On proselytising

If you are a Christian, and you are reading this post, i challenge you:

1- Can you read these words without a shred of bias towards your own religion?
2- Are you willing to accept the logic of the argument?
3- Or do you just see this as a rant of an unhappy unbeliever?


proselytise

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.


Perhaps to understand the act itself, what about breaking the barrier down even more.

Here are definitions for two other words that are of relevance:

faith
- a system of religious belief (one of many definitions)

belief
-something believed; an opinion or conviction


But then by these 2 definitions we see that the very act of definition makes things circular!
Taking a step further: how about the definition of "opinion"?


opinion
-1. A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.


The argument based on definition

1- An opinion does not have complete certainty (from definition above)
2- A belief is an opinion (from definition above)
3- A belief does not have complete certainty (1 and 2, combined)
4- Proselytising involves inducing one to certain beliefs (from definition above)
5- A belief is uncertain (3, reverse double negation)
5- Proselytising involves inducing one to uncertainty (4,5, combined)


This is why proselytising has resulted in conflict and strife. This degree of uncertainty is too great to ascertain the validity of. As such the vast majority is unable to come to a general consensus about how relevant such a belief is, or vice versa. Because of this uncertainty, and resulting failure to come to a general agreement, proselytising becomes nothing more than an act that puts itself in direct opposition with existing beliefs and opinions.

Well, of course the argument is that beliefs are more than just a smear of definitions you put up.

There should be a more human element to beliefs, right? How about the countless lost souls who have found grace through church? Have come to a reconciliation with God thru His voice which spoke to you?

Consider this then. The logic of comfort. I use the analogy of a baby crying. Why does he cry? There are a few possibilities:

1- The baby is hurt
2- The baby is hungry
3- The baby needs to take a shit. BADLY.
4-The baby's diapers are so full of shit it feels downright UNCOMFORTABLE

(Babies are simple. They dont have complex cognitive proceses running thru their heads and they have not yet decided on their best invisible friend, so that's why i chose it as an example)

How can the baby's problems be solved? Simple.

1- Bring him to a hospital- get that cut straightened out
2- Feed him milk!
3- BRING HIM TO THE TOILET (oh you unattentive parent, you...)
4- CLEAR HIS DIAPERS (because he's making a ruckus and its just stinking the house)

As we grow older, and we develop slowly, our needs and wants change. WE can very much fend for ourselves, and procure our own food, take care of ourselves, yada yada.....

As it is with a parent bringin food to a baby. Similarly, religion acts as food to our little minds. It is, as is so often quoted, opiate for the masses. Opiate for the masses that operates on an individual level.

But i dont eat sauce with my burger. And YOU dont like to eat red meat! And YOU are a vegetarian. Can we come to a general consensus? That there is a source of food that EVERYONE can eat? (ok maybe chicken, but what about vegetarians? vegans? monks?)

the answer ish, NO.

You cant force me to eat prairie oysters!


Singaporeans should know best- we know our food well enough to know that that neverending queue for doughnuts is just, well, hype. Or that chicken rice that took half an hour to buy? Perhaps its not as good as your friend vehemently insists it is!

Just like food, there is no universal consensus as to who likes what best. Why should religion be any different?

So dont proselytise.

Of course, unless i want to know more about it myself.