Y**u
发帖数: 5466 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SeeU (See you) 于 (Fri May 6 02:01:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
Sam Harris 的文章，可以用来检视自己的信仰。不同信仰间的互相尊重，与理性讨论、检验信仰，不应当是互斥的。
发信人: Eloihim (真神), 信区: Belief
标 题: Re: 宗教的疗效
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu May 5 12:06:23 2011, 美东)
这就是温和基督徒的可恶之处, 他们自己倒未必
有害自己或他人, 可是他们就是极端教徒的
human shield， 帮著极品挡住批评。
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Proble
The Problem with Religious Moderates
We can no longer afford the luxury of political correctness. When religion
causes violence, its root claims must be challenged.
BY: Sam Harris
Email
Share
Comments (0)
Reprinted from The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
with permission of W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a
specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance
and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put
an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and
religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be
confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a
terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each
of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to
show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that
every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is
one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith
perpetuates man's inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of
us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two
myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to
foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us
believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.
g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot
be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that
are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per
se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which
religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken
together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks
of reasonableness in our public discourse.
Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism,
asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to
notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a
Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day
of judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he
knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await
their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant
view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately
reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that
these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence.
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx#ixzz1LUjO2oK7
While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in
light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it
offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The
problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not
permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We
cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely
practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are
mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is
generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don'
t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture
imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of
scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-
human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God.
Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question-i.e., that we know
there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us-religious moderation
will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness.
The benignity of most religious moderates does not suggest that religious
faith is anything more sublime than a desperate marriage of hope and
ignorance, nor does it guarantee that there is not a terrible price to be
paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human
beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on
to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more
sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics, and the building of strong
communities.
Religious moderates seem to believe that what we need is not radical insight
and innovation in these areas but a mere dilution of Iron Age philosophy.
Rather than bring the full force of our creativity and rationality to bear
on the problems of ethics, social cohesion, and even spiritual experience,
moderates merely ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient
superstitions and taboos, while otherwise maintaining a belief system that
was passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by
their basic ignorance about the world. In what other sphere of life is such
subservience to tradition acceptable? Medicine? Engineering? Not even
politics suffers the anachronism that still dominates our thinking about
ethical values and spiritual experience.
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx?p=2#ixzz1LUjVSHsp
Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth
century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of
faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass
even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know
about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is
flat, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his
religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations
for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a
millennium ago-while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly
inchoate-or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of
discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to
recommend the latter view.
With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of
the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of
understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress
; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in
religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry,
not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be
discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront
to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire
project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes
that have come over us-culturally, technologically, and even ethically.
Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.
Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to
keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. And
they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe
in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is
sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say,
for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-
destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently
conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political
correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain
the iconography of our ignorance.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
wisdomlover (一片冰心在玉壶) 于 (Fri May 6 15:24:49 2011, 美东) 提到:
去检验别人的信仰我觉得是不明智的。
1. 每个人的信仰都有站不住脚的地方。
2. 每个人的信仰都是每个人自我的选择。每个人会选择适合他的道路。
信仰是一个人自己的事情。信仰是你自己的“信”，
这个信本来就有盲目的地方，说服别人给你信一样的
是很不明智的。
3. 最好的办法就是把自己的信仰保留给自己。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SeeU (See you) 于 (Fri May 6 22:34:25 2011, 美东) 提到:
I agree with you when belief remains a private matter.
Going a step further, when religious beliefs become the rallying cry for political issues in the US, such as teaching creationism, gay rights, abortion, abstinence-only sex ed., etc., then it's fair game. The difference: laws and policies force peopl
conform to an expression of certain beliefs (which they may not share), so they have the right to examine and discuss it as non-believers. Respect for religious freedom doesn't mean it's an untouchable subject in public discourse when it influences p
, regulation or legislation.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
imper (Imper) 于 (Fri May 6 23:56:54 2011, 美东) 提到:
说的真好。。。信仰的确只关乎自己。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Fri May 6 23:59:16 2011, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Fri May 6 23:59:19 2011, 美东) 提到:
那为什么各个宗教组织都有传教的活动？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
imper (Imper) 于 (Sat May 7 00:14:48 2011, 美东) 提到:
我是实实在在存在着的，掐一下会痛，饿了会抓狂。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 00:16:49 2011, 美东) 提到:
“你”（或者“我”）不存在，那讨论这种概念干啥
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
imper (Imper) 于 (Sat May 7 00:19:07 2011, 美东) 提到:
传教的目的，俺角着或者同化别人扩大队伍。。，或者多弄一个人头多一份收入，，，
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SeeU (See you) 于 (Sat May 7 00:31:13 2011, 美东) 提到:
组织需要，你不一定需要。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 00:44:22 2011, 美东) 提到:
那组织为什么需要
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 00:44:43 2011, 美东) 提到:
信仰本来就是自己的事情，站不站的住脚本无所谓。哈
和尚要接受供养，一个原因就是要把佛法转播给别人。皈依三宝也不可能只是把
信仰仅仅当成自己的事情。
去除政治原因，如果你觉得自己的信仰好，为什么不让它影响的人更多。这个不
就是大乘的菩萨道内容之一？
如果信仰只留给自己就足够，就不需要有那么所寺庙了，也不需要那么多和尚了。
佛经也根本流传不下来！如果没有那些高僧大德的著作，我们学佛的路还困难更
多。
即使把信仰留给自己，最主要的原因也不是信仰有盲目的地方。而是真的追求清静，
以及对自己信仰的彻底相信！
不好意思，主要讨论佛法了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 00:46:51 2011, 美东) 提到:
但是信仰需要被检验，就像自信需要不断确立一样。所以才有所谓的思辨。
不过不管什么信仰，都是靠实践的，佛法尤其是。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SeeU (See you) 于 (Sat May 7 01:12:24 2011, 美东) 提到:
没有支持者，组织早晚完蛋。为组织的长远生存打算，培养支持者是必需的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 01:14:42 2011, 美东) 提到:
所以宗教组织的存在，多半还是世俗的原因。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SeeU (See you) 于 (Sat May 7 01:33:23 2011, 美东) 提到:
Iris MM said it well. No need to repeat her.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 01:35:18 2011, 美东) 提到:
她说的里面还有：“觉得自己的信仰好，为什么不用这个信仰影响更多人的意思”
这个跟“为了让现有持有信仰的组织能够维持下去，而影响更多人”还是两个层次的意思
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SeeU (See you) 于 (Sat May 7 01:44:17 2011, 美东) 提到:
Catholic Church is an organization that will survive, regardless of the
theology adopted or who is the Pope.
