒有了以宗教為名之紛爭」,即是若果沒有了宗教,世上的紛爭至少為 (n-1);

      答案恐怕不會是:n = (n-1) 吧?

      刪除
    4. //你自己領略不到宗教的好就認定宗教沒有好?//

      "雖然我不會一竹篙打盡所有宗教,也同意宗教有其正面的功用,更明白一些人的確需要宗教的慰藉,可是,我相信如果這個世界沒有宗教,整體而言會美好一點(甚至美好得多)。"

      Horai,你的眼睛長哪裡去了?你是盲人?

      刪除
    5. @匿名(8:43): 嗱,係咪即係咁:

      閒人甲你想謀你細路家產好耐,於是你話佢信嘅係邪教毀家,一腳踢佢出家門。

      但咪住,世上沒有宗教。

      你想謀你細路家產好耐,於是你話佢密謀招賊入屋毀家,一腳踢佢出家門。

      你細路於是搵數學晦氣:喂,乜唔係冇咗宗教我就安全咩?你呃人!

      結論:數學專門呃人搵人笨。

      刪除
    6. @匿名(8:49):我那留言其實是答某匿名,不過沒問題,拗王先生論點一樣可以。閣下出言不遜,我有興致玩以牙為牙。

      你腦直心盲㗎,淨識斷章取義斬件嚟拗。我話[你自己領略不到宗教的好就認定宗教沒有好?Don't throw the baby out with the bath water。 ]你唔明之後嗰句英文可以問我。王先生並沒有自己領略到宗教的好,他只是說他[明白]為什麼有人會需要宗教,但即使如此,王先生認為 throw the baby out with the bath water 一了百了。王先生我估是打算用 ontological argument 來推論為什麼沒有宗教好,但此種純理論的邏輯辯論只可以推論到[神存在與否跟認知]之關係,要由此來[論證]世上沒有宗教會更好,絕對不可能。此牽涉歷史,教義,文化,天災人禍一萬種互動的複雜,怎可能?玩呀?

      刪除
    7. Horai,

      //你細路於是搵數學晦氣:喂,乜唔係冇咗宗教我就安全咩?你呃人!//

      1.「少啲紛爭」唔等於「冇」;
      2. 少咗紛爭你都一樣會中招,只能夠證明你黑仔;證明唔到「數學專門呃人搵人笨。」

      刪除
    8. Horai, 你有幻覺呀?,你點知「王先生認為 throw the baby out with the bath water 一了百了」呀?

      「王先生我估是打算用......」,乜你靠估都得?
      咁我「估」你係個癲佬又得唔得呀?

      刪除
  14. 王先生假如只說[我認為世上沒有宗教會更好]那没問題,你個人認為什麼都可以。但王先生是去到[論証]層面呀。。。唉。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Horai,你係乜水呀?人家論證會踩到你條尾咩?

      刪除
    2. 王先生唔歡迎乜水評論早揚聲吖,成日皇帝唔急太監急,好搞笑㗎嘛。

      @匿名(7:04):哦,係咪即係咁,佔中第一日:

      唔妥中共行出街参予佔中人仕可以被視為是一個不為零的正總數 A(positive integer)。

      假設香港在佔中第一日[唔妥中共人仕]總數為 N。

      咁第一日佔中政府「拉哂 A ]即刻判囚一星期,以自由身論,香港立即 (N-A),所以(自由身)N 响佔中第二日總數一定少咗?嘿嘿嘿嘿

      刪除
    3. Horai,所以話你成日都以為自己係乜水咁巴x閉,你叫人出聲人家就要出聲嘅咩?我叫你收聲你係咪就收聲呀?人家見你癲成咁睬你都....

      所以話你有啲黐線,(自由身)係何物?

      刪除
    4. Horai,你一開始設咗「佔中第一日:唔妥中共行出街参予佔中人仕」為 A,
      跟著你又設「香港在佔中第一日[唔妥中共人仕]總數為 N」,

      咁你到底「佔中第一日」嘅人數係 A 定係 N 呀?

      刪除
    5. Horai,你係話(自由身)= N - A ?

      刪除
    6. Horai,你話(自由身)係N定係A呢?所以我問你(自由身)為何物,咁你認為(自由身)= N - A 有咩問題呢?

