e.g. If the shirt you are wearing now is red, will it still be a red shirt in a dark room?
I think this is philosophy. Basics. I was thinking about this when I was "passing motion".
Note ONE: The bathroom is an idea factory.
Since mankind started having opinions, assumptions (having only part of the whole picture), questions have been raised - not so much because of a conflict between contradictory facts, but due to pride.
I was almost going to say "due to difference in perceived fact". Of course, besides pride - it is due to the fact that people do not put enough effort to differentiate between one thing and the other.
Let me illustrate this point.
Remember the story about the blind men and the elephant?
One day, four blind men bumped into an elephant.
The first blind man touched the ears of the elephant. So he exclaimed, "An elephant is like a fan!"
The second man touched the legs, so he rebutted the first one, "No! It is like a giant pillar!"
The third blind man touched the body, so he said, "No! It is like a giant wall!"
The fourth blind man who touched the tail said, "You are all wrong, an elephant is like a string!"
So who is right?
Are they all wrong? Not exactly. Are they right? Definitely not. The answer, to us who see, is definitely simple. I would say that they are partially right, and generally wrong.
The blind men weren't too smart in their generalizations, but suppose that we are wiser blind men - I am sure that we would touch a little more, move around, see what the other man is holding and even then, confine our answer to our knowledge - as far as our senses can bring us.
There is an element of pride here. Not so much because of NOT KNOWING what the other person sees, but NOT WANTING TO KNOW what the other person sees.
Does that sound simple?
The different shapes at different parts of the elephant - as a whole, is the absolute truth. What the blind men touched - their perceived facts is only truth relative to the part that they touched.
Knowing this, we ought to be much more understanding in our daily lives. When somebody wrongs us, perhaps we should not be too quick to throw our temper, or even show our discontent. That person has gone through a particular set of circumstances to arrive at a certain sets of conclusions - which leads the person to do something which we may like or dislike. As much as we ought to judge an action as right and wrong, all the more we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the other person and treat that person well, to reason and persuade the other person - so that they may receive our set of views - which comes from our set of experience and circumstances - so they might get a more complete picture of everything.
Why is it harder to say than to do?
As much as I think that this is very logical - this is precisely the problem. People don't just act on their heads. They know it in the head, but do not know it in the heart. Most matters, even lies, when meditated in the heart long enough, will become LIKE truth to us. To a very large extent - the problem does not lie in the fact that it is not easy to meditate, it is the unwillingness to do so.
The reason is that we are not convinced that such an effort - is worth the price in order to attain it after all.
Note TWO: The worth of something is normally determined by two factors. In practical daily life, humans are only concerned of one factor. That is the relative worth. E.g. Supply and Demand. Currency has relative worth, even relationships. The other factor is absolute worth, people whose religion has God in the highest position will be more concerned about this aspect. As we learn in College Moral Classes - divine Command theory.
Let us do a recap of what we just read:
Firstly, we read a story to illustrate a principle. Then I gave a real life situation that we face once in a while. Now I am presenting the situation where people might know something to a very large extent - but reach a point where it is hard to do something even though we know it is right (or perhaps we may not know it in the heart).
One of the reasons for such confusion is because we are not able to categorize properly what an absolute truth (to which we are willing to do no matter what - for the reason that it has a higher relative worth compared to anything), and we also find it hard where to place relative truth. The problems that we face has its roots in categorization, this results in our confusion between Convictions and Preferences.
What we ought to do, we know not - We end up majoring in the minor and majoring in the minor.
But now, let us look at some explanations to help us categorize the different truths.
Absolute truths only exist with the existence of purpose, or else - it would be absolute facts. And most definitely, all facts are absolute. Yet, absolute facts, most of the time serves no use.
Give you an example:
In a dark room where there is no light at all, is the shirt you are wearing - still its colour?
e.g. If the shirt you are wearing now is red, will it still be a red shirt in a dark room?
Science students would know that the shirt is red because it reflects that colour. Take away the white light, it no longer appears red.
I suppose that in court, should we give testimony to the colour of the shirt, we ought to say red - since there is an understood purpose behind what we say - that is to verify the colour of the shirt.
Recap: Absolute truth versus relative truth. The relativity occurs only in different views and context of understanding, not that the shirt has changed its material one bit.
I might not have used the most proper terms - to some extent due to the fact that I am not exactly a trained writer, to some extent due to the fact that we grow up differently and we use different words for the same thing. However, I hope all of us have some sort of common understanding before I move on to something which would have utmost importance.
Inter-faith discussions
I won't be here promoting any particular teaching or religion, at least not this post - however, I hope that people in general can have more meaningful discussions about religion in the future - and not stupid endless arguments.
