Thanks for your nicely written piece. I remain impressed with your
searching through both sides of the argument and willingness to pursue
discussions with critics. As such I'm encouraged that we can continue this
conversation for as long as we both find it interesting. Your piece is nicely
laid out and a joy to read, whether I'm in full agreement or not! So I
appreciate your work and for continuing to give space to me, and once again I
hope that any criticisms I may dish out can be read in the cordial tone I
intend, although I fear it is hard when beliefs so important are being
criticised. Anyhow, with your reading of the secular web, I'm sure you've coped
with worse than me!
<< If Christian leaders didn't pump up the evidence so high, then the
fall wouldn't be so hard and dramatic for those that can no longer hold to those
expectations. I presume that these type of wild claims to objectivity only
*confirm* the thoughts of ex-Christians that Christianity is unattainable.
>>
If you're quoting me here at all, then I think the last word is a typo - as
I very deliberately use "untenable" rather than "unattainable." Obviously we
were once able to attain Christianity (unless one is of the view that we weren't
"real Christians") but even so, obviously many people do attain Christianity
(unless nobody is or ever has been a Christian). That may seem like a very minor
quibble, but I thought it looked odd so I hope it doesn't look like I'm
being unduly picky.
Following on from this, since you mention "the evidence" all be it
sometimes "pumped up too high," what exactly is this evidence, and what is the
correct level for putting it forward? I don't want to bog the discussion down at
this point with a whole load of issues we can discuss (like we did a couple of
years ago) so some URLs will suffice for me and our readers to be able to judge
exactly what it is that you consider appropriate evidence, sensibly delivered.
I'd prefer URL's to books, as it makes it easier to find the information.
However, if you are unaware of any URL's up to the task, then books will
have to do.
If after reviewing this evidence I can supply stories from ex-Christians
who formerly took such a line, then do you think this would affect your idea
that it is too high an expectation that is causing us to fall? So far I have
found people leave Christianity from the full spectrum of previous Christian
stances, from the hyper-charismatic fundamentalist, to the philosophical
liberal.
<< No matter what the supporting evidence may be for any particular
event (miracles, etc..), it all comes down to a philosophical judgment, and not
a historical one. If Steve is truly open-minded, then surely he can admit
that his presumptions have no more validity than the informed believer who has
come to trust the *general* sagacities of the biblical writers?
>>
For the time being I'll assume that you really have changed your mind. If
you think I (and presumably also you) should surely admit that one's
presumptions have no more validity than those of others, then how can belief be
anything but arbitrary? What then happened to apologetics? If it is "truly
open-minded" to equate all presumptions, then nobody (including Christians) has
any more right to truth claims than flat-Earthers. Would you admit to being
close-minded against Islam because of your presumptions against it, or do you
think you have good reason for disbelieving it? What is the point of "the
evidence" you mentioned if you hold that no presumptions have any more validity
than any other? (BTW, what exactly do you think my presumptions are? - I feel
I've had sentence passed without even hearing the charge, let alone hearing
the evidence for and against my "presumptuousness!")
Does it all boil down to faith then? To repeat what I said before
(which you didn't comment on):
Matt Bell claims that the bottom line is faith (fideism). The obvious
problem is why *Christian* faith? As soon as a believer gives a reason
then one is back to apologetics. Indeed, unless one merely continues as a
Christian unthinkingly from a childhood upbringing then something must have
convinced you to remain, or become, a Christian. Even if this was a religious
experience you will have believed this to be veridical enough to have faith in,
rather than it being some idle thought. Moreover you will have to claim
that your religious experience is veridical whereas a Buddhist or Daoist's (or
even an atheist's) religious and spiritual experience is not. Yet again fideism
intrinsically contains apologetics if it is to be anything other than purely
arbitrary. So I do not believe fideism is an honest statement of
anyone's approach to Christianity.
A Little recapping (the asymmetry of
conversion)
I found it rather bizarre that you think I have dropped my asymmetry of
conversion ideas. I give this a lot of space on my website and make no secret of
Jordan whom you would have found through my website anyway, links to him
appearing on my start page and numerously in my feedback and asymmetry of
conversion investigation pages. Add to this the extensive debate I am
having with him (all of which is linked from my starting page) and it is
manifestly false to write of me:
<< Steve no longer includes this line of argumentation.
>>
Not only have I found and discuss Jordan, but also Dr. Garrett - who is
also no secret on my site. Both were pointed out to me by a number of
non-Christians and I have had lengthy detailed conversations
with both of them on my website. After a discussion covering 35 emails Dr.
