I. Introduction
Religious belief systems have been at the core of human existence, shaping cultures, societies, and individual lives throughout history. It is a primal part of culture and human behavior. Persuasion, broadly defined as the process by which a person’s attitudes or behavior are influenced through communication without duress (Britannica, 2015), has always been an integral part of connecting the diverse beliefs of society and forming unified communities. Theists, or believers, have shown a tendency to use persuasion to spread their religion. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam have been the most aggressive missionaries of the world religions (Montgomery, 1991).
Yet, when individuals are faced with the challenge of persuading their intelligent and sympathetic friends to embrace their religious belief system, some may find themselves questioning their own beliefs. Does the failure to persuade others to embrace one’s religious belief system indicate a lack of sufficient reason to believe? In my essay, I will advocate for individuals’ faith by proving how persuasive argument is limited in its effectiveness to alter others’ religious convictions. Specifically, I will discuss the challenges for the persuader to pose an argument and challenges imposed by the audience.
I will use the terms religious faith and religious belief [system] interchangeably. A religious faith is defined as belief or trust in a deity or other spiritual force seen as setting standards of conduct, responding to prayer, and assuring the ultimate triumph of good over evil (APA Dictionary of Psychology, n.d.). Religious beliefs often involve a belief in a divine entity, a God, that exists beyond the physical realm. These entities are often considered omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and having an influence on human affairs and the natural world.
II. Challenges for Persuader
Persuasion is not the ideal way to convey reasons for belief, especially when the reasons for belief are inexpressible using words or verbal communication. I will discuss the challenges for the persuader to pose persuasive reasons for religious experiences and convictions.
Religious belief systems are composed of many different factors and divine obligations. How can the persuader express a feeling of commitment, or their intuitive connection to a divinity? In matters of religious faith, it is hard to describe trust, devotion, or veneration and have it resonate in the same way for others as it does for you. Religious beliefs encompass a broad range of values and principles that believers abide by. Existential questions about the nature of life, purpose, and the existence of a higher power transcend ordinary views. Language and communication are not always plausible ways to explain the true extent of the answers to these questions.
When persuading others, ineffability in describing and reasoning religious experiences is arguably the most challenging factor, as religious experiences drive and motivate faith (Webb, 2022). It is near impossible to communicate the deep emotional and spiritual impact of an experience in mere words. Even sympathetic people would not be able to be more insightful and open to these concerns and feelings (APA Dictionary of Psychology, n.d.) because of the inexpressible nature of religious experiences. These experiences leave an imprint that will forever resonate with an individual, but the same effect is not guaranteed for others. This is why, to understand, one must experience.
There are a variety of different kinds of religious experiences that appeal to human senses, such as hearing or seeing, though not through the physical sense. For example, in Buddhism, this sense can refer to realization or enlightenment: as when a yogi is said to “see” their identity with Brahman. Buddhists “see things as they are,” meaning they grasp or realize the emptiness of things, without any further thought on the meanings (Webb, 2022). In many cases, experiences that connect religiously with, and bring a greater understanding to, an individual exceed all and are the most fundamental for religiosity. This is shown in Christianity, where arguably, faith is not a matter of believing in the shared set of propositions or attending rituals. Rather, it is a matter of experiencing being loved by God and called to union with Him. That firm and confident bond of love and trust is foundational for solidifying the connection with one’s beliefs.
Depending on the strength and resonance of experiences and social interactions, convictions, known as strong, extreme, and certain attitudes towards a particular belief, are formed. Religious convictions often arise from intuitive and emotional responses to religious teachings, experiences, or encounters. Answered prayers, perceived miracles, and spiritual encounters significantly influence religiosity and contribute to religious convictions. Non-believers may dismiss these as coincidences or delusions when they cannot envision the same faith and connection.
It is challenging to explain religious convictions, especially to those of intelligence, as they go beyond rationality and logical reasoning. They involve a strong sense of belief and trust in the absence of empirical evidence. Intelligence is defined as “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience” (Gottfredson, 1997). Multiple studies have found that higher levels of intelligence were related to lower levels of religiosity (Zuckerman et al., 2013). Intelligent people tend to search for logistics. Intelligent people would likely require repeated experiences that explicitly and solely support a religious reason. Thus, the persuader’s desired effect on those with higher intelligence may prove a struggle.
This conclusion may allude to the irrationality and insufficient reasoning of religious beliefs. However, to thoroughly posit my argument that religious faith has individual coherence, I assert that the negative relationship of religiosity and intelligence studied is limited. No longitudinal research examined this relationship at several time points (Zuckerman et al., 2013), and the premise that religious people “are less able to acquire the capacity for critical thought” (Bertsch & Pesta, 2009) is disputable. Though I acknowledge the distinction between thinking intellectually and religiously that has been put forth previously, this is only a matter of perspective. Religious people can be intelligent, intelligent people can be religious. Faith is rational but does not require justified logistics.
III. Challenges Imposed by Audience
Religious belief systems form social identities. If an individual’s identity is threatened by the posed religious belief system, it would often be rejected, indicating that the individual perceives the religion as foreign (Montgomery, 1991). Deeply philosophical and existential concerns addressed by religion can conflict with subjective intuitive beliefs and moral convictions, which transcend what authorities dictate (Skitka et al., 2018). These deeply held beliefs are often resistant to change due to their emotional and existential significance.
