For the most part, I don't mind it if people are religious, if they believe in things like a God or have certain customs passed down because of their beliefs. Sometime is it the psyche of a people. I still remember the time I was in Thailand, where I made a wonderful friend that showed me around Bangkok.
She showed me all the beautiful temples and taught me all about the lives of the Buddhist monks. She invited me into a temple, where I had the chance to sit in prayer with the ordinary Thai people. I asked her what she would usually pray for, and she told me that she would pray for good health for her family and good luck for her friends. I was all good natured and I had a lot of respect for the kindness I found in the Thai culture. They never told me that their beliefs were the right way to life or anything but they were quite happy with their way of life nor were they threatened by the beliefs of others. It was incredibly pleasant learning about the culture of the Thai people.
Months later since I came back to Japan, I've lived a peaceful life, doing my own thing, minding my own business. But if there is something that annoys me, it would always be some western missionary in the street. "Free English lessons" they'd say, or they'd be even be more direct and tell me that "God loves you" and that I should come to their Church. The part that bothers me the most about all this beneath the surface, they are trying to push their beliefs on to other people, whether they want it or not. I think that's deceitful. Wasn't there a commandment in the bible that said "thou shalt not lie?" Well, I guess, the technicality is that they're not lying, par se, but they aren't really honest.
But the burning question that I have to ask, is what right do these people have to come in and try and change the beliefs of a culture and what right do they have to get offended when other people have beliefs different from them? I really do get quite agitated when people, especially Evangelicals, come out on to the streets to profess that believing in their religion will send you to a place of eternal happiness after death, where as otherwise, you are sent to a place of eternal hell. A friendly bunch of people, wouldn't you say?
I don't care what you believe in, as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others
There are states in the US that explicitly require people to be a practicing Christian to get into an elected office. I ask, then, what about the others whom follow a different faith? What right do these people have to tell others that they cannot hold an elected office unless they be a Christian? There are other parts in the US where Christians are battling against the Education system to have scientific theories like Evolution thrown out of the curriculum, or at least have it watered down and have "intelligent design" taught with the same level of footing that evolution has. If that was the case, I would think it would be equally fair to have the Muslim and Buddhist ideas of life taught in the same classroom. But to do so, would entice outrage and anger. Since when did religious tolerance get redefined to "You must tolerate our religion and we have the right to reject yours?" Somebody is trying to have their cake and eat it too.
But it goes further than this. Personally, I don't really mind what you believe in, so long as you don't infringe in the lives of other people (so long as they don't do likewise to you). I draw the line when people believe they have the the right to deny people of different faith into an elected position, or people of the same gender to get married or the decision use birth-control should they choose to. That, frankly, is none of their business.
The results of science are independent of religion
There are people out there who chose to not realize that the experimental results and conclusions that come out of the field of science has nothing to do with religion. The most important part of science is that the experiments are repeatable no matter who conducts them. Thus it shouldn't matter if a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddist or a wiccan decides to conduct the same scientific experiment-- they should all get the same result.
But the problem is, that for some religions, the results that come out of the scientific process is that it may contradict what they believe in and for that sin, those ideas are to be quashed. A man by the name of Galileo one thought that the Earth revolved around the sun. For that idea, he was held in house arrest by the church until his death. So I ask, is that right? Is that fair? For those think that was right, don't complain if others decide that it is fair to persecute others in the same manner for having different ideas. And yet still, the laws which govern the motion of the planets remain unchallenged. For those that do disagree, I suggest you throw out your satellite TV dishes and GPS systems and walk the walk.
The concept of the scientific method is to eliminate human bias to come down to objective conclusions.
Let's Be fair
I don't come down on other people about if their beliefs are different than mine. If my friends are Muslim, Buddhist or Christian and they don't get in the way of other people minding their own business or cause general unpleasantness then I completely don't mind. But cross that line, then don't start complaining when other people take issue.
6 comments:
A few counterpoints to your thoughtful post:
- Your contention that people should not try to push their beliefs onto others does not seem to be consistent with the scientific discourse that you put your faith in. Are you saying that if two groups of scientists disagree about a scientific theory, they shouldn't be able to try and convince the other side that their position is right (for example, in the various camps of string theory, which may never be experimentally proven)? If not, how is religion or philosophy different?
- If your belief system included a penalty of eternal damnation for non-believers, wouldn't you want other people to know about it so they don't get screwed? So what seems to you as off-putting is in another perspective a caring action. Of course, there is a fine line between acting out of love and acting like a big dick. And the most vocal ones are invariably the dicks. I doubt that you would be as off-put if you had a thoughtful and intelligent conversation with another person who is trying to convert you.