      刪除
    7. Horai,如果你認為(自由身)係N,咁你就真係要去讀過小學至得喇

      刪除
    8. 係太監話唔可以疑君犯上喎,咁問吓幾時頒下嘅聖旨都唔得呀?嘩,太監好惡,避之則吉。

      @各位數學小英雄,我明我出題要就你哋智慧,好,我改簡單啲:

      係咪即係咁:

      (1)佔中第一日:唔妥中共行出街参予佔中人仕可以被視為是一個不為零的正總數 A(positive integer)。

      假設香港在佔中第一日[唔妥中共人仕]總數為 N。各位數學小英雄, N 即係[唔妥中共人仕]嘅總數。嗱,唔係個個唔滿中共都有參予佔中㗎喎。

      咁第一日佔中政府立即鐵腕政策「拉哂 A ]即囚一星期。

      (2)佔中第二日:香港可以再出街佔中最多係咪 (N-A)?即係 N 總人數可出街佔中嘅第一日同第二日比少咗?嘿嘿嘿嘿

      刪除
    9. Horai,為「皇上」服務嗰啲先係太監呀,有「任務」在身,又做緊皇上條五毛嘅你話係邊個吖?

      你啲小學生水皮嘅算術就唔好拿出嚟獻醜啦,
      『即係 N 總人數可出街佔中嘅第一日同第二日比少咗?』?
      你即係話「第一日」比「第二日」少咗人?

      刪除
    10. Horai,「第一日」係 N1,「第二日」係 N2,「第三日」係 N3....
      總人數係 N,唔通你真係黐線到將一二三......黐埋嗮?

      刪除
    11. 匿名(12:35):閣下理解能力前無古人後無來者可比,我再解釋問題下去是我自取其辱。閣下數學神魔之名當之無愧。。。

      刪除
    12. Horai,你黐成咁,快啲去睇醫生先喇...

      刪除
    13. 匿名(12:45):嗯,有點意思。咁 N1,N2,N3 的關係是什麽?嘿

      刪除
    14. N1 = N - A1
      N2 = N - A2
      N3 = N - A3
      ......

      刪除
    15. 簡單啲,當只有 A,冇 A1,A2 etc.

      咁第一日佔中係 (N1-A),第二日就 N2 喇,以實數嚟計(例如 100 萬人),咁 N2 係咪永遠冇可能大過 N1-A ?唔係?但明明減咗 A 喎?點解呢你話?小心答呀,駁匿名(8:43)就會用你嘅答案,講到明你知。嘿嘿

      刪除
    16. Horai,按照你 Horai 3/22/2015 11:54 下午 所講同埋你話『簡單啲,當只有 A,冇 A1,A2 etc.』:

      你話『(1)佔中第一日:唔妥中共行出街参予佔中人仕可以被視為是一個不為零的正總數 A(positive integer)』『N 即係[唔妥中共人仕]嘅總數。』
      咁即係第一日[唔妥中共人仕]嘅總數 N1 = N,

      你話『咁第一日佔中政府立即鐵腕政策「拉哂 A ]』
      咁第二日[唔妥中共人仕]嘅總數 N2 = (N-A),

      你繼續話『佔中第二日:香港可以再出街佔中最多係咪 (N-A)』『咁 N2 係咪永遠冇可能大過 N1-A ?』
      因為N2 = (N-A), N1 = N
      所以N2 = (N1-A)
      N2 < N1
      你話『(2)佔中第二日:香港可以再出街佔中最多係咪 (N-A)?即係 N 總人數可出街佔中嘅第一日同第二日比少咗?嘿嘿嘿嘿』

      『即係 N 總人數可出街佔中嘅第一日同第二日比少咗?』,第一日同第二日比,第一日總人數可出街佔中比第二日多咗A人喎,
      咁『即係 N 總人數可出街佔中嘅第一日同第二日比少咗?嘿嘿嘿嘿』

      刪除
    17. @匿名(10:15):嘩,果然字字奧妙深藏玄機,好,再簡單啲:

      佔中第一日,唔妥中共人仕總人數 =100 萬人;上街佔中總人數= 10 萬,中共响 11:59 PM 全部槍斃哂上街之 10 萬人。

      佔中第二日:唔妥中共人仕總人數多過定少過 100 萬?請只簡單擇一:

      (1)[多過 100 萬]或
      (2)[少過 100 萬]或
      (3)[我係數學英雄我嘅使命係唔直接答因為語無倫次係最安全]

      數學英雄門,請爽快只擇一,不必長篇大論解釋。我智商唔夠,驚睇咗[解釋]會憎全天下中小學數學老師。多謝諒解。

      刪除
    18. Horai, 最「標準」同最最有「屎命感」的答案就係。。。。

      Horai"我係數學英雄我嘅使命係唔直接答因為語無倫次係最安全]
      『即係 N 總人數可出街佔中嘅第一日同第二日比少咗 嘿嘿嘿嘿』


      刪除
    19. Horai, 你仲可以繼續「再簡單啲」或者「再複雜啲」例如「中共响 11:59 PM 全部槍斃哂上街之 10 萬人」之後另外再派47軍裝甲兵團入港或者派101空降師佔據香港所有交通要道,總之你除咗「語無倫次係最安全」之外,你仲可以好快發咗200貼,於是你可以向皇上拿200個「五毛」,我「成全」你咋,你又何樂而不為?

