Daily Archives: July 18, 2017

If I were in an abusive situation, Id certainly want to break free, too. The question, however, is where to go (fractal image by PublicDomainPictures) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

Introduction: Deconversion stories are accounts of an atheist or agnosticsodyssey from some form of Christianity to atheism or agnosticism. Since these are public (else I wouldnt know about them in the first place), its reasonable to assume that they are more than merely subjective / personal matters, that have no bearing on anyone else. No; it is assumed (it seems to me) that these stories are thought to offer rationales of various sorts for others to also become atheists or to be more confirmed in their own atheism. This being the case, since they are public critiques of Christianity (hence, fair game for public criticism), as a Christian (Catholic) apologist, I have a few thoughts in counter-reply.

I amnotquestioning the sincerity of these persons or the truthfulness of their self-reports, or any anguish that they went through. I accept their words at face value. Im not arguing that they are terrible, evil people (thats a childs game). My sole interest is in showing if and where certain portions of these deconversion stories contain fallacious or non-factual elements: where they fail to make a point against Christianity (what Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls defeating the defeaters), or misrepresent (usually unwittingly) Christianity as a whole, or the Bible, etc.

As always, feedback on my blog (especially from the persons critiqued) is highly encouraged, and I will contact, out of basic courtesy, everyone whose story I have critiqued. All atheists are treated with courtesy and respect on my blog. If someone doesnt do so, I reprimand them, and ban them if they persist in their insults.

When I cite the stories themselves, the words will be inblue.

*****

Today, I am responding to Real Deconversion Story #1 Lorna (10-25-12), hosted on Jonathan MS PearcesA Tippling Philosopherweb page at Patheos (where my blog is also hosted).

I was brought up in what I now refer to as thefundie bubble, where I was raised to be completely unaware of how the real world worked.

And of course this will have a harmful effect: being exposed to a fringe, extreme, anti-intellectual species of Christianity. This is now the third straight deconversion story I have critiqued in the last few days, where this was the case. One starts to detect a certain pattern. Most of what an atheist will say in critique of fundamentalism, the vast majority of non-fundamentalist Christians will readily agree with.

Lorna has great fun mocking the fundamentalist aversion to evil forces but, all joking aside, certainly we can all agree that there are bad (evil?) people and bad belief-systems out there (e.g., ISIS and neo-Nazis and child molesters or rapists).

Their [her parents] prime objective as Christian parents wastokeep the world outof our home.

And that makes perfect sense. All parents seek to insulate their children against harmful influences. Some may do it in dumb, extreme ways, and we may disagree on which harmful influences to exclude, but the principle itself is a general one.

Lornas struggle with masturbation simply highlights the Christian assertion that sin is addicting. Its powerful. Its enticing. Thats why we must try to avoid it at all costs. Its much easier to never begin such practices. There is a rational argument (even a secular one) that can be made against masturbation, but this is not the place to do that. Of course, the atheist and sexually liberated person simply says that because masturbation is a powerful urge, therefore, it must be perfectly natural and therefore okay. That doesnt follow at all.

Virtually every married man (to give one example) has been attracted to a woman not his wife. If that were purely and solely natural, therefore, good, then infidelity would then become good. But there is a consensus (still, even today), that cheating on your spouse is a bad thing. Therefore, this is an analogous example of an urge that society (atheist and Christian alike) stigmatizes as something that should not be done. The child molester has strong natural urges to molest children. Society (and I would say, natural law and common ethical sense) says that is wrong. We also still think its wrong for a parent and child to have sex, or for a man to rape a woman.

All of those things feel natural to those who have those urges. Christianity simply holds that a wider group of sexual practices fall under this same sort of thing. And we have plenty of reasons for believing so: that can be backed up by studies from social science, as to effects on individuals and families and marriages of certain practices.

Of course, I couldnt stopand according to what I learnedit was a spiritually dangerous addiction. Knowing this did a number on my self-esteem because I deeply and genuinely believed that God was disappointed in me all of the time and I couldnt stop no matter how hard I tried. I asked for forgiveness nightly, but it got to the point where I was even ashamed to mention the subject in prayer.

