Converting the New Zealots
Many streams of memes have found their way to my mind recently. Richard's post about "Fundamentalist" Atheists struck an interesting cord. Dawkins' The God Delusion became a gift to my father for his half century celebration (so I sneakily read a bit before I wrapped it, doesn't everyone?). Likewise, Colbert chimes in right on cue.
Last night I meet with the Heretics to discuss whether they should convert heathens to Christianity. My own conclusion (not strongly voiced at the time) is that unless they can show that their beliefs have a firm (rational and based on evidence) foundation, then they should not. Conversely, any position that can claim such firm foundations has a licence, perhaps obligation, to convert non-believers.
My reasoning runs something like: When forming beliefs people should only accept as true things that can be rationally demonstrated to have firm foundations. This is indifferent to whom in particular you happen to be. Thus, if you have stood fast to this method of forming and screening beliefs, then you are in a position to rationally argue with other people, attempting to convince them of your beliefs. If they are rational, and your reasoning is correct, then they should consequently assent to your beliefs. Any belief based upon faith is thus ruled out as sort of thing you should convert people to.
(Note on what arguments are: When two people disagree this must either be the result of either one, or both, of them not having reasoned correctly, or having not taken some relevant information into account. A rational argument will then take the form of either trying to show the flaw in the other persons reasoning, or trying to introduce new and relevant information for the other person to take into consideration.)
Is it the case that I have blind faith in Rationality? No, unfortunately I don’t think questions about whether we should be rational can be honestly or coherently asked. Consider the question ‘Is this statement meaningful?’ In the act of asking it you give lie to the fact that you are already committed to the answer. Likewise, if anyone answers ‘no’, then we know that they are either being dishonest or just plain stupid. Similarly, asking whether you should be rational is something that commits you to rationality, thus making it a false or hollow question.
Anyway, if I’m not too mistaken about what precedes, then it is the case that I am allowed to convert people to my beliefs, but religious people are not. I wonder if maybe I actually need to show that religious beliefs have no foundation, meh. Once again philosophy comes down to having your cake and eating it too.
Side note: has anyone seen Hard Candy that could tell me how it ends? I fainted about half way through and do not want to try watching it again.
10 comments:
So, if you hold a position that is correct, you should tell other people about it?
I don't believe in 'converting people to Christianity.' (I don't know that beliefs are that important, except in as much as they inform actions.)
*However*, I think it's observably and empirically true that Jesus' example and suggested way of life (looking after the poor and oppressed, exercising grace and forgiveness, non-violent resistance etc.) are an excellent way to live, both individually and (even more) for society at large.
*Therefore* I think it is perfectly legitimate to try to persuade people to live a 'Jesus way of life.'
Yes? No?
Another interesting and related thing I forgot to mention. Derren Brown's Instant Conversion to Christianity! Part 1, Part 2, Explanation.
Nato: Boring epistemology I know, but we don't know what we know. Because we don't know when we're correct, we instead base our beliefs on good reasons. Good reasons are our best guide to what is likely to be correct. So, if you hold a position based on good reasons, then you should tell other people about it. No one said philosophy was going to be glamorous.
Matt W: Morality is just Rationality applied to life. A rational person will come to hold good moral beliefs. In fact, I think a poor set of moral beliefs belies a person’s irrationality. Jesus may have lived a morally exemplary life; but just because he did something, does not give us any reason at all for doing it. People should try to be moral exemplars, not Jesus.
Hang on - Jesus was a moral exemplar, but there's no reason to imitate him?
Era: I think perhaps Matt's position is more compliant with your criteria than you give it credit for.
You say "When forming beliefs people should only accept as true things that can be rationally demonstrated to have firm foundations... If they are rational, and your reasoning is correct, then they should consequently assent to your beliefs."
Given that, as you say, we can't know what we know, we might reasonably turn to Matt's criterion of what seems to work, what gets people acting well, as a basis for belief. Surely this satisfies the 'firm foundation' part as well as we can expect anything to, since after all it draws on empirical evidence, and you're all into that, right? :p
And if, in any case, beliefs are less important than the actions they lead to, and if immitating Jesus does happen to be an excellent way of living, then trying to be Jesus and trying to be moral come to much the same thing. I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should immitate Jesus just for the fun of it, but *because* doing so seems rational and admirable.
I'm not sure what your own position would be regarding the question of whether it's more important for people to act rightly or to understand what 'right' means. Presumably in an ideal world the latter will enhance one's ability to carry out the former, or perhaps you consider that right action by definition includes right motivation (though this position might require some defending). But given the way humans tend to work, perhaps having an exemplar to immitate is a more *effective* way of inciting right action than rationality, which for many people might become too abstract to be useful... I guess partly it comes down to the question: Is effectiveness more important than purity of motive, or not?
But perhaps that's a false distinction to make in this case anyway. Like your Thoreau quote a few posts ago, a philosophy or worldview is greatly strengthened by having an examplar who succeeded in living according to it, which takes it out of the realm of mere theory and gives it credibility in the real world.
[Disclaimer: comment is merely experimental and speculative. Writer's own views not necessarily contained herein :p ]
Fraser: Moral exemplars are curious cases. I think of them like training wheels. For children learning how to become a good person they are important exactly because they provide a good example. But in just the same way that you are not really riding your bike until you remove the training wheels and bike on your own, you are not actually acting completely morally until you go beyond acting in ways because that is what Jesus would have done, but doing it because you know it is the right thing to do. Aristotle makes this point very well near the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics. I'll dig it out and quote it here for you when I get my copy back off my flatmate.
So when I said "just because he did something, does not give us any reason at all for doing it." I was trying to point out that the reason for doing anything in particular must come from whether or not that action itself is good, not because Jesus did, or would have done, it.
Kat: I’ll think about that and reply in due time.
"if you hold a position based on good reasons, then you should tell other people about it"
The problem I have with that is that people all have different ideas about what a good reason is. If someone is very convinced of their own position, then they will naturally believe they have good reasons for it, so in practice, the statement becomes 'if you're convinced of your position, tell others of it'. Which is what people tend to do anyway...
I try to acknowledge my own uncertainty, and so rather than try to make people think what I think, and instead, I try to make people think well. So the emphasis comes off trying to push your own position, and moves towards interacting with them as a person. I think that's the thing I dislike about evangelism - it inevitably puts the theology / philosophy above the person.
Side issue:
Wikipedia's Article on the movie got nominated for being too long, so that might help.
"Another interesting and related thing I forgot to mention. Derren Brown's Instant Conversion to Christianity! Part 1, Part 2, Explanation."
You broke my mind again, you bastard. Although I must say the basic principles of those videos had made themselves apparent some time ago (with regards to pentecostal meetings), I'd just managed to avoid taking things to the logical conclusion.
Era - okay. I wasn't aware of how the term 'moral exemplar' has been used - ie I figured the term emphasised the thing that was being modeled rather than the person modeling it. But of course you're right - people emulate other people's actions more readily than their ideas.
Post a Comment