"Everything has its beauty but not everyone sees it." - Confucius
Definition of Criticism
Before I enter the process of distinction between the opposite terms of criticism, I aim to be clear on the definition of criticism. By definition, the essay you are beginning to read is a critique of criticism itself. To criticise, what we are doing in a broad sense is assessing particular work and forming a conclusive opinion on the matter; whether it is an academic essay, an artistic portrait, a captured video or the structure of a newly built basketball court. We can find many synonyms to use in replacement of the term ‘criticism’ or at least to find a term that is somewhat similar but not wholly identical. Such synonyms include: assessment, judgement, opinion, review, commentary, evaluation, examination, analysis and many more. In a case of physical appearance, a friend can assist, by criticising meticulously, advising a woman in deciding what dress she wants to purchase in store. The critique can contain negative judgements as well as positive judgements – in order to help the person to decide on what to do next, what not to do or what to do better.
The Oxford dictionary defines the term ‘belief’ in multiple ways:
1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof 1.1 Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion 1.2 A religious conviction 2. (Belief in) Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something) The scientific theory of evolution is often presumed by creation-admirers to be a belief; a notion that hasn’t any evidence (which is clearly self-contradictory considering the notion of creation has no evidence whatsoever). By definition, the scientific theory of evolution is not a belief, neither an assumption or notion, nor a supposition or guess. Why? - Since there is abundant amounts of evidence that validate the scientific theory of evolution. Coming to terms with definitions is important and even so, history-deniers will still form an excuse to disagree with the theory of evolution.
Religious followers and defenders often assert atheists to be the ones who are inflicting their disbelief on others; that atheists purposely attack the idea of a god to convert others with full intention. This is an extremely hypocritical accusation for the religious to consider. Why? Let us think about the longevity of religious imposition, obtrusion and infliction.
For centuries to millenniums, organised religion has been enforced on decent human beings whom prevailed to survive – decent human beings that were our ancestors, widespread across every family tree. The dark ages, full of primitive ideas in correspondence with lust for power, was an epoch we have now overcome, yet beliefs that dominated this era still strive with obstinacy. Powerful leaders, monarchs and authoritarians ordered classes below their hierarchy to forfeit the very ideas of freedom, equality and free will; forcing them to tolerate and obey the rules of the leaders that are of higher status.
It is very often wondered why atheists even think about religion. Why do atheists care about religion if they aren't religious, why can't they just leave the religious alone and let people believe what they want? 'Active' atheists come across this type of attitude all the time from religion-defenders and I want to very briefly tell you why.
|
Daniel C. MeesThe Blog of Sincerity, featuring contrarian, polemical and critical writings on politics, religion, social philosophy, left-right spectrum, books, sociopolitical concerns, secularism and such - by Daniel C. Mees.
Facebook FeedArchives
January 2017
Featured Posts |