Lornas in good company. Paul the Apostle wrote about very similar struggles (that we all go through in one way or another):

Romans 7:15-24 (RSV) I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.[16] Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.[17] So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.[18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.[19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.[20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.[21] So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.[22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,[23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.[24] Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

His solution was given in the next chapter, where he talked about the powerful help of the Holy Spirit and grace, to overcome sin.

. . . the darker elements of the Christian mindset that were present both in my home in the church certainly latched onto personality weaknesses and perpetuated them, even more so as time went on.

That is, the fundamentalist(not general Christian) mindset . . .

The point of homeschooling, both my parents and seemingly the chosen curriculums, was not to educate and prepare me for life but rather to keep sin aka reality far out of reach. As a result, when I actually did face the real world,I did so naively and unprepared.

That has not been our own experience at all. We have homeschooled all four of our children, and they are doing wonderfully in life (now at ages 26, 24, 20, and 15: our oldest is autistic as well). All are rock-solid Catholics. So once again, the big bad boogie man is neither Christianity nor homeschooling, but rather, extreme, unrealistic versions of both. I agree with the excesses Lorna condemns in this regard (there are good and bad homeschoolers, just as with anything else), but I dont see how they constitute any reason for deconversion and adoption of atheism. Lorna seems to think they do (since they are in her deconversion story). I dont see how, meself.

As a result of her desperate need to control combined with her belief that there was only one correct path that I was straying from, I was made to quit my job, have the cellphone that I bought and paid for (on time every month to prove responsibility) taken away from me (so that I couldnt communicate with Daniel as freely), and forbidden from actuallydatinghim.

. . . which is, of course, silly and extreme, since nothing bad was known about the boyfriend. All this proves is that Lorna had a controlling, legalistic, fundamentalist mom. It proves nothing against the truthfulness of Christianity. We know that when parents are too strict, the kids rebel (duh!). And I think atheism can be tied into that phenomenon. Its going from one extreme to another.

On top of what I now consider harassment from the church, I was also dealing with angry letters from my mom about how myselfishnessandchosen lifestylewere hurting family. Never mind how I was emotionally ostracized, manipulated and black-mailed for wanting to make some of my own choices. Somehow, the blame was all on me. I even received a letter from an uncle, who rarely said a word to me prior to this, in which he explained in great detail that God could very well punish my sinful rebellionwithcancer. The fear tactics in that letter were so blatant that it was actually sickening, even for my naive mind. This combined with the new-found freedom to think outside of the bubble is what eventually led me out of religion all together. Unfortunately, I clung to the love of Jesus for as long as I could. When I finally began to let go of even Jesus, Daniel and I began to drift as well.

I see nothing here that is a reason to reject Christianity: only a reason to object to controlling behaviors and fundamentalism. She gives no reason at all for why she let go of even Jesus. I guess she started to think that He would supposedly act like her despotic mother and uncle? Or did she commit intellectual suicide and start thinking that He never existed?

. . .having both escaped the Christian mindset.

I see this tendency repeatedly in atheist deconversion stories: a conflation of the extreme, fringe Christians elements with Christianity. This is not honest (I must say). Its false advertising. The atheist is the first to vocally object if we point out that the usual raging, angry anti-theists who are rampant online represent the average, mainstream atheist. I agree that they dont (Ive written about that several times). I ask for the same courtesy from atheists to distinguish between ignorant fanatic Christians and those who are not so.

This is a big problem that I see in deconversion stories. Atheists read them and say (or so I speculate), That is Christianity, and I want no part of it; glad I left that nonsense. I read the same thing and think, That is despicable fundamentalist foolishness, that has never been part of my Christianity, or most Christians faith, and I detest it as well, but see no reason to reject Christianity itself because some people have a lousy, stupid, mindless application of Christianity in their lives.

I could go on to critique much more of this story, but it is mostly variations on the same theme, so what I have written will suffice. There is nothing whatsoever here that I see, that would compel anyone to reject all forms of Christianity. The storywould certainly, however, form a good reason to reject reality-denying fundamentalism. Since lots of Christians do that, it can hardly be an unanswerable reason to reject Christianity altogether.