What is a stupid argument? We agree on a certain context and then not keep to it. It is like going to court and say that the colour of the shirt is a relative issue. We agree to white light(proper context), yet we misuse science to say that the shirt has a million colours(out of context).
Note:
The shirt has many colours depending on what light it is under. TRUE STATEMENT
The shirt has many colours. FALSE STATEMENT if this is the end of the sentence.
Why?
An elephant has one shape. Not many shapes. True statement is different parts of an elephant has different shapes.
What would be a better way to understand another person's religion?
- Do all religions lead to the same God?
- Can all religions co exist?
- What can promote a healthy interfaith discussion?
Let us look at one example:
Lets say that there is a God and we all appear before God one day to give an account of the things we have done in our lives.
Illustration:
God: So well, Mr. Joel, you have committed much crime. Besides adultery, murder, and rape - there is also lies, stealing, and explicit use of hurtful language. So you shall bear your own crimes. I will send you to hell now. Please exit through that door on your right after this.
Joel: Wait a second. Why should I listen to You? Maybe you are just an illusion. Maybe you are a psychologist who drugged me. Or maybe...
God: Well, you will know who I am when you see that I have to power to send you to hell in a minute...
Joel: But how would I know that rape is wrong?
God: Rape is wrong and you know it in your heart. Of course, there are Scriptures to tell you that, but I KNOW that YOU KNOW IT anyway - just in case you are thinking that you can tell me you don't read, I know that you cared too little to find out -
Okay. Before somebody shouts blasphemy because God doesn't speak English, or that God would use more cryptic language or I invented conversations for God - THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION.
We see that there are many things in life that cannot be received as truth outside the realm of receiving it by authority. We believe - for example: One of our ministers admitted to committing adultery recently. The guy in the video tape looks like him(perceived truth), talks like him(perceived truth), has sex like him(well, I don't know) - good thing he admits that it is him(authoritative testimony) . I'm not sure if there are also witnesses -
This is the best knowledge we can have - therefore it ought to be taken as truth. It is illogical to say otherwise given this context. I know - every now and then we will have people who talk in a way that there is no way they can truly believe anything. They question with impractical reasoning.
So with all these reasoning principles:
Let us consider the first question. We will only use the 4 main religions for discussion purposes. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam. I arranged them in alphabetical order even. No prejudice.
Do all religions lead to the same God?
The Buddhist religion contradicts the notion of a God-Judge but advocates a system in place which will deliver consequences - but not judgment in many senses.Buddhism and Hinduism advocates reincarnation. Christianity and Islam goes for Heaven or Hell after death. Could these two facts gel together? It would be possible to say that there is a Muslim heaven and a Christian Heaven IF each religion did not rule out the other. Lets act ignorant and say all religions lead to the same God.
The question is biased, Buddhism has no gods, but Hinduism has millions. Tell a devout Muslim or a Christian that there are 5 million gods, the nicest of them will tell you that they cannot sincerely believe that 1 God = 5 million gods, Or that God would give birth to millions of small gods, or that God died last year - that is completely unacceptable to them.
Could this be a problem like the blind men? That some people touched the tail, but others got the body, yet another got the ears of this big elephant called religion?
It could not. Because the statements are put in such a way that one person says to the other that the elephant's tail is like a pillar, or the ears are a wall. I am not saying that any particular Scripture gives the Absolute Truth just yet, I am saying that they give contradicting facts.
The Christian says there is one white elephant,
the Buddhist says there is none,
the Muslims say that it is black,
the Hindu laughs and says that the highest point of enlightenment is to realize that everybody is part of the elephant.
Note THREE:(Substitute elephant with God and you will get a rough theology lesson on the differences of major religions)
Then either Jesus or Buddha, Muhammad(pbuh), or whoever taught Hinduism must be giving incorrect information - information so vital that incorrect is an understatement - it would be grossly misleading, and I will not be surprised if trickery, lies, or disillusionment is involved.
Note FOUR: I am not going to talk about authenticity of Scriptures of whichever religion here or sociological or archaelogical evidences, there will be some to argue that all the Scriptures has been twisted over the years. I have talked with many people who argued on that point yet most of them have never even read a copy of the Scripture - be it the TRUE or the TWISTED version. I am not qualified to do so and there is a lot of better evidences out there than my ramblings. If this is a problem for you that you think you want to find out - please do so and clarify your doubts, for the sake of religious understanding and also for the sake of truth.
Now don't get me wrong, they may all be wrong and nobody knows the absolute truth. We will then have a certain group of atheist that say that there is no such thing as spirit. We are all biological blobs and we all came from amoebas which came from proteins, which came from a BIG BANG! Which came from NOTHING! Beat that!
