Harmony
PM Lee gave Religious Harmony and development quite a highlight in his National Day Rally Speech. Our major newspapers all gave it quite significant coverage..
Which set me thinking. What exactly is the nature of Religious Harmony?
Lots had been said about the nature of Tolerance, so I won't delve into that. Lets instead look at the nature of Secularism though..
To be secular is to have the governance independent of religion (Separation of Religion and the state). In other words, religious bodies will not have a privileged position when it comes to influencing policies. Neither will a supposed divine edict (Holy books anyone?) be an authority in deciding the outcome of debates.
In that case, what has authority? Common sense and Reason, common moral values, a tinge of pragmatism perhaps?
Now, for purposes of this post and due to lack of time, I shall not go into the nature of Reason and Values. I will just make one point from a Christian's (that is, my) point of view.
Now, if Christianity is true, then surely what it teaches are in the long run, the best ways. In which case, if by secular debate we weed out the poorer choices, then what is left? Hopefully, only the better policies are left. But won't this eventually be the policies which the Christians would propose as well?
Shouldn't both come to the same conclusion if both are true?
Of course, not everyone would accept that the Christian route. Some would not believe that it is a true way. But as a Christian, shouldn't one come to the same conclusion using both methods? One can solve a maths problem by using both algebra and models, because both are valid methods of solving the problem. And both have the same conclusion.
In that case, is it valid to come to a Christian conclusion first, then find the reverse reasoning using the secular route - and from there, to convince people using the secular argument? Some may feel that it is a bit of a cheat - almost like peeking at the answers, then finding the steps to the answer. Yet, how is the final answer invalid, unless you can debate it on its own grounds - that is, the secular arguments? And surely that is the only valid way to argue against it, not to denouce it as a religious statement without even realizing (or perhaps acknowledging) that it stands on 2 foundations, not just 1.
Perhaps the best thing about true things is that... they are true ;)
Which set me thinking. What exactly is the nature of Religious Harmony?
Lots had been said about the nature of Tolerance, so I won't delve into that. Lets instead look at the nature of Secularism though..
To be secular is to have the governance independent of religion (Separation of Religion and the state). In other words, religious bodies will not have a privileged position when it comes to influencing policies. Neither will a supposed divine edict (Holy books anyone?) be an authority in deciding the outcome of debates.
In that case, what has authority? Common sense and Reason, common moral values, a tinge of pragmatism perhaps?
Now, for purposes of this post and due to lack of time, I shall not go into the nature of Reason and Values. I will just make one point from a Christian's (that is, my) point of view.
Now, if Christianity is true, then surely what it teaches are in the long run, the best ways. In which case, if by secular debate we weed out the poorer choices, then what is left? Hopefully, only the better policies are left. But won't this eventually be the policies which the Christians would propose as well?
Shouldn't both come to the same conclusion if both are true?
Of course, not everyone would accept that the Christian route. Some would not believe that it is a true way. But as a Christian, shouldn't one come to the same conclusion using both methods? One can solve a maths problem by using both algebra and models, because both are valid methods of solving the problem. And both have the same conclusion.
In that case, is it valid to come to a Christian conclusion first, then find the reverse reasoning using the secular route - and from there, to convince people using the secular argument? Some may feel that it is a bit of a cheat - almost like peeking at the answers, then finding the steps to the answer. Yet, how is the final answer invalid, unless you can debate it on its own grounds - that is, the secular arguments? And surely that is the only valid way to argue against it, not to denouce it as a religious statement without even realizing (or perhaps acknowledging) that it stands on 2 foundations, not just 1.
Perhaps the best thing about true things is that... they are true ;)
posted by P{ZM} at
7:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home