Whenever we encounter a claim of truth, we evaluate it from two nested perspectives, that of our culture and that of the immediate situation, in a multi-stage process with a variety of procedures. Empirical truth testing comes toward the end of our encounter (if we ever get to it), not at its beginning. We never at first simply hold up the claim in propositional form, examine what it means, them test it against an appropriate criterion.
Imagine we are walking down a public street and someone runs toward us, shouting, "They're shooting people at the bank." How do we greet this statement? (We are going to set aside the issue of the cultural context as well-known, for the moment.) First, we receive it as a claim of truth, rather than a self-evident truth report. Then, we quickly engage a variety of procedures to determine whether it is credible that such a claim could be truthfully made at this time and place and circumstance; that is, we evaluate the immediate situation in which we receive the claim. If the time is midday, and we are (we know) in a small village without a bank; then we would be incredulous of the claim. On the other hand, if we are in a large city in a high-crime neighborhood, and we know a bank is in the next block, then we might not immediately dismiss the claim. We would, in other words, assess the claim for truth by examining the circumstances of its presentation, before we try to verify the claim itself.
We would greet claims of religious truth no differently than any other truth claims. As in the example, above, we would assess the situational circumstances and character of the claim's presentation before trying to verify the claim itself. Since some religious truth-statements cannot be scientifically tested, in a conventional sense, it might well be that the only procedures we have available to assess the truth claim are those that assess the presentation of the claim, rather than the claim itself.
Let's start by looking at the qualities of presentation in a conversion encounter.
We would start by distinguishing between religious falsehoods and a false religion. If the nonbeliever does not believe in any religion, were an secular humanist, for instance, the suspicion that the missionaries represent a false religion would probably not immediately arise. For the secular humanist, all religions are false, so the distinction between a true religion and a false religion would not arise.
Missionaries, teachers, religious clerics, and other advocates of any religion engaged in missionary work are aware that, in approaching nonbelievers, they must be concerned with setting up the conversion encounter with the nonbeliever. They must concern themselves with their sincerity to ensure that the audience does not suspect they are offering religious falsehoods (or even have a nonreligious purpose--selling insurance or cookies or magazine subscriptions). Let's assume that the missionary gets past this point; the audience believes the person(s) in front of her are genuinely religious, believe their religion to be true, and are sincerely interested in converting the nonbeliever to their faith.
In this conversion encounter, the missionary's effort to persuade the nonbeliever of a claim to truth will include by implicit reference the possibility of a finding of false religion. The nonbeliever has the option of thinking that the missionaries, though genuine believers, believe in a non-religion, that the missionaries are, in other words, dupes of a false religion. An experienced missionary will surely have encountered believers who slammed the door in their face, shouting that they are deluded. How would the missionary forestall such a reaction?
Both the nonbeliever, who is the target of conversion effort, and the missionaries expect that an encounter will be initially assessed in terms of presentation. The presentation must proceed so that the issue of false religion and delusion does not occur to the nonbeliever. How can the missionary accomplish this feat? The missionary will employ a repertoire of procedures, including rituals, costumes, props, and skits to enframe the presentation. The presentation will not decide the claim to truth, but if the missionary is successful, the presentation will advance the claim to the status of candidate for a claim to truth.
We should not assume the nonbeliever will automatically be skeptical of the presentation; but the nonbeliever will certainly assess it. What circumstances and what character of presentation for conversion will be taken into consideration when the nonbeliever assesses the presentation? I think the following issues of presentation would be crucial.
1/ Is initiation of the encounter between the nonbeliever and the missionary voluntary or involuntary?
A forced encounter would taint the missionary's sincerity.
2/ Is the encounter presented as having a voluntary or involuntary outcome; in other words, is the nonbeliever presented with a demand that a decision must be made and by a certain time?
Wouldn't a nonbeliever expect that a genuine conversion effort would be tailored to the nonbeliever's unique qualities, knowledge, and readiness? If so, a missionary genuinely interested in conversion would not be able to say, ahead of time, when a conversion should occur. The missionary would not say, make up your mind, I've only got a couple of hours. A deadline would constitute a threat, making the conversion involuntary.
3/ Does the encounter take place within the auspices of the state?
If the state is involved in the conversion encounter, it would immediately complicate the encounter with issues that would distract the audience from the religious message.
4/ Are any issues, other than the claim to truth, at stake, such as status of citizenship?
State issues in a conversion encounter would implicitly present a threat; do this, or else.
A nonbeliever would expect that a true religion does not need the assistance of force or the state or threats to have the truth of the religion appear to the nonbeliever. I do not think this assumption is simply Reformation culture on my part. No doubt, from the point of view of the missionary, who believes in the truth of her religion, any reluctance of the nonbeliever to proceed with the encounter or any nonbeliever skepticism would be assigned to sinful resistance on the nonbeliever's part. But we have ruled out this perspective, from inside religious belief, in our effort to determine the possibility of false religion. A true religion would approach the conversion encounter in a different way than the false religion. Open discussion and free assent should be part of the way a true religion appears to the potential convert.
(Revised. January 7, 2007.)
Comments