Is it really rude to attempt to convert someone into believing as you do? What does it mean to 'press' your beliefs on someone? I would argue this kind of thinking can be (1) self-refuting, and on closer examination could even be considered (2) cold hearted and immoral. The argument consists of (3) premises.
p1. A belief is either true or false.
This is a rather simple premise, and is hard to find anyone who disagrees. A belief or set of beliefs can be reduced to statements about the world. When one says "I believe the basket ball is in the closet" one is claiming to belief the statement "the basket ball is in the closet" is true. The statement is true if it corresponds to reality, which is to say, such a statement about the world is true if it maps on to the world.
There are some though, and they are not hard to find, who will object saying "Those beliefs are true to them" or "We're all right in our own way" and often resort to the Elephant in the room story. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to try and discover what it is. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective. Each blind man says "It's a rope!" or "It's a wall!" the story ends as follows:
"They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the thin we're touching is ." Each one of them told what he thought it was. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."
If you find yourself in a conversation on religion with a liberal minded person, you will hear this story many times. It's the "We're all right in our own way" kind of mentality that is more of a preschool "We're all winners!" type of thinking. One blatant flaw in the story is, although each one felt a different part of the same "truth" - they were all wrong! It was NOT a rope, a wall, a tree, it was an Elephant! Each man made FALSE statements about the world, namely that the object they were touching was something other than an Elephant.
p2. Holding true beliefs is better than holding false ones.
(one is better off holding true beliefs)
Beliefs translate into actions, and actions effect people. If those beliefs are false, you're almost certainly wasting a lot of time. Consider the belief that the gods require a child sacrifice in exchange for rain this month. If such a belief is true, then it may be justified, if however that belief is false, you're simply killing an innocent child. What people believe matters, it matters only because of the potentially wasteful or harmful implications of of those beliefs being false.
p3. Helping people in ways that is better for them is good.
If people are better off holding true beliefs, and helping people in ways that is better for them is good, then it follows that helping people hold true beliefs is good. Of course, helping people hold true beliefs can only be done by providing good reasons and argument, which is precisely what 'converting someone' ultimately is. If you agree with premise 1, 2, and 3 you simply can not condemn or criticize someone for making attempts to 'convert the lost.'
Earlier I also claimed this kind of reasoning, namely the arguments that 'converting' people is rude, is not only immoral and cold hearted, but self refuting. To better understand how this is the case, we must turn to the actual definition for 'convert.'
convert. (v) - The American Heritage® Dictionary
1) To change (something) into a different form or properties.
2) To persuade or induce to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief.
The second definition given is more appropriate given the context. To convert someone is to persuade them into believing whatever proposition is being presented.
persuade. (v)
1) To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty.
To be more specific, to 'convert' someone is to persuade them by means of argument and reason. So if you grant the definition of convert, or persuade, any instance where someone attempts to convince someone of a proposition by means of reason or argument is by definition attempting to convert that person. Therefore the very act of telling someone they are rude for attempting to convert others, if followed by reasons like "I think you should not do this for reason X" is by definition an act of persuasion which is what converting someone is! So to convince one that converting others is rude is in itself a form of conversion!
The entire complaint is self-refuting.
This kind of response may be so popular, and I apologize if I sound harsh, is because the majority of the population hate philosophy, hate thinking, and hate truth. People are obsessed with what 'feels good to me' rather than what is true. People are obsessed in preserving diversity of opinions by condoning those who try to unite. Beliefs about the nature of reality have become more like what flavor ice cream you like where it makes little sense to evaluate flavor preference as 'true' or 'false'; 'I like chocolate, it's good for me, don't try and change me' - the reality is of course that beliefs about the cosmos are not like this, you are either right about them or you're not - and truth should become what we strive for.
By: David Campbell
Originally written: Saturday, December 16, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment