Seeking to convert others: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Seeking to convert others » Seeking to convert others

Seeking to convert others

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Seeking to convert others

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2290

Posted 02/14/06 - 11:15 AM: Subject: Seeking to convert others	#1
I spent an hour this morning talking to two Jehovah’s witnesses that came to my door while I was having breakfast. The conversation got going because, before I’d managed to politely tell them I wasn’t interested, one of them had come out with the cosmological argument and contended that it proved God’s existence. I actually ended up having quite an interesting conversation with them; not sure if it was a rhetorical device on his part or not but I think I managed to persuade him round to philosophical scepticism regarding the possibility of establishing God’s existence logically. Basically, they caught me in a chatty mood and it was a chance to play around with the philosophy of religion stuff that I’ve not covered for a few years. After they left though, I was left with the sense that they were actually warm genuine people. They genuinely believed that in their truth lay salvation for man and, I think, their motivation for going door-to-door was a genuine compassion borne of deep frustration that if they could just get others to see this truth the world’s suffering would be abated. Throughout my life I’ve varied between a quite militant atheism and a sceptical agnosticism, usually depending on whether I’m being honest or fancy an argument. I’ve always thought that if I were religious, it would be a singularly personal thing for me. Yet now, after this morning, I’ve wondered how, if I were to hold the beliefs the two people who came to my door held, I could not seek to convert others. If you knew – in the sense in which the JW’s would claim to know - that all that stood between the world & freedom was suffering was an ignorance of your truth, how could you justify not proselytising? I’m not entirely sure if this thread belongs on the philosophy of religion forum, as opposed to the community forum, so feel free if anyone wants to move it. I’d quite like a theistic perspective on this though because I’ve been wondering about it all day.
"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2704

Posted 02/14/06 - 12:51 PM:	#2
From a Kantian perspective it would be immoral to try to convert others, especially with the intent to reduce suffering.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Paulnbama
Quipper

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Uh....here?
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 561

Posted 02/14/06 - 01:28 PM:	#3
I hate to get into semantics on this subject for fear of sounding nitpicky. If anyone has another meaning to these words feel free to jump in. Proselytising, in my opinion, there is a strong element of telling people how bad or wrong their present beliefs are. It's not a particularly christian word as any religion could use it. It implies 'pushiness' and that my way is a higher way than yours. This may have not been the case with the J.W.'s. Proselytism tends to carry negative implications with it, for me anyhow. Evangelizing on the other hand is a word most christians are familiar with and it means to just tell about the gospel. It is akin to pointing the way in a non-pushy attitude. It's the telling of a 'way' in order to change and not the attempt change a person in order find the way. Somewhere I've read that evangelism would be like two hobo's one telling the other where the soup kitchen is in order to get some food. The first hobo is no better off than the other, he just knows the way. Proselytism would seem to have the first hobo arrogantly say the other hobo must change his ways and think differently before you are worthy to find the food. The two words are closely related but to me are use in different contexts in a religious discussion. In secular discussions however there probably is no distinction. Whatever the case, it does seem your visitors were sincere.
Zoe: I know something ain't right. Wash: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 74
Total Posts: 3986

Posted 02/14/06 - 01:38 PM:	#4
nosos wrote: (...) a genuine compassion borne of deep frustration that if they could just get others to see this truth the world’s suffering would be abated ... If you knew (...) that all that stood between the world & freedom was suffering was an ignorance of your truth, how could you justify not proselytising? i wonder why mathematicians don't proselytize ...
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Bluster
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 25, 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 2383

Posted 02/14/06 - 02:21 PM:	#5
180 Proof wrote: i wonder why mathematicians don't proselytize ... ... but they do, my dear 180 P.... Alas, not as mathematicians... just like proctologists or industrial press operators, or any other representative of some profession or occupation. Don´t forget, some of the mathematicians are actually human
At first life was a struggle for existence; now, for a standard of living; next it will be for quality of thinking, the coming earthly goal of human existence. --The Urantia Book In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. --Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James

Petunia
silent muse

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2005
Location: Cold North, brrrrrrr
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 164

Posted 02/14/06 - 04:42 PM:	#6
In a capitalistic, commercialized society, we are constantly bombarded with someone trying to persuade our thinking to match theirs. There is a significant difference between those who sincerely believe in something that they wish to share for the sole benefit of the other person, and those trying to get something out of another person. I personally think people have a right to share what they value as long as they don't violate other people by being intrusive or controlling. From the business perspective, companies have conventions for cosmetics, vacuum cleaners, vitamins, etc. that leave their sales associates with nothing short of religious fervor that their product is going to change the world for the better. Many business mix religion into motivation for the purpose of manipulating others and maximizing sales. Many religions believe in spiritual rewards for converting others. The merchandizing of Christianity, and the prosperity gospel, add another complexity to this. The prosperity gospel parallels mainstream motivational concepts of "believe, receive, and achieve". This thinking also tends towards "who has the best product", spiritually or otherwise. However, I do appreciate those who are sincere in their faith and share it with me out of concern. This world has so much hate, I value any kindness whether misguided or not. Edited by Petunia on 02/14/06 - 06:05 PM
Peer over the precipice

