為什麼「沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念」?

回覆:http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=840&page=1#pid6900

為什麼「沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念」?

為什麼沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方認為地球是平的信念?
讓別人繼續以其信念去發動聖戰又是那碼子的尊重、包容和相處之道?

尊重人有發言權是一回事,尊重發言內容卻是另一回事。可以尊重納粹黨有信念這權,但說「我們沒權利以自己的角度去質疑對方納粹的信念」卻難以認同。
——————

醜小鴨如果最終也只是一只醜小鴨,生物學家為什麼沒有資格去質疑醜小鴨的鴨性?如果醜小鴨真是一只小鴨,別人阻止了他發天鵝夢不也挺好?

醜小鴨蛻變成美麗的天鵝,不也靠他養母的溫暖,人給他的糧食,生父母的DNA等等?
因為公道答案的浮現很大程度在乎有沒有權利去質疑對方的信念。

我以為地球是球,對方以為地球是平,企圖以自己的信念用證據「強行」改變對方要跟隨你,那便是科學。

問題是不會隨著時代解決的。解決問題的是科學家、教師們不斷地捍衛著自己的信念,用自己的信念強行、證據和一點點政治手段改變對方要跟隨你。

—————
如果一人信念包含了自殘(比如十一、一軛、陪神父不陪父母…等),又是否含有不包容?如果包含了傷害別人(比如散佈流言)呢?

—————
醜小鴨硬認自己是鴨其實充滿了自殘。

比起一生誤會自己是鴨,一生去裝鴨(一生吃錯糧、病大半生、一生有緣無份、無伴終老)。小時候給人罵醜的傷害可以是小事一椿。

如果他兄弟姊妹由他自生自滅才是最大的傷害。

罵他醜也可能是一種關心,只是識字太少,不知怎形容小天鵝的狀况(短翼症?捲毛病?)。這,又有多少人能體諒?
話又說開來,醜小鴨未出生前已有老鴨提醒過他媽醜小鴨可能不是鴨,而是火雞。老鴨又有沒有權利去質疑鴨媽認為醜小鴨是鴨的信念?如果鴨媽能認真一點去了解老鴨的質疑,而一早發現醜小鴨是只天鵝,故事又是否改寫?

又或老鴨強硬一點,和鴨媽多多辯論小鴨是否天鵝,故事又是否改寫?
—————

又或如醜小鴨在野鴨中找到真愛,鵝鴨拼死相愛,不容於鴨、又不容於鵝。他又會否怪別人沒去告訴他們是不同種?
最後醜小鴨只是在天鵝群中要求安樂死(都不只一次)。但其他天鵝卻沒理會他的請求,反而去歡迎他。

天鵝群又算不算家長式的強權呢?醜小鴨的生命自主權又何在?
別人信雙氧水能治病,真的「關我屁事」嗎?

去用證據告訴別人地球不是平的,「就是只講情緒、不問邏輯,只講誅心之論,不講理智之說的無禮行為」。

好像你正在質疑我了,算「文字獄」嗎?
人又不獨自活在世上,死亡不是一個人的事。要負責一個人未必承受得起。

人喝醉洒也希望朋友在路上拉他一把,讓他可活生生地回到家中。縱然他醉到不知醉,動手打人也一樣。他死了,就只一句「他要負上責任」嗎?還是我「尊重他衝出馬路的權利」?

令腦袋喝醉的卻不止於酒(比如愛、愁、怒…)。令人迷迷糊糊的更不止於化學。
———————

只有想死的人最聰明嗎?別人就不能在某一領域上知道一些他不知道的東西嗎?

四肢動不了還可以出書。植物人還可以給愛人精神上的支持。

今天醫不好有明天。

———————
生命只一次,聽不見死人的後悔可能只因他沒後悔的機會。
好像某些宗教要活人祭(即使自願)、玩自焚、玩毒蛇、玩毒氣。在非州用先進科學去叫沒機會上學的人用聖水治病,不去求醫。

「排擠」都不夠強,警察捉也只還可以,包容些什麼?
————

我去幫人,不一定要他同意才有效果的。拉醉洒佬可有被打的可能,但只要他活到明天便有機會。硬要厭食的食也不受歡迎,但食的進了去他才有明天罵我的機會。

關愛是無條件的,幫得到便行,別人當我是罪人反而是小事。
———

我相信大部份人出發點都是好的,只是人力有限往往也包含了腦力的限制。
別人信念中有的包了不科學的。
任何科學論證也有其interpretation的部份,這包括了雙氧水對人類有害。甚至只是和體重相對的interpretation。

引發衝突又怎樣,請問筆戰、搜證是什麼壞事?

———
你不正在用你的interpretation去質疑我了,算「文字獄」嗎?
Is the earth round?

There is evidence?  Well sort of.  It depends on your intepretation of the evidence.  People can always have faith that all the evidence provided are fake.  Just as some Flat Earth Society a century back believe the moon landing is a conspiracy.

Do we have evidence that it is NOT a conspiracy?  No.

----------------
Is HO harzardous to human?  It depends on how you intepret the data.

They test it on some human.  But we never know the effect on you or me because we are differerent.  Maybe we are the same, but there is an mystical ingredient that will nullify the negative effect.

-----------------
Is eveidence and intepretation capable of seperate consideration?  I have doubt.
Unfortnately people do not live in ivory tower.  Do nothing is a choice that will have an effect in the world.

While we can sit by and "respect" some religion on their faith in holy water, the fellow drinking the holy water and refusing doctor's treatment will die.

We can certainly sit by and debate whether HO is harmful with God's help but the fellow drinking the chemical will suffered.

