My question is inspired my a recent LiveJournal post by an old friend. She has some fairly nonstandard spiritual beliefs; the best context I can give is that they are pagan/Native American in origin. It would take too long to explain, and I’m afraid doing so would be a red herring, especially since I cannot pretend to speak for her. Suffice it to say that they don’t require her to sacrifice puppies or anything, and they certainly don’t require her to prosletyze or convert; they’re too intensely personal (from individual to individual) for that.
Well, apparently someone she didn’t know, out of the blue, wrote to her about them telling her, among other things, that the very idea of faith is a self-delusion and that her beliefs were “New Age fluff.” (I assume this writer is [self-proclaimed] atheist due to the comments on faith.)
As you would guess from my thread title, this isn’t about this specific incident. My friend is very open about her spirituality, so I’m sure she knows that trollers will swing by occasionally, and I’m sure the atheists on this board would know that if you want to persuade someone out of their beliefs, this wouldn’t be the way to go about it.
My question is, how do you determine whether and when to actively try to break down another person’s spiritual beliefs? Obviously, there are times when it’s generally agreed to be completely proper (cult), and some times that are more grey (fundamentalism and Scientology, though the latter may be closer to the cult situation in many eyes). So how do you, especially the atheists/agnostics, figure this out? Where are your boundaries? Where should those boundaries be?
To be serious, though. Usually I approach the subject with anyone who indicates a strong religious preference and is willing to use it in some manner in the conversation, or as a method for judgment, et cetera. I consider it open game when anyone brings the subject up, but as a matter of course I never bring it up myself. If someone just offhandedly indicates their beliefs then I just let it go. I figure that is decent enough, I know I don’t like my beliefs being challenged randomly, but if I make decisions or judgments based on those beliefs then I figure it is fair play to challenge those appropriately.
I don’t bash the beliefs of others so long as they do not bash me or mine. This would include indirect degradation (i.e. persistent proselytising once they know I’m not interested), but very little else within the grey area.
If you want to believe God is a small duck sitting on your head, hey you go for it. I try to not even bash those you say are okay (cults, Scientology…) until they cross my line. Sometimes I fail, but I try to remain as consistent as possible.
Outside of debate forums like this, IMHO, it’s rarely appropriate unless:
a) these beliefs seem to be causing actions that are harming other people (in which case I’m still more likely to focus on the actions rather than the beliefs) I’m very loathe to judge when beliefs are harming the believer: again, it seems much more appropriate to question the hurtful things directly before concluding that the beliefs are absolutely the things to blame
b) someone is trying to make claims in a pretty assertive way to make a point or argue for something, different from simply explaining themselves in the spirit of mutual understanding or in the course of their lives.
Never. It is the summum of arrogance and barbarism to try to break down an other person’s belief.
Those who are member of a cultsect don’t “believe”. They are brainwashed in a way that prevents normal perspective and reasoning. You can’t compare that with the belief of your friend as you describe it.
It depends how you percieve “fundamentalism”. Because when you compare their “belief” with what the religion they follow really means, you shall discover that they are brainwashed with interpretations who are in opposition with the foundations of the religion itself.
I’m not familiar with what you describe as “scientology”, so I can’t give an opinion about that.
I personally have never found attack or deliberate breakdown attempts to be good for anything much in the way of changing anyone’s mind. I usually just stick with a)assuming the other person is reasonably intelligent, and treating them that way, and b) having friendly (or at least civil) conversations about our different ideas. From there, I would progress to recommending or giving reading material, or inviting the person to accompany me to something.
Civility and discussion that aims to expand knowledge on both sides.
If religion is based on faith, i.e., just believing, then how can someone who “believes” that religion say truly that they have come to that belief based upon sound reasoning, and how can you expect to reason with someone that their beliefs are wrong if their religion is based on faith?
Not sure why you deemed it necessary to point this out; it’s not really relevant. Prosyletizers come in all shapes and sizes.
Never. Unless they bring up the subject and insist on discussing it, then I don’t have a problem with explaining my beliefs and, if the conversation goes that way, explaining why I think their beliefs are mistaken. And of course, I consider starting a debate on religion in a forum like this to be an invitation to discuss it as well. But I would never bring it up out of the blue (or at least I try not to).
Well, since you’re asking, I personally don’t consider “mainstream” religions to have any more truth to them than what you are calling “cults”. From my point of view, it’s all unfounded belief. So I don’t see how offering my unsolicited opinion to a Scientologist is any better or worse than doing the same to a Jew or a Christian.
Personally, I tend towards a belief that proselytising is morally wrong, period. I don’t care what the belief being pushed is; I don’t accept proselytisation from Christians or atheists (adjectives associated with individuals from whom I’ve seen it most often), nor do I accept the sort of inverse proselytisation that seems most common in pagan circles (generally variants on “only brainwashed, blinkered people would believe that”). (I also don’t care if it’s a political belief that I’m being expected to convert to, or some other ideology that gets its equivalent of door-to-door godbotherers.) The entire attempt-to-convert attitude strikes me as being founded in a fundamental lack of respect for other people, lack of respect for their experiences and the conclusions they draw from them.
I believe that those people who have a faith will have it informing their actions; so long as they’re clear that this is just their decision-tree, I don’t have any problems with it. When someone brings up their faith, though, as a reason that other people should do a thing, I expect them to have a much sounder basis than “My book says so”, because I do not acknowledge their book as a relevant authority. Likewise, I expect them to have a sounder basis than “My gut reaction is that it’s good/bad”, because I don’t accept their intestines as an authority either. (If I’m going to be taking moral advice from an appendix, it’s going to be my appendix.)
Someone who presents their private beliefs as evidence in a debate is placing them on a public level, and introducing them as facts. As such, those beliefs are now legitimately exposed to opposing evidence. Someone who just happens to have beliefs has not introduced them to a debate.
Wait a minute. So you’re saying that it’s morally wrong to attempt to change someone’s moral beliefs?
Is that your moral belief in this matter? Are you attempting to change the beliefs of those who say otherwise? Your statement does, after all, emphatically declare their actions to be “morally wrong, period.”
Liliaren, you’re saying that it’s morally wrong to attempt to change someone’s beliefs. Are you now saying that this law only applies to yourself, and not to other people?
Look, if you’re going to claim that the action is morally wrong, then it transcends mere personal preference. That should be obvious.
Let me ask you this directly. Are you saying that it’s wrong for people to change other people’s moral beliefs? Or are you saying that it’s only wrong for you to do so, and that there’s no obligation for others to abide by that principle? If the latter is true, then you really can’t criticize other peopel for proselytizing now, can you?
I believe it’s right for people to change other people’s beliefs whenever they like. Liliaren must therefore not attempt to persuade me otherwise.
Oh, JThunder: Faith still requires that people put the conclusion before the logical proof that should result in it. Being able to offer a “justification” for the belief doesn’t mean that belief is valid.
I am saying that I believe that proselytisation is morally wrong.
I am also saying that other people have no obligation to abide by my morals.
They are, in fact, entirely free to do things that will cause me to think less of them; I am not going to attempt to persuade them otherwise. Someone who proselytises at me is certainly not interested in my beliefs in the first place; why should I waste everyone’s time?
The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine.
Totally outside of any moral judgements, I find it’s purely in bad taste to “convert”. And since there’s no accounting for taste, as the saying goes, all may feel free, and I’ll sneer and make terrible jokes until I’m left alone. This goes double for me – whenever I find myself getting caught up in trying to convert someone to my own philosophical leanings (model agnosticism), I do enough sneering at myself for everyone involved.
