Something there is that motivates many of us to expound on our views, on a number of subjects, to others without being asked to do so. Thomas Carlyle, as one can see in the quote above, thought that it is not merely a part of our Nature but emphatically so. Unsolicited pontification one might call it (or in any case I call it that, now).
This seems especially the case when it comes to God and religion. An interesting question is whether this tendency has always been part of our nature, or became common at some point in our very talkative, chattering history.
I don't think it was a part of our nature until relatively recently in our history, at least as far as God and religion are concerned. We don't see the ancient, polytheistic pagan West filled with adherents of a particular god urging people to worship that god only. Worshippers of Dionysus didn't seek to convert worshippers of Isis; worshippers of Cybele didn't bother to convert initiates of other gods. The Romans didn't insist that those they conquered worship Roman gods. They generally would treat the gods of the barbarians as aspects of the gods they accepted; different versions of gods like Jupiter, Mars, and others, worshipped under different names. Not even Christians were persecuted because they worshipped a particular god and not pagan gods, nor were the Jews. They were persecuted, instead, when they refused to participate in the reverence owed the Roman state and its emperors, which they believed to be worship rather than a prayer or offering for their welfare.
I've come to the conclusion that proselytizing, which in most cases refers to religious hectoring, lecturing, sermonizing, and communication in general, wasn't indulged in to any great extent until some of us came to be monotheists who not only insisted there was one God only, but that worshipping that God--and no other god--was right and necessary. That view naturally caused other views to arise, e.g. worshipping any other God was wrong, and that it was right and good that others worship the one true God in the manner appropriate according to those who worshipped that God already. And so many unworthy, awful and horrible events began taking place and take place still.
Why else would someone want to tell others their beliefs regarding God, and what they consider the reasons for them? The fact that one believes in God isn't enough to explain the urge to tell, and to explain, and to persuade (sometimes forcibly) others who don't, or who favor another, or perhaps to repress them for doing so. Even the belief that the God one believes in is the one, true God isn't quite enough. It isn't necessary that the Believer in God X preach that X is God, rather than Y or Z. That believer could merely believe and be silent.
For the preaching to begin, it's necessary that the believer in X feel somehow bound to preach that X is the one, true God. What would engender such a feeling? The belief that X wants the believer to do so, or the believer has a duty to do so (which may amount to the same thing).
A God who wants everyone to believe in him/her/they/it has always struck me as peculiar, though. Why would God be so needy, so intent on being worshipped? Perhaps it may be argued that God wants all to believe merely because it's good for us, however, not good for God or desirable to God. If that's the case, one is prompted to wonder why that's good for us. Then it's required that we find explanations for that claim. Is it good for us because it's evil not to believe? If that's so, why is it evil? Because we'll be prompted to do evil things? Saying it's good for us to do so because only in that case will be believe in what is True, or Good, or really is God simply begs the question. If it's good for us to believe in God X as opposed to God Y or Z or no God at all because if we don't we'll be punished, perhaps for all eternity, raises yet another question--why would God mandate punishment of unbelievers?
Proselytizing seems to have been "built into" Christianity from fairly early in its history. That's what Pentecost is about, after all. The Holy Spirit or Ghost descended upon the apostles and the race was on, so to speak, to convert all, and there's no question that the race was run successfully. Sometimes by force, of course, as a host of pagans, Jews, Moslems, and indigenous people throughout the world can attest. Islam played the conversion game as well, of course, though at times it authorities were content merely to require payment from infidels. It's interesting that among the Abrahamic religions Judaism was and it seems still is not particularly interested in converting all the world. While intolerant and exclusive, Judaism has been content in continuing, nurturing and cherishing its uniqueness rather than diminishing it by pursuing new believers.
The great days of Christian proselytizing are over as best as can be told. The Crusades, the excesses of the Reformation, the Inquisition, conversion through conquest and imperialism are all in the past. It seems the Mormons still have the missionary spirit and their zeal is such that they baptize even the dead, thus carrying their efforts to convert to a remarkable extreme. There's no need to persecute the unfaithful when their consent is neither sought nor possible.
The urge to compel acceptance of one's beliefs has become less severe in these times, it's true, but seems to remain a part of our nature. We see it among those who insist on proving God's existence or justifying it even when not solicited, who ostentatiously practice their religion and seek legal support for it, who believe they know what's right for all, politically and socially, and seek to impose their views on others. It's far easier to proselytize now than it was not all that long ago, and it seems to be more successful as the physical imposition of belief is no longer required. One may simply spew whatever view or theory one seeks to promote onto the Web, and there are always those who accept it and spread it.
I repeat myself I'm afraid, but it's the nature of our technology and means of communication, including media, to discourage thought, particularly rational thought, which takes time and effort, and encourage emotional, irrational, and above all instantaneous reaction to claims being made constantly which are ubiquitous and repeated endlessly. We'll be lucky if there are any left who are inclined and able to reflect on what's being touted within 10 years.