As an individual is being persuaded, underlying societal beliefs can roadblock the intended message of the persuader. An individual’s perceptions of religious beliefs are heavily influenced by social factors like family, community, and societal norms. Personal community relationships have a strong impact on religion, as common beliefs and world views within a community form the bases of an individual’s belief (Cornwall, 1987). The belief that religion contradicts logic and reasoning, reinforces prejudiced traditional views, and causes societal division is a shared perspective among communities. Some may also question the extent of divine influence in times of suffering. Under consideration of societal pressures, those being persuaded wouldn’t solely or primarily consider the persuader’s main argument. The natural tendency to abide by the values and standards of society often causes an individual to adopt religious beliefs accepted by their community or dismiss religious beliefs the community has rejected.
Subjective experiences and personal convictions challenge the persuasive argument. As persuasion is without duress (Britannica, 2015), individuals are free to believe and interpret as they please. Everyone interprets things differently, so it is unlikely for people to share the same beliefs and feelings about the same experiences. The intended argument and reasoning of the persuader would not be processed. Personal convictions allow for confidence in mindset and beliefs. To consider something that disrupts pre-existing orientations can result in feelings of wrongness, perceptions of difficulty or disfluency, and the absence of confidence (Koenig et al., 2009). This internal conflict produces attitudes that are more difficult to process and more resistant to change (Koenig et al., 2009).
IV. Justifying Religious Belief
Thus far I have proven that persuasion is insufficient in determining the validity of a religion. The opposition may propose that failure in having an influential reason for belief proves weakness in belief. So, what is the criteria for a strong and influential reason or rationality for religious belief? Evidentialism, the position that a belief is justified if its evidence corresponds with it, is a proposed way of justification. Evidentialists argue that if a reasonable belief is 1) evident to the senses, meaning acquired and experienced through the senses, 2) self-evident, obviously true once thought about, and 3) incorrigible, void of doubt or mistake (Forrest, 2021).
I argue that these three criteria are invalid in justifying an individual’s religious belief. Religious belief cannot be evident to the senses, as God, or a divine presence, transcends beyond the physical realm. When believers “sense” the divine, this is in matters of feeling and connection rather than the physical five senses (Forrest, 2021). Religious belief cannot be self-evident, as understanding the existence of God does not assume belief in the existence of God. For atheists, those who firmly oppose the existence of God (Draper, 2022), must understand the notion of God’s existence first to develop a firm stance of rejection. Religious belief cannot be incorrigible, as believers may consider occasional doubts, partial belief, or even crises of faith. Some believers may reflect that there is little reason for doubt but also no positive evidence for their religious beliefs (Forrest, 2021). In the eyes of the evidentialist, all of this is unacceptable and unjustified. Does that make all theists irrational? I dissent. Religious faith can be congruent with rationale, but its coherence is not dependent on evidence.
There exists multiple diverse religious systems and traditions, each with their own internal coherence and validity for their adherents. If an individual holds a religious belief system over another, or chooses to not hold a religious belief system, this is due to their own choice and coherent reasoning.
V. Conclusion
The validity of one’s own religious beliefs rests on internal coherence and personal conviction rather than on matters of reasoned persuasion and evidence. Even though persuasion may be important to account for religion, it is limited in justifying faith. Persuaders often encounter the difficulty of communicating religious obligations and experiences, which may challenge the entire reality and perspective of those being persuaded. In turn, their existing social identities, personal community values, and subjective interpretation of the persuasive argument prevent them from accepting the persuader’s argument. It is important to acknowledge all religious beliefs and embrace diverse, willful beliefs. Ultimately, self-justification is sufficient for one to persist wholeheartedly in belief.
Bibliography
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Religious faith. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/religious-faith
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Sympathy. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/sympathy
Bertsch, S., & Pesta, B. J. (2007). The Wonderlic Personnel Test and elementary cognitive tasks as predictors of religious sectarianism, scriptural acceptance and religious questioning. Intelligence, 37(3), 231-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2020.105548
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia (2015). persuasion. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/persuasion-psychology
Cornwall, M. (1987). The Social Bases of Religion: A Study of Factors Influencing Religious Belief and Commitment. Review of Religious Research, 29(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511951
Draper, P. (2022). Atheism and Agnosticism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Forrest, P. (2021). The Epistemology of Religion. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/religion-epistemology/
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
Koenig, A. M., Cesario, J., Molden, D. C., Kosloff, S., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Incidental experiences of regulatory fit and the processing of persuasive appeals. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 35(10), 1342–1355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209339076
Montgomery, R. L. (1991). The Spread of Religions and Macrosocial Relations. Sociological Analysis, 52(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3710714
Schilbrack, K. (2022). The Concept of Religion. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://doi.org/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/concept-religion/
Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E., Washburn, A. N., & Mueller, A. B. (2018). Moral and religious convictions: Are they the same or different things? PloS one, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199311
Webb, M. (2022). Religious Experience. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/religious-experience/
Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., & Hall, J. A. (2013). The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(4), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313497266