There are numerous autonomous Buddhist groups that spring up supporting a
teacher. They feel the teacher's teaching is valuable, and would like to
amplify it with an organization. The group will prosper or wither, depending
on the success of the teaching.
That's the two type you have in mind?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 02:00:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
教导的好，人自发被吸引进来是一个方面；
另外为了组织的发展，需要主动去宣讲，这个因素在自治的佛教团体里面有吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Sat May 7 02:01:55 2011, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Sat May 7 02:02:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 02:03:30 2011, 美东) 提到:
这等于是先树立一个概念，然后再论证它不存在，这很好玩吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Sat May 7 02:10:26 2011, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 02:12:56 2011, 美东) 提到:
不成就没啥损失吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Sat May 7 02:14:34 2011, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 02:17:12 2011, 美东) 提到:
那要是等不着证明不行，你就挂了咋办
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Sat May 7 02:20:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
imper (Imper) 于 (Sat May 7 12:55:32 2011, 美东) 提到:
不是我难道是你？
真正的我是哪个？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:01:31 2011, 美东) 提到:
达到信仰的高度，以及最根本的信仰，我嚼着不需要被检验，或者说无所谓检验不检验
。。。。不然就够不上所谓信仰了。。。。跟信神马东西无关，但是要信彻底。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 14:02:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
NO
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:03:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
“用这个信仰影响更多的人”如果（太）刻意了，就是剥夺别人的自由，凭什么啊！？
无论以神马理由。。。LOL
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 14:03:18 2011, 美东) 提到:
检验的意思,首先是要把信仰体现在行动上,效果如何先不说,光是体现在行动上就已经
是一个关卡了,行动体现多彻底,是信仰多彻底的衡量标准
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 14:05:08 2011, 美东) 提到:
hiahia
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:05:53 2011, 美东) 提到:
貌似同意。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:07:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
信仰这个词貌似在我看来高度挺高的。。。一般的也就是信不信。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 14:07:46 2011, 美东) 提到:
反正你不信，哈
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 14:08:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
肯定还有对行为的要求的,不然人费那么大劲折腾出这么些信仰来干嘛用?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:09:34 2011, 美东) 提到:
是不会信彻底？LOL
嘛，反正是个人的事……
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:10:12 2011, 美东) 提到:
嗯。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
arthury (弱智儿童欢乐多) 于 (Sat May 7 14:11:10 2011, 美东) 提到:
没有对行为要求的信仰,跟鬼故事也没啥区别
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:13:44 2011, 美东) 提到:
貌似有些人信仰的东西是自发滴。。。然后自发的会主动发生一些行为。。。。
貌似也挺能支持/支撑人滴。。。嘛。。。
哈哈哈，不听鬼故事………………--
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 14:15:05 2011, 美东) 提到:
你男嘀还是女嘀？
说话风格要是个mm，那就要拍.....
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 14:19:54 2011, 美东) 提到:
啊？
如果我是mm，你就要拍我……………………为毛？- -
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
wisdomlover (一片冰心在玉壶) 于 (Sat May 7 16:09:00 2011, 美东) 提到:
当然是女的，对吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 16:25:20 2011, 美东) 提到:
对头。。
话说板斧为何会发出之前的那一问呐？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 16:48:17 2011, 美东) 提到:
只为一试真假，哈
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 16:53:14 2011, 美东) 提到:
哈哈哈，那么，神马是真，神马是假呢？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
imper (Imper) 于 (Sat May 7 16:57:00 2011, 美东) 提到:
是MM啊。。。。我要用神通啦。。。哇---你是我的前世恩人啊，能见个面吗？
敢不见的话，我要发怒的。。。每天追着你骂。。。。。小心后果。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
forl (forl) 于 (Sat May 7 17:00:01 2011, 美东) 提到:
啊哈哈哈哈，你这招到学得挺快嘛！XD
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
JeanIris (Iris) 于 (Sat May 7 17:00:39 2011, 美东) 提到:
哈哈
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Sun May 8 01:43:15 2011, 美东) 提到:
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
luobing (萝冰) 于 (Sun May 8 01:56:13 2011, 美东) 提到: |
|
