Missionary beliefs/values

[DialecticMaterialist]

I notice many people take an isolationist approach to beliefs/values and wanted to examine the issue. Many for example say the main problem with Xianity is the "preaching" and such.

However I don't think this is the right approach concerning one's beliefs or value. In fact missionary beliefs/values have been the most enduring, take for example Buddhism, originally created in India (where it is now dead) but still alive due to having missionaries go to China, Korea,Vietnam and Japan.

Also Christianity and Islam, two religions that started small and are now large. Also take into account the fact that missionary religions are faster growing then non-missionary and may soon displace them.

I think skeptics,critical thinkers and atheists should learn from this. Remember beliefs can be seen as memes,(are memes according to Dawkins) that compete, and thus those that try to spread themselves will have a competitive advantage over those who do not. Thus isolationist belief systems, those "don't ask don't tell" beliefs will likely die out and those that are more missionary will likely survive(as is what's happening in terms of world religions and has happened in the past).

Now of course there are exceptions, Hinduism did manage to absorb Buddhism in India, but that's mainly because of strong underlying traditions/intertia which become less and less powerful as time goes on. There are also people more or less "born to rebel" who will break away from missionary/established religions out of spite(but I believe will most likely cling to missionary beliefs as opposed to non-missionary), also if a belief is too missionary, as in extremely coercive or produces too many/too strong fanatics, it will likewise not do as well due to interferring with normal day-to-day events or by bothering its target population in a "rude" manner turning people off i.e. Jehovah Witnesses.

Hence what I'm suggesting is the missionary activities of christianity are not a weakness or mere annoying feature but also a strength and likely a reason why Christianity is as big as it is. And that atheists or others with secular(more secular) beliefs, should look at this and learn from it.

This does not mean one has to go around rudely preaching, but that one should be willing to spread one's ideas via appropriate channels(of course what one may consider appropriate channels may vary-but one example: Polotical message board-good channel....business meeting-probably not a good channel.)

Such a viewpoint doesn't only help spread one's beliefs but makes a society more open. As people will be confronted with several conflicting viewpoints throghout their life, as well as be willing to engage in this conflict, not merely close their minds off under the "don't ask/don't tell" ideology which leads to mere stagnation and perhaps memetic extinction.

By encouraging competition in this manner, one creates an enviroment where the "strongest" beliefs survive and the "weakest" fall at the quickest rate. I believe here the strongest beliefs will be the more logical/well proven and weakest most irrational/unproven-all things being equal(because human beings will go with the evidence if not hampered).

Also I'd like to point out that those who are anti-missionary are almost always doomed to fail(as well as irrational) as they are trying to spread their anti-missionary attitude, which itself is a missionary enterprise.

Questions or comments are welcome.

 

[Dancing David]

I

By encouraging competition in this manner, one creates an enviroment where the "strongest" beliefs survive and the "weakest" fall at the quickest rate. I believe here the strongest beliefs will be the more logical/well proven and weakest most irrational/unproven-all things being equal(because human beings will go with the evidence if not hampered).

I think your point is an interesting one, but I feel that social darwinism is mainly a smokescreen for imperialism.

The critical failing of the above statement is the 'human beings go with the evidence".....

A. There is no evidence for religion, it is subjective.(IMO)
B. Humans frequently show moo-cow herd mentality and just go with the prevailing opinion to reduce social stress.
C. Culture partly determines how 'open minded' people are.
D. Often choices are made based upon economics and survival: nothing to do with the rational judging of thoughts.

However: I would be appaled if science and atheism began to mission. I fell that many missions are reall obnoxious.

Peace
dancing David

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think your point is an interesting one, but I feel that social darwinism is mainly a smokescreen for imperialism.

I'm not promoting social darwinism.

The critical failing of the above statement is the 'human beings go with the evidence".....

That was conditional, remember: all things being equal.

A. There is no evidence for religion, it is subjective.(IMO)

I agree, but it has inertia, religious tradition though it is being displaced. Many people like to pretend it has evidence as well, in fact the design argument is used often times to explain personal belief in God. Mainly I think this is somewhat an error in reasoning i.e. interpreting the evidence.

B. Humans frequently show moo-cow herd mentality and just go with the prevailing opinion to reduce social stress.

I suppose. However they can and will rebel in face of new evidence at times.
And evident theories often win out, notice the rise of science and prevalence of beliefs in scientific theories like heliocentric astronomy/germ theory and atomic theory.

C. Culture partly determines how 'open minded' people are.

True but certain things like beliefs and evidence determine culture(also I believe birth order plays a larger role in determing how open minded a person is, see Frank Sulloway.)