Lastly, there are intelligent, sensible, non-controlling ways to teach abstinence before marriage. My children have all lived that out. One is now very happily married, another has a steady girlfriend. They are all wonderful Christian human beings, and theyre not out there condemning homeschooling and talking about how terrible my wife and I were in bringing them up. Quite the opposite. My wife and I also waited till marriage, and are fabulously happy, with almost 33 years of marriage.

So the idea that Christianity is all this garbage that Lorna went through or that there is no conceivable way to intelligently, rationally, sensibly teach abstinence before marriage is nonsense. There is a balance between extreme puritan-like legalism and prudishness and extreme sexual anything goes license. Christians can even agree with atheists on much (if not all) of that.

*****

In the combox, Lorna wrote: I will link you to my transition story from a blog that I no longer update, in case youre interested. [link provided]It offers a little more detail as to how I got from fundamental Christianity to agnosticism/atheism. It was by no means an angry, thoughtless jump.

Since Im interested in precisely that, Ill give a few thoughts on this additional material, too.

. . . this transition of mine consists of what I can separate into three phases: liberal Christianity, spirituality (where I believed in God, but thought that organized religion was pointless -this led to a slight interest in certain aspects of far eastern religions) and finally agnosticism (where I had concluded that no one can know anything for sure and that there is probably a bit of truth in every view).

Okay, Ill keep reading.

More recently, thanks to the experience and emotional support from my partner as well as my own interest in psychology, I have become more and more certain that god must simply be an idea to help fill in the gaps. Ive come to learn that our mind craving for something god makes perfect sense; but it doesnt justify dedicating your life to a fear-soothing fantasy. I think religion, or any idea of god, gods, or a greater power for that matter is only for emotional comfort. The unknown tends to be uncomfortable, unsettling, and even frightening to some.

This is simply an assertion of what Lorna has come to believe, and no argument; therefore, there is nothing to dispute. Its merely subjective mush. Of course, this is a variation of the usual tired atheist schtick that religion is the equivalent of belief inSanta Claus or leprechaunsor the tooth fairy and suchlike (alas, some asinine atheist slogansnever change).

My attempt at a more liberal version of Christianity after a childhood of the conservative brand lasted for a couple of years, or less. Id decided that most Christians were bad representatives, but that Jesus was perfect and that I should strive to be like him; loving, non-judgmental, understanding all the things my mother, as well as various other influential authority figures in my life were not. I wasnt ready to leave what I had known all my life behind, but I knew she and the others were going about it the wrong way.

Many Christians on the way to atheism or agnosticism stop by liberal Christianity as a halfway house because it is much closer to atheism in many ways. But the liberals didnt satisfy Lorna, either. She still hasnt explained exactly why, though. This additional post gives no rational reasons that could be critiqued. From what I can tell, Lornas main reason for conversion to agnosticism seems to be personal and sexual freedom. But she does link to a third paper:

I didnt blame Jesus or Christianity for the actions of these angry Christians.

Good. Its refreshing to see these basic distinctions made. She goes on to talk about conversations with someone she regarded asa mature, loving Christian to talk to . . . very understanding. This provides a nuance missing from the first deconversion story.

Unfortunately, this was Part 1 and just when it started to get interesting (from where I sit), there seems to have been no further writing on the topic.

Therefore, I still see no reason why anyone should leave Christianity because of Lornas testimony. All it proves it that there are some judgmental, legalistic Christians out there, which we all knew already: just as there are some judgmental, condescending atheists out there, too! Crappy examples and role models can be found in any human group whatever. Its about as revelatory as saying that there are people in Group X that like baseball, and some like fishing, and some liketo talk! Likewise, there are the folks in any given group that are embarrassing and dont properly represent the whole. Were all blessed by them.

This is basically Lornas ongoing point, and it is no reason whatever to reject Jesus or the Bible or Christianity. Thats why I wanted so much to see why and how Lorna rejected Jesus. But I guess its not to be.