      刪除
  15. A bit more to add to what I've said above:
    The Soviet Union and communist China (especially before it embraced market economy) tried and were somewhat successful in doing away religions, the outcome wasn't all good in the end. Of course, one can argue that they suppressed religions and it backfired. It could do better--I mean, if religions were gone, not by suppression--in a democratic society though. Again, given that we are talking about the world we are currently living in, I have reservation about it, even though I don't belong to any religions. I won't discuss what it may be like in distant future.
    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  16. It is not necessary that when we "do away" religions we throw the baby out with the bath water. It could be harder for some religions than others to keep the baby, if they have one. If Buddhists throw away the ideas of rebirth, reincarnation, transmigration, afterlife, miracles and supernatural occurrence described in Buddhist scriptures, etc., and maybe some other stuff, but retain the rest, I don't see that the baby is gone with the bath water. Well, it's harder for some Buddhists sects than others to throw the bath water away. The zen sect came close, or even was there, I guess, at some point in history. One can argue that the zen sect then wasn't a religion. But today, what I see is that a lot of, though not all, zen people believe the things (afterlife, etc) I said above.
    --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  17. The zen sect in certain time period in history I mentioned above didn't really give people any comfort and wasn't really about religious faith.
    It was about groundlessness, how much comfort one could get from it? and having faith in groundlessness?
    Is there something like that today? From what I know, I guess there is, but I can't be sure. One may need to look hard and far to find it though. As I said before, I'm not around those people. So, I can't be sure.
    -zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. @zpd: 宗教冇咗[玄]嗰部分,咪就係學派思想囉,包裝得靚少少,就係哲學。現實嚟講,每一個曲解宗教教義去犯罪嘅人,亦同樣可能相對有一個因遵循教義而不敢犯罪之人,最終可能是 zero-sum game。舉頭三尺有神靈,冥冥中自有天理公斷,我信。你可以唔信,但如果有人話可論証到如果全世界都唔信[舉頭三尺有神靈,冥冥中自有天理公斷]世界會更好,咁我就真係要洗耳恭聽囉。

      刪除
    2. //....亦同樣可能相對有一個因遵循教義而不敢犯罪之人,最終可能是 zero-sum game。//
      如果遵循伊斯蘭國教義恐怕不但唔會「不敢犯罪」,而係直頭會「勇於犯罪」添!

      [舉頭三尺有神靈,冥冥中自有天理公斷]咁神化都得?畢宜話「有天收你」仲好啦...真係認真神化。

      刪除
    3. 我真信 karma 㗎。[舉頭三尺有神靈,冥冥中自有天理公斷]咪即係[天收]囉,喂,我學哲學用文字妝靚嗰意念得唔得?神化?冇問題。你科學英雄我又冇阻你,你諗乜都得,又唔關我事。唓!

      刪除
    4. Horai,唔關你事你又走嚟呢度唓大炮?搏拿多啲五毛呀?

      刪除
    5. //Horai3/22/2015 11:58 下午@zpd: 宗教冇咗[玄]嗰部分,咪就係學派思想囉,包裝得靚少少,就係哲學。......//

      Horai你『冇咗[ ]嗰部分』咪就可以入女廁囉,包裝得靚少少,你仲可以參選港姐添!

      刪除
    6. Horai,
      I don't know if you'll read this. I haven't been here for several days, and I didn't expect anyone commenting on my words.

      //宗教冇咗[玄]嗰部分,咪就係學派思想囉//
      It could be that way, but it doesn't have to be so.

      Since my example is "zen Buddhism", let's say it is a religion. Without //[玄]嗰部分// zen sect doesn't have to be 學派思想. First, it sneers at scriptures or things like that. Read the saying "transmitting outside the scriptures" (not my translation). Second, it emphasizes on everyday life, not some 思想, let alone 學派. It's very pragmatic. But the fact that some people, whoever they are, do it some other ways is beyond the control of some long gone good old masters.
      I put " " on zen Buddhism above because there was great Taoism influence on zen sect in its early days and that part of Taoism got absorbed in it. I suspect that one couldn't find that part in today's Taoism anymore, either in religious Taoism or philosophical Taoism.
      I am not saying that there are no good zen people out there today though. But it is surely very noisy out there.

      刪除