D. Often choices are made based upon economics and survival: nothing to do with the rational judging of thoughts.

But rational thoughts help with economics and survival.

The key was my conditional statement(other things being equal) , made because you can find exceptions to every rule.

However: I would be appaled if science and atheism began to mission. I fell that many missions are reall obnoxious.

That's a value judgement. I would be more appalled if the anti-missionaries succeeded in creating a society in which no new ideas are actively spread and science/atheism lost out to a missionary religion.

 

[Dancing David]

I would be real suprised if that would happen, I think the idea behind being anti missionary is that it is a form of colonial imperialism, that is where I brought up economics.

There are times when people choose a religion because they belive it will have an economic benefit, IE the wealthy Xians are more likely to do bussiness with me if I am Xian.

I don't mind the missionaryies who go and do good deeds, they actualy are doing the mission by example thing. I do find that when people go and say "you are going to hell if you don't koin my church' that is obnoxious.

I wonder how the buddhists missions went, 'hi, I am begging door to door for food." I don't think that they would have been asking "have you heard the word of the buddha'

I understand your point, I don't think that the anri-missionary sentiment will cause the decline of science, missionaries take beliefs someplace. Alot of people seek out science.

Peace

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

David

I would be real suprised if that would happen, I think the idea behind being anti missionary is that it is a form of colonial imperialism, that is where I brought up economics.

Missionary beliefs were around long before colonial imperialism and even perpetuated by groups who had nothing to gain by being imperialist. An example is Christianity, missionary but the first Christians were not imperialists.

Also Biddhism was perpetuated in a non-imperialist manner.

Marxism is another missionary belief likewise perpetuated by non-imperialists.

Keep in mind also that non-missionary beliefs were held by imperialists. Roman paganism, Chinese taoism/confucianism, Indian Hinduism(which in fact discourages non-Indians from becoming Hindu), Japanese shintoism, Macedonian paganism. China and India did not set up colonies of course but did have huge empires.

The only two missionary beliefs I know of that have strong ties to any sort of imperialism are Islam and Zoroastrianism.

There are times when people choose a religion because they belive it will have an economic benefit, IE the wealthy Xians are more likely to do bussiness with me if I am Xian.

Yes but two things. 1) That's not always the case. and 2) WHY is it like that? In that event business is submitting to missionary values, not vice versa.

I don't mind the missionaryies who go and do good deeds, they actualy are doing the mission by example thing. I do find that when people go and say "you are going to hell if you don't koin my church' that is obnoxious.

See you don't have to make threats to be missionary. You don't even have to condemn. Buddhism for example is missionary and doesn't condemn anyone.

Perhaps you have gotten the wrong idea of what missionary is. All missionary means if that the belief is actively spread/perpetuated. This leaves the door wide open for how the belief is to be actively spread.


It does not have anything to do necessarily with Christian style preaching.

I wonder how the buddhists missions went, 'hi, I am begging door to door for food." I don't think that they would have been asking "have you heard the word of the buddha'

I don't know and doubt both scenerios but spread it was. I believe it was a Buddhist/Indian ruler that funded Buddhist monks first missionary exploits.

I understand your point, I don't think that the anri-missionary sentiment will cause the decline of science, missionaries take beliefs someplace. Alot of people seek out science.

I doubt it will cause the decline of science too(nothing short of a world wide disaster would cause that) but it may if spread widely enough, lead to less rationality, rational beliefs and slow down the acceptance of rational beliefs/attitudes.

In short there is nothing wrong with the missionary stance and it is actually a good way to get rationality into society/make your beliefs competitive.

Imagine if someone took the anti-missionary stance very seriously. A man like Dawkins or Shermer. All of a sudden the man does not care to write books about evolution or skepticism as that would be spreading his beliefs. The man does not go out of his way to debunk anything and if he does he doesn't tell anyone about it. Tell me, would doing the above make the man more or less helpful to the society? Would it help promote skepticism or simply allow psuedoscience to flood a society unchecked?

The fact that you David write on these boards and express a criticism of my stance is itself a missionary act. Basically you are tryng to in some way sway people's opinions to your side. Hence the paradox of being anti-missionary, it is itself a missionary venture.

 

[Dancing David]

Ah well I guess that I was thinking of missionary , as in the person raising money to go off on a mission to covert the heathens.
If you chose to define missionary as writing a book or engaging in public lectures, I guess it makes sense.
If I am a missionary are you are preacher? wink.

Peace