See the rest here:
Atheist Deconversion Story Series #2: Lorna - Patheos (blog)

Image by Pexels [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

Introduction: Deconversion stories are accounts of an atheist or agnosticsodyssey from some form of Christianity to atheism or agnosticism. Since these are public (else I wouldnt know about them in the first place), its reasonable to assume that they are more than merely subjective / personal matters, that have no bearing on anyone else. No; it is assumed (it seems to me) that these stories are thought to offer rationales of various sorts for others to also become atheists or to be more confirmed in their own atheism. This being the case, since they are public critiques of Christianity (hence, fair game for public criticism), as a Christian (Catholic) apologist, I have a few thoughts in counter-reply.

I am not questioning the sincerity of these persons or the truthfulness of their self-reports, or any anguish that they went through. I accept their words at face value. Im not arguing that they are terrible, evil people (thats a childs game). My sole interest is in showing if and where certain portions of these deconversion stories contain fallacious or non-factual elements: where they fail to make a point against Christianity (what Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls defeating the defeaters), or misrepresent (usually unwittingly) Christianity as a whole, or the Bible, etc.

As always, feedback on my blog (especially from the persons critiqued) is highly encouraged, and I will contact, out of basic courtesy, everyone whose story I have critiqued. All atheists are treated with courtesy and respect on my blog. If someone doesnt do so, I reprimand them, and ban them if they persist in their insults.

When I cite the stories themselves, the words will be in blue.

*****

Today, I am responding to Real Deconversion Story #14 Anthony Toohey (12-5-16), hosted on Jonathan MS Pearces A Tippling Philosopher web page at Patheos (where my blog is also hosted).

With . . . Duanes promise that all of the confusing stuff Id heard about salvation and redemption in my Catholic upbringing was wrong, that it all came down to Believe and Be Saved Well that was enough for me. I did, and as far as I knew, I was.

Anthony stated that he went to after-school catechism. This created a fascination in me for the bible and for the mystical/spiritual aspects of Christianity. But we dont know how much he actually knew about Catholicism . . . seemingly not all that much, if he could forsake it merely because ofa Bible trivia game and the usual ignorant Chick Tract-like anti-Catholic sermonizing. Hence, he appears to have been like many millions of insufficiently catechized Catholics: almost to a person unfamiliar with apologetics, or the reasons why Catholics believe as they do. This is a common theme running through deconversion stories: either relative or profound ignorance of ones own Christian affiliations. If we dont know why we believe whatever have no reasons for it , then obviously we are easy targets of those who would dissuade us from our shallow, non-rational beliefs.

He talks about how the Santa Cruz Christian Church (I tried to find it on Google and was unsuccessful) gave him and his fiancee advice, causing him to call off their engagement. But this is hardly grounds to blame Christianity, because one church practiced what he rightlydescribes as spiritual abuse. As so often in these stories, one extreme sect is universalized to all of Christianity, as if it is representative of that whole. Atheists reading such gory details sit there lamenting, see what rascals and morons those damned Christians are! So glad I came to my senses and left it. Best thing I ever did . . . They never seem to realize that one extreme and twisted version of Christianity is not the whole ball of wax. Basic category errors and logical fallacies, in other words . . . These things usually arent stated outright, but I would contend that they are the underlying strongly implied assumption.

Former Christian atheists often refer back to the years of abuse (real or alleged) that they went through. Hence, Anthony writes: It was not until after I left the faith and went back to examine my Christian life in light of my new viewpoint, that the gravity of what I had allowed to be done to us hit me. In this case, it was real abuse, but only from an extremist fringe sector of Christianity, which is no disproof of Christianity per se.

I bought the first pieces of my spiritual library. He and Theresa had already bought me a study bible. That day I bought a comprehensive concordance, a bible dictionary, an exhaustive cross-reference, a bible atlas, and, finally, Gleason ArchersEncyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

What?

I took Duane at his word, but inside, the title of that book put a cold shaft of fear inside me. How could Gods word have difficulties? What on earth was difficult about Gods revelation to mankind. I mean, hes God, right? And we have the spirit of God.

This is shallow, unreflective thinking. I can think of a number of sound, logical reasons why such a book would exist:

1. The Bible is a very lengthy, multi-faceted book by many authors, from long ago, with many literary genres, and cultural assumptions that are foreign to us.

