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
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
It looks like I was a bit too indirect this time.
你太 cynical 了。
//你太 cynical 了。
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.
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).
I know right? The Chinese phrase sounds more like "cowardly" than "cynical" per se.
//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//
I know right? The Chinese phrase sounds more like "cowardly" than "cynical" per se.//
- Perhaps you've mixed up 「儒」and 「懦」.
"- 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?
Indeed. Some may choose to see serendipity as simply a matter of pure chance; others may take it as a sign from God.
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.
//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
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).
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.
- 所謂 theistic evolution 就是一個好例子。
//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).
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.
//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.
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）
男：（頭一仰，不肯示弱）我同你講既係科學！做人都係清醒 D 好！