Alternative Culture: Youth Shunning religion in Singapore

Singapore's leading newspaper, The Straits Times recently published an article about the drop of number of religious believers.

In this post, I will not be questioning the validity of the findings, nor will I be criticising the purpose of such an article.

I simply want to what the article (if true) means in terms of theology.

Religion on the decline

The article claims that that the trend is due to an increasing number of people being brought up in nominally-religious families. This is expected -- if God becomes less important in our daily lives, worship would cease.

According to the article,

"Academics and religious leaders The Straits Times spoke to said the trend of non-religious affiliation is in tandem with an increasingly educated populace, some of whom might move away from religion if it does not connect with their lives and needs."

This is especially true for those in the nominal Protestants, where our sense of tradition is less pronounced than our Muslim and Buddhist friends.

Moral without God

According to a Mr Seah in the article,

"I don't think I need divine guidance to make a right or wrong decision. Reason alone can guide such decision- making"

And if Christianity is simply about making people moral, then Mr Seah is correct. One can carry out moral actions without believing in anything.

What I would argue is that it is hard to have a source of morality without religion. Mr Seah's world view may sound ideal, but it fails to answer the question of whose reasoning should reign supreme. As we all know, everyone reasons differently.

Conclusion
Christianity is more than just moral teaching or tradition. Other religions, and atheism can provide that. Christianity is about knowing the identity of God and loving him.

And I wished more people knew that.

With Due Respect: There are so many denominations in Christianity!

Often, my non-Christian friends object to Christianity as there seem to be so many sects within it. In fact, there is a claim that there are over 33, 000 denominations in Protestantism. If all of them make exclusive claims to the truth, then how can we be sure then we choose the "right" Christianity?

In this post, I will only be exploring the denominations in mainstream Protestantism. I will not be writing about Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Let's explore this objection:

1) Nature of the differences

Let's be clear-- just because not all denominations consider each other heretics. Some of the differences between denominations are due to national interests, traditions or methodology, rather than genuine doctrinal differences.

For instance, the Church of Scotland and the Church of Tuvalu ascribed to Reformed theology, even though they are considered two different denominations (as they also serve a national role).

True, there may be genuine clashes of doctrines. For instance while I differ with many of my close Christian friends on the issue of child and infant baptism, I do not consider them heretics or having horrible ideas of God. 

2) Claims of Protestantism

The traditional claims of Protestantism include Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus and Sola Gloria. None of the claims ever give the idea that Protestants will agree on every issue all the way. 

3) The inevitability of differences

As with any idea, there is going to be a difference in doctrine. Even among my Muslim friends, there are some who are Sunni and Shia. Some of my Buddhist friends are Zen Buddhists and Shinto Buddhists.

Even atheistic ideas like Communism have its variants such as Maoism, Stalinism and Marxism.

The point is this-- just because an idea has many variants, it does not mean that it is somehow false. It means that as we live out the ideas, they are worth refining. 

Conclusion

If anything, variants in ideas does not diminish the truth behind it. Every theological idea must be examined on its own merit.

With Due Respect: Isn't Christianity for comfort purposes only?

WELLS (Dairy Nature Farm), Singapore, 2012

A just a way to get through the night?

Often religion is portrayed only as a form of comfort. The philosopher Karl Marx described religion as the "opium for the masses"-- it was only meant to give the peasants some comfort from hardships of their daily routine.

The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud (1927) best summs up this position by this:
"They (religious beliefs) are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life."

 His stand is clear-- religious beliefs (in Freud's case, Christianity) are due to a deep-seated desire for protection from a father. Hence such beliefs are merely a psychological crutch-- stronger people do not need them.

But this argument cuts both ways
One thing Freud and Marx fail to realise is that whether a belief is comforting has no bearing on whether it is true. In other words, just because some belief gives us comfort does not mean it is false.

If Freud's argument held water, then it is also true for what he believes or not believes. If Freud's disbelief in Christianity gives him comfort, then his disbelief cannot be true either.

A deep-seated desire?
Even if Freud's argument from desire (that Christians desire a heavenly father to match their earthly fathers) is true, it can also also cut the other way. Freud had a terrible relationship with his biological father, and I guessed it can be argued that he rejected Christianity because of that. Personally, it is not an argument I would used for or against Christianity.

Works for you, but not for me!
If Christianity provides purely just comfort, then the old argument that "Christianity works for some but not others" is valid. Truth become secondary.

However we all know the dangers of such reasons. In the field of medicine, this is known as the "placebo effect". A false remedy might make you feel better, but does nothing to cure the illness.

For instance, a cancer patient might take morphine to relieve his agony, but will not stop his cancer from being worse. A placebo could be fatal in the end, but I submit to you Christianity is the cure for our human condition.

Conclusion
I invite you readers to see that Chrisitainity is not a placebo or a mere comfort tool, but something is intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. It is not something that is a mere crutch for weak people, but a cross for everyone to bear.


References
Freud, S. (1927) The Future of An Illusion.


For further reading
Bethinking

Theology 1.0-- Introduction to world views

Hi readers, this post is an introduction to different world views on religion. Bear in mind I am over-simplifying. And that this list is non-exhaustive.

Theism-- belief that god/gods exists and are involved in humanity and the world. Monotheism would be the belief in one god (such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism), and polytheism accpets that many gods exists (such as traditional Hinduism)

Deism-- belief that god/gods exists, but are not involved with the world. (As one of my deist friend puts it, "A god created the world, but he doesn't care about it.")

Pantheism-- belief that God is in nature. Unlike theism where God/gods is separate from nature.

Panentheism-- belief that nature is part of God. Unlike pantheism which equates nature to God.

Agnosticism-- belief thatthe question if God/gods exists is unknowable.

Atheism-- belief that no deities exist.

This are just some of the views of the world. Bear in mind some of the views are not mutually exclusive. For instance, one can believe in pantheism and still be a deist. And of course, there are varying levels of beliefs, such as strong atheism, weak agnosticism etc.....