2. The Bible purports to be revelation from an infinitely intelligent God. Thus (even though God simplifies it as much as possible), for us to think that it is an easy thing to immediately grasp and figure out, and would not have any number of difficulties for mere human beings to work through, is naive. The Bible itself teaches that authoritative teachers are necessary to properly understand it.

3. All grand theories have components (anomalies / difficulties) that need to be worked out and explained. For example, scientific theories do not purport to perfectly explain everything. They often have large mysterious areas that have to be resolved. Think of, for example, the missing links in evolution. That didnt stop people from believing in it. Folks believed in gradual Darwinian evolution even though prominent paleontologist and philosopher of science Stephen Jay Gould famously noted that gradualism was never read from the rocks. Even Einsteins theories werent totally confirmed by scientific experiment at first (later they were). That a book like the Bible would have difficulties to work through is perfectly obvious and unsurprising to me.

4. Most of the rationale of explaining Bible difficulties is not from a perspective that they are real difficulties, but rather, to show that purported difficulties really arent such. They are usually based on illogical thinking or unfamiliarity with biblical genre, etc. Many alleged biblical contradictions simply arent so, by the rules of logic.

5. The Foreword of the book by Kenneth S. Kantzer explains its rationale: [T]he faith of some troubled souls is hindered by misunderstanding the Scripture. They are confused by what seems to them to be false statements or self-contradiction. We need, therefore, to clear away such false obstacles to faith. (p. 8)

For these reasons, as an apologist and avid Bible student, Ive done quite a bit of writing on alleged Bible difficulties myself: found in the final section of my Bible & Tradition web page, and have analyzed relentlessly shoddy, illogical, fact-challenged atheist attempts to run down the Bible, in a section of my Atheism & Agnosticism page.

When I got home, I looked through some of the topics. Ill confess that, even then, it seemed very equivocating sort of a wordy hand-waving.

What is plausible and what isnt, is a very complicated matter itself. In any event, Anthony has simply talked about the book, and has not given any concrete examples that readers can judge for themselves. As such, this is simply no argument against Archers book, or against Christianity. All we know is that Anthony found it unconvincing. So what? Granted, accounts like this (or Christian conversion stories) cant argue every jot and tittle. But still, its good to point out what is actually an argument or evidence, and what isnt, lest anyone become confused over the nature of evidence pro or con.

Not being comforted by what I read, I usually ignored this book. Instead, I started reading about all the wrong religions.

We are what we eat. It looks like Anthony didnt even read Archers book all the way through. He seems to have quickly judged it, and moved on. But why should anyone think that his negative judgment and dismissal is infallible?

Anthony then talks about his struggles in the Christian life. All of this is perfectly understood and familiar to Christians. St. Paul himself talks about it in Romans 7, and then gives the solution in Romans 8. But that we all fall short and fail many times, in many ways, is not some big bombshell. Nor is it any argument against Christianity, because the latter teaches us to expect this. Faith is a lifelong struggle.

Im going to focus on the building string of doubts that led me to examine, and ultimately abandon, my faith.

Great. Lets see if they are compelling for any reader to think likewise.

. . . my wife was determined to complete her education. After getting eligible to transfer, she decided to attend San Jose State to get an accounting degree. While she was there, she took a class in the Religious History, and possibly one more focused on Western religion. The professor was also a pastor who was, to me, very liberal. He taught about the history of the development of the doctrine of hell. He taught how the prophets were used to enable rulers to motivate their soldiers to commit atrocities they would otherwise not ever consider. He taught the very human side of religion.

. . . It brought her faith deeply into question.

And so this is the oft-heard story. Christians go to college, get confronted with skeptical or atheist professors, in a very lopsided scenario, and lose their faith, if they are insufficiently equipped (i.e., lacking in apologetics knowledge: my field) to take on skeptical challenges to it. Again, we are what we eat. If she sat there and took in all this rotgut from the professor, and never read a Christian refutation of it, then why should anyone be surprised that she goes the route of the professor? One must read the best proponents of both sides of major disputes: not one side only or the best proponents of one side vs. the worst on the other (which is the usual atheist game: they love to wrangle with ignorant, uninformed Christians). This is why I love to have dialogues on my blog. I present the other persons words for my readers to see: and if not all of them, I always provide a link and urge them to read the whole article, and then see my response.

