Yes I will, as much as I would attack an atheist attempting to break down a religious person’s beliefs. It all comes down to true tolerance. That covers a variety of areas, including religion. I don’t mind those who proselytize their own faith on its merits, which can be done. I do mind those who use destructive tactics upon other faiths, as well as those who continue to insist on proselytizing once it becomes clear that the other party is not interested.
Tolerance is always a two way street. I respect your beliefs, but the tacit requirement is that you respect mine, or at the very least not interfere with them or harrass me because of them.
For a somewhat flawed analogy, not to be taken literally on all levels, I am okay with panhandling. If someone wants to sit in the street and ask passers-by for change, I’m perfectly fine with it. I draw the line at the point where panhandlers start impeding said passers-by, or harrassing them for not giving change. If panhandlers cannot tolerate the fact that some folk don’t have money on them or simply do not wish to give them such cash as they do have, then they forfeit all right to expect tolerance for their begging tactics.
I see. So it is only wrong for you then. Unless of course, you do believe that it’s wrong for other people to proselytize as well.
Again, I ask you this question directly: Is it wrong for people in general to attempt to change other peoples beliefs? When you say that it is morally wrong, do you mean that it is morally wrong for people in general, or just for yourself?
[QUOTE
**
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. **[/QUOTE]
First of all, the nature of faith is irrelevant to the OP. Second, faith simply means believing in something which is not proven. Theists and non-theists do that sort of thing all the time.
You are correct, though, in stating that providing a justification for a belief does not necessarily render it valid. I have complete faith that my mother would sacrifice her life for me, if it were necessary. I can not prove it, and I may very well be wrong, but that belief remains utterly reasonable despite the lack of proof.
No, it’s an unreasonable belief. You have no true knowledge about whether she would or would not die to save you. You might be able to make a reasonable judgment of the probability of that happening, but you’d need some kind of evidence to be able to do so.
It’s an unproven belief, but hardly unreasonable. There’s a huge difference between the two. I have ample reason to believe that she would sacrifice herself for me, even if I cannot absolutely prove it.
Religious skeptics often take pride in saying that they do not believe anything which is not proven. To that I say: Balderdash! Everyone believes in things which are unproven. Some of those things are reasonable; others are not.
In my opinion, unless a conversation has been initiated for the purpose of exploring faith issues, proseltyzing is wrong and offensive.
If JThunder is attempting to morph the OP into a discussion of combatting opinion-based subjective ignorance (such as racism) in the context of personal relationships, I offer the following:
The Truth does not make people free. Facts do not change attitudes. If the guru is dogmatic, all that he evokes in his pilgrim/disciples is their stubbornly resistant insistence on clinging to those unfortunate beliefs that at least provide the security of known misery, rather than openness to the risk of the unknown or the untried. That is why that Renaissance Magus, Paracelsus, warned that the guru should avoid simply revealing “the naked truth. He should use images, allegories, figures, wondrous speech, or other hidden, roundabout ways.”
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him” by Sheldon Kopp
JThunder: You claim to have absolute faith (aka utter conviction and lack of doubt) that your mother would die to save you. You don’t even acknowledge the possibility that she might not in some set of circumstances. That’s why your belief is unreasonable.
I said that I had faith in my mother’s willingness to die for me. I never said that I had absolute faith. Do I have moments of doubt in this matter? Most certainly!
That’s why it’s ridiculous to jump down someone’s throat for having faith in something unproven. All people believe in things that are unproven, but which seem reasonable to them. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, religious beliefs. Belief is simply belief. It does not necessarily imply absolute faith with no room whatsoever for doubt.
In my opinion- when religious beliefs start having real negative consequences, they become fair game. Otherwise, I won’t try to argue you out of your spiritual beliefs.
One example where it’s okay is the fight about teaching evolution. There is really something at stake here, so beliefs are fair game.
All you said is that it is “wrong to proselytize.” I am asking a far more specific set of questions, namely,
As you know full well, I am asking you to be more specific about your claim.
It seems to me that you’re trying to avoid these questions. After all, one cannot truly argue that it is wrong to attempt to change someone else’s beliefs. Such a statement is self-refuting, for it is itself an attempt to change the beliefs of those who consider such actions to be morally acceptable.
JThunder, what a preposterous claim. It is not self-refuting.
That’s just plain wrong. My mere utterance of a statement, my expression of my opinion, is not equivalent to my attempt to convince you that it is true. Can’t you see that I can hold a belief, state that belief, and have no intention whatsoever of drawing you toward my belief?
Merely uttering it, no. However, attempting to argue for the validity of this position IS self-refuting. One can not argue for the validity of this position without attempting to change the beliefs of those who maintain a contrary stance. ERGO, arguing for the position that “It is wrong to attempt to change other people’s beliefs” is most certainly self-refuting!
Besides, why would one publicly defend such a position without any desire to change the minds of those who don’t accept it? The attempt to change their minds is implicit in making and defending that claim.
There are reasons for making and defending claims besides trying to change the opinions of others.
Argument can be either defensive or offensive. If you attack my beliefs, I will probably make some attempt to defend them, and in the process I may or may not also be attempting to change your mind. Neither is implied simply by the fact that I’m arguing in my defense. I could defend my belief just for the sake of the thing; I don’t even have to care what your opinion is or whether you change it.
Getting back to the OP, usually I don’t mess with someone else’s belief system or values. However, there are two cases in which I might butt in.
One: The person is instating the public or institutional policy (that is, my life) should follow some religious rules.
Two: The person is in a situation I consider trouble. (e.g., belongs to a cult or exploitative religion that will take money or ruin the person’s life or is refusing to be rational about a business or medical issue.)
(A woman I know is still, years later, receiving death threats and being smeared by members of a cult she left. I know a couple of people who were raised in the faith and seem happy and I don’t say anything to them. If someone was expressing an interest in those teachings, I’d hook them up with my friend, pronto.)
I think that almost everyone must give a certain amount of faith to believe what they believe in. Some scientists believe in the the Big Bang and evolution, but they cannot believe this without some faith. And in the same way, a Christian cannot believe the Bible without some faith too. It’s just that the Chrsitian is willing to give more faith than the scientist on the way to their beliefs (inversely, they need less facts to build their faith on than the scientist).
Maybe this willingness to give faith (or willingness to build faith on less fact) stems from a desire for what the Bible offers (personal relationship with God) or maybe this person simply sees a better life in Christ, or maybe this willingness is totally unaccounted for and irrational. Only the person in question knows this for sure and anyone else who thinks they can discern this is mistaken, as it is not quantifiable or verifiable. Only your own self can tell you if you are being true and fair to yourself.
You are grossly overstating the case, Fuel. You may believe whatever you like about God or Vishnu or The Great Pumpkin. You may not abuse the English language - there is a difference between things that we learn from experience and can test and spiritual attitudes. To quote Bill Hicks, “Period. Full stop. End of story.”
I believe that certain techniques are better for growing lovely hydrangeas because I have, over time, learned how to find and learn from gardening experts, and learned how to manage my particular plants. I could write a simple document that would enable anyone to follow the same process and come to the same conclusion.
If you believe that hydrangeas are a gift from God with a special message, you could ask people to believe this, but you would not be able to draft a process by which anyone could come to the same conclusion.
If someone who has shared the hydrangea-growing tips with me happens to believe that the flowers are a gift from the Lord, I wouldn’t question that.