Now, I do not support that if everybody believes in something - it has to be true. However, even blind as we are, when we all claim to touch something - simply dismissing it that there is no object there - is absurd.
Instead, if we are ever interested in talking about life and living with another person meaningfully, I propose that we ought to adopt a learning and discerning attitude of different faiths - not only of that but also some basic psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
Note FIVEI know this is not everyone's cup of tea. But hey, you are going to live an average of 70 years, facing different people, different faiths, there is so much to learn and know. This is worth the effort.
We ought to only disagree on points that we both agree that we understand. The religions claim to hold Absolute Truth. That is one of the reasons why people can fight.If they claim to hold relative truth, then we can say "Believe what you will, it doesn't matter and it is right!".
Note SIX: Now, I do not oppose that people fight for absolute truth. For that is good, take examples of Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa. Of course there is also Hitler, and Stalin. The real problem is not that they fight for truth, for True GOOD MEN fight for truth - but that WHAT IS THE REAL TRUTH? which is the TRUTH in disguise?
Lets see how to tackle different difficulties as we learn about different philosophies.
Every so called "Absolute Truth" that is really truth in disguise - will crumble within its own logic.
For example in the case of evolution:
Note SEVEN: There are many aspects of evolution which are true and reliable. We can see how people adapt to different situations. But when you take a theory back a million or a billion years, circumstances and conditions are very different - which puts evolution into the category of theory. All other religious explanation of the beginning of the world falls into this category called theory. The reason that it cannot be theory is that scientist cannot do an experiment to make amoebas turn into humans over and over to prove that theory. Neither can a religious person ask God to create a few earths for us to see. Verification of such theories will have to come from sources OUTSIDE of experimentation - which evolution cannot bring out, simply because it cannot be experimented. However, for this post, I will only concentrate on the logic of arguments, and philosophical evidences, and not other types. Please refer to note FOUR.
They can only go so far as to explain a big bang, and perhaps what caused it. Evolution contains a purposeful direction for creatures to be stronger or cease to exist. There is a cause, there is an effect. Results happen due to different things. However, where their logic breaks is the part where they imply that "SOMETHING came from NOTHING". In such situations, it is not necessary that we do not have scientific formulas to show - mainly because the flaw in the evolution theory is a flaw of commonly accepted logic. If they deny the existence of that logic (Cause and effect), then their theory will break down on other parts. The theory can only be presented in one light at a certain time and it is TRUE, but when you put it together, you will get things like:
Statement 1: Chicken comes out from egg.
Statement 2: Egg comes out from chicken.
Statement 3: Both appeared out of nowhere.
Conclusion: All the statements are non contradictory.
I highly encourage all of us to scrutinize the traditions, cultures, or even religion handed down to us - many times, without question.
The first and second questions are answered. Now the third.
How to promote a healthy interfaith discussion? (Yes, evolution is faith)
1. As the discussion goes along, clarify the logic system.
For example:
Are we agreed that many things are true, even though we do not know the explanation of it?
Some people insist that they can only believe in something that they can explain.
Most of the time, the sad thing is that this people aren't exactly very knowledgeable either.
2. Agree on a common goal.
It is important to agree that the main goal of the discussion is to find out the truth, or to simply know what the other person believes, etc. Some people are interested in the entertainment value it brings. Nothing wrong with that, however, if you are finding answers - be ready to waste your time, be tickled, and understand nothing new.
3. Avoid heated arguments.
When people feel offended and angry, they normally become illogical. Not always, but most of the time. Or at least they no longer agree on whatever they promised or agreed earlier. Drop the subject. Talk about it another day if you must.
4. Talk about the logic of the system
Going into details will bring more confusion than ever. Archaeological, or Geological evidences definitely have their uses - but you will normally not bring out evidences along with you. If you do, you make the person feel that they are in a disadvantaged position, it will be much more difficult for them to belief that it is a fair discussion - while in the back of his mind, chances are that he would THINK he ALSO has evidences - Whether he really have them, is another issue.
Even little kids can be involved when we are merely discussing logic. It would be absurd to fight against common sense and simple logical arguments.
Thats the end!
2 comments:
Too Long la .. read until eye pain
btw
what u said is right to me : )
but somethings is just depends on interpretation and words used :)
some people who are not good with language might give a different kind of opinion but is not same as what they actually thinks..
: P
have fun writing .. this post really intresting .. i learn alot from stuffs like this :P
Your example of the elephant and the blind men self-destructs because it only works if you claim to have absolute truth ie. knowing that the shape is in fact an elephant.
Post a Comment