We attended a bible study. By our second or third time, she was asking more questions. I dont remember the last question she asked, but it froze the room. You could have heard a pin drop. She got a soft-shoed answer and the pastor rushed past it as quickly as he could.

Unfortunately, many pastors and priests are as undereducated in apologetics as the laypeople.

She never went to church again. She announced she was agnostic and didnt believe what I believed.

All we know about her story is that she heard some skeptical stuff, started asking hard questions that were unanswered. We dont know whether she actually took the time to read good Christian apologetics or philosophy. Consequently, there is nothing there that should persuade any other Christian to cease being so.

It is a fact that people, to an overwhelming degree, adopt the religious tradition of their culture. To them it is accepted fact.

Sociologically, that is very true. The problem with making it an exclusively anti-Christianity argument, however, is that atheists act in largely the same way. Thats why kids lose their Christian faith in college. Theyre surrounded by liberal, skeptical or atheist professors who undermine their faith and dont give both sides of the story (i.e., they are immersed in a different culture, and so unsurprisingly adopt it). The smart people seem to be against Christianity in that environment, and the few informed Christians are too scared to speak out (and today are even shut up and shouted down). No one wants to be seen as the oddball or outsider, so they lose their faith: not usually because of objective intellectual inquiry and reading the best of both worldviews, but because of sheer peer pressure and being subjected to one view (propaganda) over and over. They become politically liberal for the same reason.

Atheists like to think that they arrive at their view solely through reason, while Christians soak in theirs from their mothers milk. But atheists are just as subject to peer pressure and environmental influence as anyone else. Most worldviews (whether Christian or atheist) are arrived at far more for social (and emotional) reasons than intellectual. I cant emphasize it enough: we are what we eat.

Because of this cultural indoctrination, the only way to objectively examine your faith is to take the position of an outsider from a different culture and examine your faith with the same level of skepticism you treat other religions.

Conversely,the only way to objectively examine ones atheism is to interact withan outsider from Christianity(someone like me, willing and able to do it) and examine your axioms and premiseswith the same level of skepticism that onetreats Christianity. I am offering Anthony and any other atheist the opportunity to do that in this very paper.

There was a point during my cycle of failure and repentance that I wondered why on earth I would rush to the writings of Paul (specifically Romans 5-8) to restore my spirit rather than to Jesus. One was an apostle, but one was actually God, as I understood it. The modern salvation transaction as were taught it was never all that clear in Pauls writings, and not at all in the words attributed to Jesus.

That is, the fundamentalist Protestant version of salvation, which is out of touch with even historic Protestantism, let alone Catholicism and Orthodoxy . . . I agree that this warped version is never taught by either Jesus or St. Paul.

So I began to spend more time with the words of Jesus, thinking that if I cant find what I need from the words of my god walking upon the earth, the words of an apostle would not help me. To shorten the story, reading the words attributed to Jesus turned me into a social liberal. The Jesus in the bible is compassionate to the poor, destitute, and irredeemable, in stark contrast to the modern Christian, who, if they follow the culture, would sooner tell the poor to get a job and wave the flag of meritocratic individualism.

Pitting Paul against Jesus is plain silly. There is no essential difference in what they taught (which is perhaps why Anthony never provides any example of such alleged divergence). They simply taught in different ways. Jesus was the storyteller: more like a pastor (therefore, much better understood by the common man), whereas Paul was systematic and more abstract: like a theologian or academic: more like philosophy. But making false dichotomies is very typical of the sort of Protestant milieu that Anthony was part of.

The next issue I faced was the issue of evolution. I was a Young Earther, but the more I read, the more I realized that the science wasnt a conspiracy, but rather an accurate representation of the way the world actually worked. But it didnt lead to my faith deserting me. All truth is Gods truth. I figured, therefore, that Genesis was an allegory. My theory was that as long as Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity was true. It wouldnt matter if Genesis was an allegory or literal. Jesus = salvation. The rest is interpretation.

In the same vein, I decided the flood of Noah was also allegory, as it was scientifically impossible. Australia itself stands as a testament to the unreality of it.