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4325

Posted 02/15/06 - 04:09 AM:	#7
nosos wrote: If you knew (...) how could you justify not proselytising? I think it depends on how you do it. Proselytising or, more flexibly, teaching people depends on mutual consent. It is not only rude but also counterproductive to attempt to teach people who don't want to learn. (Mathematicians are very familiar with this phenomenon ). The greater importance of religious teachings as opposed to, say, mathematics is due to the greater importance of the subject matter; while we can rely on specialists to do our mathematics, bridges, surgical operations, etc. for us, we can't rely on anyone else to strive for virtue and final salvation. These two frames of reference (ethics and escathology) are at the same time the most important and the most personal ones. Even so, there is a great difference across religions. Christians are commanded to evangelize, to spread the good news. Buddhists (notwithstanding the existence of exceptions) are not commanded to do that, but clearly enjoy doing so. Why wouldn't they? Any religious teaching holds the promise of easing the burden of existence through the acknowledgment of the truth about it. And all religions are sufficiently committed to reality (unlike some contemporary intellectual movements) to strive for the truth and to verify their claims against the facts. Which is why religious debates (and proselytes) are so interesting in a sense, they give us a new perspective on the world, complete with believers. There are no "heads in the clouds" in this field .
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

abba
Servant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Sarasota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 432

Posted 02/15/06 - 07:40 AM:	#8
Each believer finds satisfaction in their belief. And it's not the selfish satisfaction of the physical world: I've got something & you don't, so I'm the best!! It is a satisfaction that desires to share itself - to give itself away & thus be multiplied. I guess that's why the "meme-ists" consider religion as a conceptual meme.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 02/15/06 - 08:53 AM:	#9
abba wrote: Each believer finds satisfaction in their belief. And it's not the selfish satisfaction of the physical world: I've got something & you don't, so I'm the best!! It is a satisfaction that desires to share itself - to give itself away & thus be multiplied. I guess that's why the "meme-ists" consider religion as a conceptual meme. In some cases you may be right, but there clearly are "preachers" who do hold the "holier than thou" attitude. Let's not overgeneralize.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 74
Total Posts: 3986

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 02/15/06 - 09:28 AM: Subject: <<mÃ¨deis ageÃ´metrÃ¨tos eisitÃ´ mou tÃ¨n stegÃ¨n>>	#10
for the sake of argument i'm going run with this a little further: Mariner wrote: The greater importance of religious teachings as opposed to, say, mathematics is due to the greater importance of the subject matter ... what greater subject matter can there be than "truth"? what ritual more humble and liberating than "truth-telling"? what sense of grace more worthy of the name than a truth upended by paradox only to be subsequently resolved by a higher order "truth-procedure"? religion promises to teach men how to love another but more often than not winds up justifying mutual slaughter. mathematics, on the other hand, teaches men how to keep their promises by making them only on the basis of rigorous formal standards. ... while we can rely on specialists to do our mathematics, bridges, surgical operations, etc. for us, we can't rely on anyone else to strive for virtue and final salvation. These two frames of reference (ethics and escathology) are at the same time the most important and the most personal ones. mathematics consists of the most rigorously precise and unambiguous truth-procedures, the discipline of which rivaling (even encompassing) any notion of virtue (e.g. "mean between vices" (re: phronesis) or "moderation in all things" (re: ratio/logos) or "excellence" (re: areté)) known. ethically, mathematical practice teaches distancing from egocentric concern with concrete particulars (i.e. quantities) via abstract reasoning (i.e. patterns/relations/sets ...); and "the continuum hypothesis" (i.e. set-theoretic formulation for infinity) provides a universally accessible (though not intuitively simple) eschatology. unlike religion, which only prohibits 'giving false witness', mathematics, while still fallible, makes lying impossible in mathematical terms. "in the beginning was The Function!" perhaps mathematicians don't proselytize because their acquaintance with truth cautions that, while it's the summum bonum, not everyone (or even most) can endure the stringent implications of truth: its substance is procedural (know-how) rather than propositional (know that): its discipline demands works not faith! religion preaches mystifying riddles (e.g. "be perfect"), mathematics teaches intractable puzzles (e.g. "self-correct"); the latter makes sense of The World As It Is whereas the former postpones making sense until 'the next world' or attempts it only in terms of 'how (a) world ought to be'. if, however, The World As It Is is the scene of every crime, then escape rather than comprehension is what most want to hear and turn a deaf ear to anything else. for many comprehension might be a therapy worse than the illness -- only those who can save themselves will be saved. and how does one save oneself? in part, by helping those who can to save themselves ... preach myth? no. teach math! Edited by 180 Proof on 02/15/06 - 09:33 AM. Reason: "Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here"
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.