- Science and religion are not independent of one another. While one cannot prove the other, they can be used as aids to understand the other. For example, science cannot answer the why, so philosophy must take over (whether the answer is "it's god" or "it's random"). This is exactly the problem with intelligent design - it's a philosophical viewpoint disguised as scientifically provable fact. And just to be provocative, I claim that the scientific method is a belief system itself (before you say the results can be measured - how do you know that the true state of things is what you just measured?).
- For the record, I see absolutely no conflict between the prevalent scientific theories and my beliefs as a Christian. While you may be reacting to ignorant bible-thumpers, recognize that there are a lot of intelligent people who also believe. But in the end, belief in a religion takes a step of faith. No one can reduce it into a logical proof.
Despite what seems to an attack on your entire post, I enjoyed reading it and the points your brought up. Thanks for making me think.
I appreciate your comments Yuti. It's nice to know there are friends that drop by the blog to read from time to time.
I also appreciate the time you put into responding to my post. Of course, religion seems to be a rather touchy issue with many people, though I do not believe that it should be. Depending on the people that you're talking to, the conversation can be quite constructive and in other cases, the discussion might have as much maturity as children calling each other names.
But without further adieu, I'd like to address the points that you brought up in your comments.
First and foremost, I do not believe that people should push their religious views onto other people. This point has nothing to do with science. I do not think that it is right for any person to say and act directly or indirectly that "my religion, my way of life and my morals are absolutely correct." Otherwise then practitioners of all religious denominations with different belief systems will end up in conflict. And to put this point to the test, I would specifically like to hear the intelligent discourse of a Muslim and a Christian on "which religion is right." If that discourse cannot end with a concise answer (ie. either Islam or Christianity being absolutely correct) then I would like people of their religious denominations to respect that their religious views are not absolute and respect the way of life of other people.
I would also like to come back to your point that if scientists can disagree, then practitioners of different religions (or practitioners of the same religion) have the right disagree. If that is the case, I simply ask that people should be understanding of different points of view. I also would like to note that I make no argument that one religious view (or the lack of one) is better than the other nor am I making an argument about the validity of some religion. I simply ask people to *respect,* so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom or on the happiness of others, the views of other people's worldly views. If a Christian does not like a Muslim telling them how the should live their life in accordance to the Koran, then the reverse should hold equally true. That is the statement that I make.
I have no affinity to attack Christianity specifically. I have friends of all religious denominations and I have no problems with people that are respectful of other people's beliefs. In this case, there are people who happen to be missionaries whom are Christians that think it is right for them to try and change the Japanese way of life/culture based on their religious views. I would make the same comments to a Muslim, Buddhist and an Atheist if they did the same thing to a different culture. Make no assumption that your own way of life is the best or happiest way of life, that is all that I ask.
Finally, on the point about science. I make the point that science is not a tool to for a person to prove *what they want* to believe. The main objective of science is to remove human biases and come to the same independent conclusion after performing the same experiment under the same conditions. No position in science is a "hard" fundamental construct (ie. "it is this way because I believe it to be") but more importantly, ideas are continuously updated as we learn more-- theories can be recognized as bad and thrown out if there is contradicting evidence. The results in science have nothing to do with the beliefs of a person. A Muslim should not get different results from a Christian, Buddhist or an Atheist and so, experimental data should not be rejected because a person is a Muslim, Buddhist or an Atheist. What I do detest is the persecution of people with different or opposing views. I make that explicit with the example of Galileo and his persecution. This is the kind of behavior that infringes upon the freedom of others. I believe that you and I both agree that this kind of behavior should not be condoned.
I would like to hear from you on what do you agree with in addition to the parts that you might have a differing opinion with, instead of focusing on only what we might only disagree with.
Thanks for responding to my comments. It's always good to have these types of discussions, since putting your thoughts into words really forces you to evaluate what you normally assume.
And yes, there are many things that we agree upon. Ultimately, everyone should have freedom of conscience - the right to believe whatever they want. No one should be forced, intimidated, or coerced into any particular viewpoint. I also agree that persons with different belief systems should coexist peacefully together and respect each other's beliefs.
However, I do not agree that no one should be able to proselytize. This goes back to the freedom of conscience thing. No one is born into any religion. They must choose which religion to believe, or choose to believe in no religions. This choice should not be made in a vacuum. Both believers and atheists should be able to try to convince others to agree with their worldview (of course, within the bounds of civility). As much as it might annoy you personally, saying that people should not be able to proselytize is an infringement of the right to free speech.
Now, you personally can choose not to listen to anyone and that is fine. However, I do think that you would benefit from having a discussion with someone who is trying to convert you once in a while. And I don't just mean on a purely academic level, but on a fundamental "will this possibly change my life?" level. In the end, every discussion with someone with a different viewpoint enriches and challenges how you view life, existence, and the such. It also lessens conflict and misunderstanding between people of different beliefs.