This is very typical of many deconversion stories, where the person came out of fundamentalism. Anthony was a young-earther. I never was that, nor was I ever a fundamentalist or anti-science in my evangelical days (1977-1990). But the solution to these errors is not to ditch any literalism in the Bible and go to an all-allegorical position. The solution is to recognize that the Bible contains many genres of literature, and to determine which is occurring in a particular place. Thats how normal language and literature work. The problem is that fundamentalists and skeptics alike start treating the Bible as if it isnt subject to the normal rules of interpretation of literature. And so Anthony was knee-jerk and simplistic regarding the Bible. He went from one extreme error to another on the opposite side of the spectrum.

There are, of course, many old-earth evolutionist Christians. They simply believe that God had some hand in the process of evolution. The choice isnt godless, materialistic atheism vs. young-earth creationism. I denied the universality of Noahs flood over 30 years ago, as a result of reading a Christian book about science (by Baptist scholar Bernard Ramm). Why should that cause anyone to lose their Christian faith, pray tell?

So being in this strange place, with only the resurrection of Jesus Christ to keep me in the fold, I came to a full on crisis of faith. I wont go heavily into it now, . . .

He can, of course, divulge whatever he wants, but the fact remains that we are given no solid, compelling, cogent reasons why he should have forsaken Christianity, or why anyone else should do so. Because he was a fundamentalist extremist, those who never were that (like myself) should also leave Christianity: even the forms of it vastly essentially different from Anthonys anti-intellectual fundamentalism?

I searched for the best apologetics book I could find, settling on Norman GeislersI Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

I commend him for at least reading one book from the Christian perspective, against atheism. Of course, different authors have different emphases, styles, and particular philosophies. So it may have simply been a case where Geisler (a fine apologist) wasnt a good fit for him.

I gave God first shot at me and read Geisler. I expected to be strengthened steeled for my encounter with the atheist, able to find a way to keep my faith and work on my anger. Instead I took 30 pages (steno pad) of notes. I could easily formulate my wifes answers to his arguments without even trying. I was disappointed and borderline devastated. I read Loftuss book. Another 20 pages of notes later I set down his book and realized that 1) I didnt know what I did believe, and 2) I was sure it wasnt the god of the bible.

So John Loftus did the trick.

I was unmoored. I tried another apologist, thinking that maybe Geisler wasnt the best to read. Loftus had referenced William Lane Craig, so I started reading one of his books. About 40% of the way through, I gave up. It was over.I sat at my desk and said to myself, Im an atheist. And here I am today.

Craig is also a fine Christian thinker and debater. But it also depends what particular place we are at in our thinking: how much we will be influenced.

I do wonder why if John Loftus atheist polemics are so compelling , he is so extremely hyper-sensitive (and I do not exaggerate at all, believe me) to any critique of them? I have examinedhis outsider test of faith argument (ten years ago), some of his irrational criticisms of the Bible, and his story, and he went ballistic. This hardly suggests a confident atheism, willing to take on all critiques:

*

*

*

Loftus is very much like the preacher that is often maligned in atheist deconversion accounts: the guy who loves to hear himself talk, unopposed, who wilts at the first counter-challenge. That has always been what John Loftus does, in my experience. And he has a colorful set of epithets and insults, too, that he sent my way for having the audacity to challenge him in his infallible wisdom. If his atheist apologetic is so unvanquishable, let him stand up and defend it like a man and honest thinker. But (at least with me) he has never done so. Thus, I am utterly unimpressed by his thinking (and demeanor). I have atheist friends who are embarrassed by him, because he conducts himself like such a rude and pompous ass. Hes not exactly a good representative or figurehead for atheism.

*

In conclusion, I dont see anything here in this deconversion story that would compel anyone else to forsake Christianity. At best it is an account that raises serious questions about extreme fundamentalist Christianity, which I fully agree with. But since that is merely one fringe element of Christianity, it is irrelevant as to the truthfulness of larger Christianity, let alone atheism as a supposedly superior and more rational and cogent alternative worldview.

Go here to see the original:
Atheist Deconversion Story Series #1: Anthony Toohey - Patheos (blog)