‘God, I don’t want to die,’ U.S. missionary wrote before he was killed by remote tribe on Indian island

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
There big differences in trying to convert other people to your religion or ideologies and showing them better ways/ideals and requiring schools to teach children basic scientific facts.

That's not a convincing answer - it just amounts to saying 'we can spread _our_ truth because it's a true truth, their truth isn't true". Which is a circular argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and docp

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
But the defence that "it's justified because we are just educating them in the truth" or "we are informing them about reality" is the same thing the Christian missionaries would say! That's not a difference, it just begs the question.

The difference surely has to be about the fact that they are part of the same country/culture/community/social-contract as we are? It works differently if it's within your own group. Just as we accept parents right to indoctrinate their own children in their religion, but not to push it on the children of others. Just as its different if a campaign against the niqab, say, comes from within the Muslim community as from outside.

Actually, come to think of it, children are constantly exposed to indoctrination - it's what much of the advertising industry is about. I bet some (but certainly not all) of those who oppose missionary work would also oppose a ban on advertising junk food to children, on 'free speech' grounds.

Science can Demonstrate what it believes. Religion can only have Faith in what it believes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba and Schmide

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
Someone in the White House needs to convince Hair Furor to go on a diplomatic mission to North Sentinel Island. Tell him that it would be a great place to put one of his golf courses and that cheap gifts like fishing line, scissors and a soccer ball would sucker them into a deal.

Have him take his family with him.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
Some history about the first ever documented expeditions(s) to the island ~ https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1065841141201989632

Can't say if there was any "scientific" curiosity there, but it seems like that contact really "taught" the tribe to know better.
Someone in the White House needs to convince Hair Furor to go on a diplomatic mission to North Sentinel Island. Tell him that it would be a great place to put one of his golf courses and that cheap gifts like fishing line, scissors and a soccer ball would sucker them into a deal.

Have him take his family with him.
Without escorts, including secret service, & obviously guns?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
That's not a convincing answer - it just amounts to saying 'we can spread _our_ truth because it's a true truth, their truth isn't true". Which is a circular argument.
No it is not. No more then teaching 2+2=4 is. Or for matter good proven methods that would actually improve the tribe's survival and well-belling.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
...

Without escorts, including secret service, & obviously guns?

Let the SS accompany him to the island on an aircraft carrier then send him and his family ashore. The Orange Anus likes to make deals without anyone else around, ask Putin. :)
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
No it is not. No more then teaching 2+2=4 is. Or for matter good proven methods that would actually improve the tribe's survival and well-belling.

OK so you have The Truth, and therefore any intervention in the lives of others is justified because it's good for them? Where have I heard that before?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
Science can Demonstrate what it believes. Religion can only have Faith in what it believes.

Sure (I don't, in essence, disagree with that much - I do think there is a difference between science and reliigon), but to 'demonstrate' requires the others to listen to the argument and see your demonstration. That's part of what we are discussing. To what extent is it justified to spread such enlightenment to others when they don't want you to?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,436
1,567
126
OK so you have The Truth, and therefore any intervention in the lives of others is justified because it's good for them? Where have I heard that before?
Oh I wouldn't force this on them, it will be by example.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
Sure (I don't, in essence, disagree with that much - I do think there is a difference between science and reliigon), but to 'demonstrate' requires the others to listen to the argument and see your demonstration. That's part of what we are discussing. To what extent is it justified to spread such enlightenment to others when they don't want you to?
If you can't establish basic rules of engagement, like ensuring the other party is well & alive at/after the meeting with you, then the actual meet seems to be in bad faith.

Now we don't know if the guy knew he could endanger them by simply being there, but it stands to reason that no truth, whether his own or any other universal one, is greater than the greatest thing a human has i.e. life. Beyond life itself, most things seem superficial or ideological, to me. Though science is a truth, it isn't without its ills. Religion "can" be good if we're restricting it to a theological exercise on modern concepts of morality, ethics, conduct et al. However one mustn't forget the origins of religion lie in the basic human instinct of survival or fear, if we're being pedantic.
 
Last edited:

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
Robo-missionaries?

(Oh, come to think of it, how long before Christians start sending drones bearing Christ's Word?)
what we need is the mobile Infantry and their powered armor, lob a few portable nuke will keep them in line
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
If you can't establish basic rules of engagement, like ensuring the other party is well & alive at/after the meeting with you, then the actual meet seems to be in bad faith.

Now we don't know if the guy knew he could endanger them by simply being there, but it stands to reason that no truth, whether his own or any other universal one, is greater than the greatest thing a human has i.e. life. Beyond life itself, most things seem superficial or ideological, to me. Though science is a truth, it isn't without its ills. Religion "can" be good if we're restricting it to a theological exercise on modern concepts of morality, ethics, conduct et al. However one mustn't forget the origins of religion lie in the basic human instinct of survival or fear, if we're being pedantic.

Fair enough, in this case that issue (disease and quarentine) is the most clear-cut one of all. Though I really think there's more to their desire for isolation that fear of literal viruses. Contact with outsiders can be destructive in a variety of different ways, there are other kinds of thing that spread and cause damage like viruses.


The damage done by missionaries, historically, has gone well beyond physical diseases. I'm just curious as to how one draws the line, because it seems clear to me both that proselytising can be harmful, and that you obviously can't simply ban it in all cases.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
if he really did not want to die maybe he should have stayed away from an island that he was warned not to go to where death was the likely outcome.

can't really sorry for someone who ignored warnings and went anyways and suffered the consequences as a result of that decision making process.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
if he really did not want to die maybe he should have stayed away from an island that he was warned not to go to where death was the likely outcome.

can't really sorry for someone who ignored warnings and went anyways and suffered the consequences as a result of that decision making process.