I also disagree that no one should assert that their religion is absolutely correct. The assumption to that position is that no belief system is absolutely correct. But what if one is? If one belief system is the absolute truth, why shouldn't people claim so? I do not think this is presumptuous and arrogant - they are merely declaring what they believe to be the ultimate truth. As long as they respect people who do not believe that it is the ultimate truth, they should be able to continue saying so. People are fallible - and I think this your ultimate criticism on this point - so this so often leads to conflict. But this is a product of human idiocy and not religion itself: pride, power, and vanity takes over and religion is left in the dust.
I also agree that science is constant regardless of who is conducting the experiments. That was not what I was getting at in my last post. What I meant is that the internalization of the results of those experiments mean different things to different people. For me personally, those results are not only intellectually fascinating but also a way for me to appreciate the God I worship by marveling at what He created. For you, those same experiments will have a different meaning. That is the transition point between science and philosophy.
You rightly criticize many religious people for being pushy, ignorant, arrogant, and acting in extremely discriminatory and hateful ways towards non-believers. I also hate this. However, I hope you agree that atheists have also behaved in similar ways at times. I do not appreciate having people (e.g. Richard Dawkins is a famous example) see my religious label and automatically dismiss me as being backwards and mentally deficient. Having studied engineering and now law, I am around many atheists. At times I am reluctant to express my beliefs in fear of such a reaction. But I do appreciate conversations such as this which helps me to articulate what I believe and what the biggest weaknesses in my belief system are.
And now, I really should go to sleep. But it's not like I really do much at work anyways =)
Yes, I do agree that it is necessary to evaluate what people assume and understand each other from different view points though we may not necessarily agree on everything, that is OK and I have no problems with that. When it comes to being civil/fair in terms of human conduct and way of thinking, then I think this sort of behavior should be kept in check.
I have no problems about the right to free speech and believe that free speech should be protected, even if I disagree with what is being said. If a Christian wants to proselytize in public that is within the letter of the law. On the same notion, if a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist or a practitioner of some other religion wants to proselytize on the streets, they can do that too. It's all within the letter of the law. But the discussion is not about a law to make it illegal. The discussion is about whether if it is fair (ie. right) for another group of people, to come into a culture and tell them to change their way of life and beliefs. This is the objective of a missionary (link: Wikipedia ) I take issue with.
To tell people that they should change their beliefs because someone believes their own to be superior is arrogant, much in the same way that you note that many Christians find Richard Dawkings to be arrogant in his thinking that religion is dangerous and should be abolished. He believes this point to be a fundamental truth, Christians believe that the fundamental truth is contained in the Bible, Muslims think that the fundamental truth is contained in the Koran and there are other religions that think this way too. If there is no problem with asserting/believing 100% that their own belief system is absolutely true, then Richard Dawking's way of preaching his beliefs should be just as acceptable. But the point is that many Christians don't like it, then it can't be fair to do it the other way around.
Would the western culture be more than happy to entertain Middle-Eastern missionaries coming out to say Europe and North America to proselytize about how their religion is so superior and wonderful? That is the argument I make. The feeling of resentment is equally mutual. This is the beef I have with the missionaries working in Japan, further more, they know far to little of the culture and have the rights to say that their belief system/way of life is superior and transfered into the Japanese culture. That is where I take issue, especially where I have lived here for the last 3 years and I still cannot say that I fully understand the culture (and I am half-Japanese!). But to walk in and start changing things without any understanding is arrogant in a very strong degree.
The arguments and assertions I present are not on whether one belief system is correct or wrong, but rather if the conduct that one group does is fair if the tables are turned. I too do not condone the activities of atheists aggressively pushing their beliefs on other people, especially if it is unwelcomed as much as I do not appreciate people of other denominations pushing their beliefs on other people. This is all that I would like people to respect.
I can understand that Engineering and Law might have higher densities of atheists and it might be hard to express one's own beliefs. But so long as those beliefs are not being brought into conflict and people are being respectful of each other then there isn't a whole lot to have any conflict with. I have my own beliefs and don't know if they are correct, but I have no problems with it as it is a learning process but I am willing to accept it am fine with it.
Anyways, it is late on this end and I too shall be off to bed!
Well said. I would respond with more, but I've gotten busier.
Keep on blogging!
I read an article, forwarded below. I particularly like the sentence: "Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell."
--------------
"I don't want to speculate about the existence of the above. To me, we do our hell on earth. For the too religious amongst us, if you thrive on self-immolation or a fire-loving
hell-raiser and want to go to hell, I ain't stopping nobody. Enjoy this
read that I received from my brother Mike:
The following is an actual question given on University of Washington chemistry mid term. The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not
a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the
temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell
has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1.
If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, and then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate
faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and
pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we
accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year
that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting, 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.
Good Night....got to go for "Save Our Lake" meeting. Bound to be thirsty after this."
Post a Comment