All this death will be under the bill of those who promote the faith, as much as people who sit by and watch the disaster unfold.
All the news can be fake.  In fact, we can be living in a dream (or Matrix)

People can be bribed.  They can lied.  They can be lied to.  Their equipment may be fault (for some human or non-human reason).  There are many possibility that can change the intepretation of data.

All in all, they can always have faith that God plays a miracle on everything.  If it is faith, nothing is impossible.

------------
The obvious point herer is that some intepretations deserve more respect than others and faith 'usually' rank at the bottom of them all.
Precisely.  The HO person can also claim he should not be procecuted.  He also has his own intepretation base on evidence and faith.  

He has a right to drink HO and should he not have right to choose his own death?

Did he not have a right to his health but only his death?

He certinly canl claim he is perfectly rational and normal, perhaps even above averagely intelligent (so he can claim).  Is there really no reasonable way to determine if he is metally sick?

--------------
Should the police stop procecuting him and let him have his right, his HO?

--------------
I never said we should out right ban assisted suicide.  I believe we should consider the issue carefully, and make sure the ones involved also consider it carefully.  

If that takes a bit of pressure or force, that is only because the gravity of the situation (life and death) demands it.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 01:04 編輯 ]
1) If it is only doubting, I do not believe most people will resist.  In any case, the world is not perfect, a lot of time we do not have the resources and time to search for an ideal solution.  We will just have to use whatever solution we have.

2) Decision is not neccessary equal in quality.  Doctor is better in medical decision.  Engineer is better at engineer decision.  Artist is better at artiistic decision.  Scientist is better at scientific decision.  Plumber is better at plumbing decision.  

One of the key here is that there is an objective world outside.  There ARE a "correct" answers to SOME questions.  

It is not really about my decision better than yours.  It about there can be SOMEONE (which can be a panel of people) who can make a better decision than ME (alone).

以為有些人的信念比別人更好有何不妥
Pick another example.  

If a fire fighter runs into an apartment and finds an old lady cringing to her bed while the fire is about to enter, how do the fire fighter know that he is "right" to remove the lady from the premise and the old lady is "wrong" to cringe onto her bed?  How do he knows that it is better for the lady to ive another day than to burnt to crisp in her apartment?

Is the fire fighter claiming he is "morally superior" just because he thinks the old lady should leave the premise?

What if the old lady resists?  

Should the fire fighter abandons the old lady because she can take the responsibility of her death?
--------
The is also numerical difference.  If 1 million people see the earth as round and 1 see the earth is flat, chance is high (but not absolute) that the 1 person is in error.  The reverse is also true, if 1 million people see the earth as round and 1 see the earth as round, chance is high (but not absolute) that the 1 person is in error.

There is degree of experience.  If a 10-year experience doctor judges the patient to have cancer and a 0-year experience doctor judges as have-not.  Chance is high (but not absolute) that the 0-year experience doctor is in error.

Not to mention there are talented individual who is naturally better at evaluating certain decision.

------------------------
Because of the nature of .. nature, we can never obtain anything in great certainty.  Instead, we are always forced to make choices base on "educated guess".

When in doubt, attempt a small scale experiement?  Move in little step?

If there is a debate going on, perhaps we can wait a bit for the big decision. If we have a situation where everything being equally reasonable, let the error be on the "living" side because "death" is irreversible.  (We can always regret and put someone to death.   We can't regret and resurrect a dead body.)

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 10:49 編輯 ]

回復 #22 酒井明 的帖子

Right or wrong, it does not matter that much.  My prefer wording is a 'rational' decision.  

Are we acting in a way that will reach our goal (whatever it may be)?  Do we really want a world where people would respect a drunkyard's decision to die?  Or a deluded fanatic's decision to harm his health with HO? Perhaps a mis-informed fellow to use holy water?  Or a broken heart lover the decision to self-destruct?

If it is the world you truely want, we can agree to disagree.  (My question is true a question.  There is no intented answer even though I will secretly wish you would agree with me on some point.)
抽刀 P5 原句為「沒有人有權利以自己的角度去質疑對方的信念,這是最基本的尊重、包容和相處之道。」
0、1 和 2 一樣有後果去承受。

質疑本身不一定認定了對方的信念有問題。
警察叫吹波仔,不是認定了你有問題。
銀行要你雙確認,也不是認定了你有問題。

質疑
心中懷疑而向人提出問題。

-------
如果警察叫吹波仔,真的發現醉酒,去強行改變對方的未醉的信念,把人拖下車,我看不見有什麼尊重不尊重、包容不包容。

難道由他醉酒自害∕害人了?

—————
比如HO吧

0) 我對喝HO的功效無意見
1) 我相信喝HO有害(只說說)
2) 對喝HO的說說喝HO有害
3) 問喝HO的為什麼喝HO好
4) 揪到喝HO,迫他上一堂科學課

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 16:32 編輯 ]
都可以咁講

其實係咁架喇,一個人,係可以完全唔理身邊任何人。只係自己顧自己,然後就由得人死。自己o個套就係evidence,人地o個套就係interpretation。呢樣野,佢係可以搵九百九十九個理由黎支持自己繼續咁樣落去。呢種冷漠心態,令社會不能形成,當然冇仗打(定係全民皆戰?)。

好彩世上仲有人多管閒事去做嫁兩,如果唔係我地今日大概沒人有機會說什麼。

______

總之打二戰大家不如自保就算,由得D人納粹。
黑奴都不要打,我地冇權去改人地對黑人睇法。

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-7-27 17:35 編輯 ]
質疑問難

提出懷疑困惑的問題,請求解答。

詰難

責問非難

一來就不是同一意思
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個