I think he let Jesus take the wheel.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
136
I don't get the shock from the churchly crowd. 1, missionaries getting killed isn't new, and 2, I thought this was what you did with borders?

tPWmOxB.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
He deserves a similar reaction to someone who jumped off a tall building, aiming at innocent people in the expectation that he would fly away relying on his god to save him, claiming it was somehow for the benefit of said innocent people, then having luckily landed on a ledge without injury the first time he tried it, he went back and tried again..

The only route to sympathy would be if somebody wants to make the case that his hardcore religious beliefs constitute mental illness
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,167
1,638
126
plate mail?
Don't know if this is 100% true or not, but I recall reading how the Indian government tried to check on them following the 2004 tsunami that devastated the Indian ocean. Whatever surveillance they managed to do showed that for some reason, the tribe had moved inland and uphill before the tsunami hit.

Maybe their non-Christian god saved them??

I think there are a few possibilities
1.) They didn't "all" survive, the ones living inland survived, the ones by the coast swept out to sea
2.) They saw the water receding before the tsunami hit, or they saw the wall of water, or they heard the tsunami, and ran like hell for higher ground.
3.) Since they had never heard the tale of Odysseeus, they were spared Poseidon's wrath.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,595
730
126
But the defence that "it's justified because we are just educating them in the truth" or "we are informing them about reality" is the same thing the Christian missionaries would say! That's not a difference, it just begs the question.

The difference surely has to be about the fact that they are part of the same country/culture/community/social-contract as we are? It works differently if it's within your own group. Just as we accept parents right to indoctrinate their own children in their religion, but not to push it on the children of others. Just as its different if a campaign against the niqab, say, comes from within the Muslim community as from outside.

The argument is, if you are part of the same country as we are, and subscribe to a common social-contract, you have to be exposed to the agreed ideas of this society. I guess.

Actually, come to think of it, children are constantly exposed to indoctrination - it's what much of the advertising industry is about. I bet some (but certainly not all) of those who oppose missionary work would also oppose a ban on advertising junk food to children, on 'free speech' grounds.

So many false equivalences.

When Christian missionaries back up their lie with facts, you can say "That's not a difference" Otherwise. It's a big fucking difference.

To deny science you have to believe a lie and then lie about that lie. If you don't want to live in reality you should not get the benefits of the reality you deny.

I respect the Amish, they walk the walk and build the barn. They earn the right to deny things. Hypocrites, do not.

Oh and Junk food is not free speech. Start with a false equivalence end with a false equivalence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,545
1,305
146
Don't know if this is 100% true or not, but I recall reading how the Indian government tried to check on them following the 2004 tsunami that devastated the Indian ocean. Whatever surveillance they managed to do showed that for some reason, the tribe had moved inland and uphill before the tsunami hit.

Maybe their non-Christian god saved them??

The tribe shot at the helicopter as well.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,633
8,521
136
So many false equivalences.

When Christian missionaries back up their lie with facts, you can say "That's not a difference" Otherwise. It's a big fucking difference.

To deny science you have to believe a lie and then lie about that lie. If you don't want to live in reality you should not get the benefits of the reality you deny.

I respect the Amish, they walk the walk and build the barn. They earn the right to deny things. Hypocrites, do not.

Oh and Junk food is not free speech. Start with a false equivalence end with a false equivalence.

Huh? You seem to miss the point. The question is, if a group don't want to be persuaded to adopt a (contemporary, Western) scientific world-view, under what circumstances is it morally-OK to attempt to persuade them to do so? I find that a genuinely tricky question.

And it's no different from the question of spreading other world-views, such as feminism, say. (After the Iranian revolution a bunch of US feminists headed out there to spread the word, only to be immediately deported by the Mullahs).

Should one send teachers to all the isolated peoples of the world to explain to them their particular spiritual beliefs are factually-incorrect, and not-scientifically valid? Forcibly invade countries that are based on religious beliefs that contradict the findings of science, in order to educate them?

As I said, it seems to be the key point is not 'whether the ideas are backed with evidence' or not (and how much evidence is requred, exactly?) but the nature of the relationship between the proselytizer and the proselytized.

And 'junk food is not free speech' - no clue what your point is there. Nobody said food was speech. But advertising it is.

Modern capitalist societies are absolutely riven with attempts to prosyletise and persuade, largely based on who has the most money.

Countries often strictly limit things like advertising cigarettes or alcohol, and increasingly junk food has come under scrutiny. But the US seems to make a particularly big deal about 'free speech' and it in fact appears whether such restrictions that exist will continue, yet alone expand, is dependent on who gets political control of the Supreme Court (the institution that people weirdly pretend is above politics when it is obviously entirely political)

It just seems a bit inconsistent to object to 'missionary work' in very strong terms while ignoring the proselytizing that is an inherent part of capitalism.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Meh.. leave them a Rosetta stone, if they wanna come play after that we'll talk, other than that leave them the hell alone.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
So many false equivalences.

When Christian missionaries back up their lie with facts, you can say "That's not a difference" Otherwise. It's a big fucking difference.

To deny science you have to believe a lie and then lie about that lie. If you don't want to live in reality you should not get the benefits of the reality you deny.

I respect the Amish, they walk the walk and build the barn. They earn the right to deny things. Hypocrites, do not.

Oh and Junk food is not free speech. Start with a false equivalence end with a false equivalence.

No lie: I saw an amish dude and his son on an Amtrak train the other day. My world was shattered.