Yawning Bread: Creationist crusade reaches Singapore
Once again, Yawning Bread has a delightful article, and this time, it's on religion, and in particular about the dangers of fundamentalist Christianity. To read this article, just click here, go to the November 2005 articles and then click on the title: Creationist crusade reaches Singapore.
Here are some extracts from the article:
- In the Online Forum of the Straits Times, 15 Nov 2005, can be found a letter from an Andrew Loke who took ChannelNewsAsia to task for screening a documentary about the evolution of humans. He claimed that it was a "highly debatable theory" being "presented as fact." He wanted the TV station to screen his preferred account "to let the public know the truth about our origin." What is his "truth"? While he didn't say the word, we can surmise it is Biblical Creationism, for his main reference is a site called Answers in Genesis.
- I have argued again and again that our elites and our government are blindsided about fundamentalist Christianity, which in some ways is as dangerous as al-Qaeda ideology. Fundamentalist Christian views slip through because some decision-makers and editors here hold sympathetic worldviews, the same way Kansas and Dover borough voters elect crazies to their school boards, only to wake up in shock at their hidden agenda. Don't be surprised if one day, Singapore finds itself with religious fights like in the US.
I'm not anti-Christian, or anti-religion. I'm just ... not much for institutional religion, and their attendant discourses and required mindsets, for myself.
Christianity and God and Jesus, to me, is a possibility. Buddha and the idea that everyone is a Buddha, to me, is also a possibility.
And I think I like to keep religious ideas as just possibilities.
I'm not very keen on 'reaching out' sessions. 'Reaching out' connotes desolation, neediness, lost, not in, destitution, etc. on the part of the 'reached out'.
'To bless more people'? *shudderz* I think I'll pass.
If 'reaching out' sessions are really intended to make friends, then I feel that religion has to be kept out of the agenda. Otherwise, there's a 'You join us, then we all be good friends in this big family' kind of feel to it. Peer pressure of the worst un-thinking and guilt-tripping un-feeling kind perhaps? Or, there has to be assurance that one can be critical towards religion (and science). And there has to be assurances that ALL are welcome and will feel welcome.
posted by the third wei at Saturday, November 19, 2005
3 Comments:
Since Science is truth, the concept of a divinely-derived truth is really an attempt to universalise a subjectivity.
"... a shared community of believers set apart for Him." I cannot decide whehter it is from this sense of contrived exclusivity, or from John 14:6, that you derive (false?) strength.
Whatever it is, what incidents like the one you refer to where "the sun revolves around the earth were facts" only reminds us of past abuses of that contrived claim to the possession of absolute truth.
1:48 pm
and who said anything about reincarnation?
1:50 pm
To me, reincarnation is a possibility, because I cannot prove that it is false (ref Popper’s falsification).
To me, John 14:6 is also a possibility, because I also cannot prove that it is untrue. Indeed, how does one prove or disprove such a statement?
I agree that Christianity (or indeed religion) should be a relationship with God, in whatever manifestation one believes him/her/it to be. Religions are based on faith, and it would be no wonder that religions can be more fully believed in when in a group of mutually-affirming individuals.
I disagree that Christianity and the practice of Christianity are not institutional. The Church is an institution bringing Christians together in communal worship. Bible study groups are institutions for learning about Christ and his message.
Chelsea5manutd0’s question ‘How is reincarnation a possibility?’ might well exemplify while I am uncomfortable with institutional religion. Within institutions, discourse is restrictive and restricted. The discourse of Christianity grants itself all explanatory power to EVERYTHING, and derides all other possibilities.
I’m highly uncertain that ‘(a)s science develops, man understands more the existence of God who controls everything.’ How would one prove this? Of course, how is this disproved? A testable hypothesis might be that scientists, who are by definition closest to the development of science, are more likely to disbelieve (or believe) in an omnipresent and omniscient God.
2:20 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home