Garrett eventually bowed out of our debate. Meanwhile Jordan is still on going
and is the longest debate on my website, making Dr. Garrett's
discussion look like a mere bagatelle! To imply that I have gone quiet
about this since I have found Jordan is a slur that I absolutely do not warrant,
given the extensive space I give both him, Dr. Garrett and further discussion.
If you are still in any doubt then see
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html etc.
for Jordan and
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html etc.
for Dr. Garrett.
So I hope you will retract your comment << Steve no longer includes
this line of argumentation. >>
As I said to Paul Smith, even if it was a valid criticism that the absolute
numbers are
bound to be different, it must still look odd when the local minister
leaves Christianity.
The local atheist who joins Christianity is not quite the mirror image if
Christ is leading
him to himself as it is odd that Christ would not so aid the minister,
missionary
etc. I think that true proportional symmetry would only mean
equality on both
sides if we were talking about something like conversion
between political
parties etc. Once the divine hand is postulated, it
is odd that Christians
leave despite so much investment and resources etc.,
even if all the atheists in
societies become Christians.
Remember, Jesus said "Seek and ye shall find." He was wrong, wasn't he?
Aside: BTW, Since Jesus was wrong, what does that imply for
Christianity? As I discuss at the URL above, this is basically the "argument
from unbelief" but focused on showing that the New Testament Jesus was
mistaken, and hence not divine. As you will see at the URL above, some
Christians attempt to therefore claim that anyone who leaves Christianity
can't have really been seeking in the first place. As you will see there, such
a claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny and since the only alternative is
to realise that we sought but did not find (i.e. never attained "true
Christianity" or eventually concluded Christianity is mistaken after years of
Christian endeavour) then Jesus was wrong.
It should also be borne in mind, that as I discussed with Jordan, it
isn't "activism" (i.e. being in a freethought society per se) that I am
interested in but people with knowledge of arguments against a position before
converting to it. Being in a freethought society is my first stab at finding
those likely to be educated in arguments against Christianity. However,
this is not necessarily the case. When I quizzed Dr. Garret on his
background he told me that he "did not look into arguments against Christianity
specifically" when he was an atheist or even as a member of the Australian
Skeptics. Instead he was in Australian skeptics to combat creationism, something
he still does as a Christian.
Since I think you might pick me up on this I agree that it is also
likely but not
necessarily the case that a minister will be
well educated in the arguments for Christianity. However ministry usually
involves training in seminary/theological college, so there should be a pretty
fair level of knowledge of Christianity before deconversion! Add to this the
fact that I have plenty of examples of ex-Christian scholars
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#profs and
the asymmetry gets even more noticeable.
You wrote about << far fewer atheists who attend organizations than
Christians who attend church. >>
Again, I would like to point out that it is those are educated in
arguments against a position who later convert to that position that I am
interested in, not the unschooled. So the proportions to compare are not general
Christians in church with atheists who attend organisations but ministers and
theologians verses their equivalents in the world of freethought. None of us
know the absolute numbers, but it is at least a lot less disparate than
comparing general Christians against atheists in freethought societies.
There are a lot of scholarly secularists who go through and write for the
secular web and to my knowledge none apart from Dr. Garrett have become a
Christian and, as he admitted, he did not study arguments against Christianity
whilst an atheist. This quality, quantity
and proportion is in
stark contrast to e.g. the proportion of bishops of the Church of England who do
not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and the fact that not a single
professor of divinity in Cambridge is currently ordained (unless you count Don
Cupitt!). See
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html#prop.
This is also reflected in the USA (see
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm).
So it looks bad for Christians on the "absolute numbers or proportions"
question, as the indications from this are that the asymmetry is
the same on both counts.
"I am particularly interested in the conversion and deconversion of
informed people from both the theist and non-theist camps who
are well aware of the arguments from their particular side, rather than the
lesser educated public. i.e. the conversion and deconversion of trained theist
and non-theist "apologists", as it were, particularly those for and against
Christianity. So my question is: What percentage of your
members leave your organisation each year because they convert to
Christianity?"
(My emphasis for this discussion added).
True researchers
Regarding true researchers, I do not question your honesty. I once honestly
believed Christianity to be true and I, like most former Christians, did not
leave Christianity until many years with their many questions had
passed. I have already commended you for your honesty in your research in my
previous email and I wrote:
I do want you to know that I was impressed by your
essay. I also admire you for the hard work you have been putting into checking
up on your ideas and your cordial tone.
So it is uncalled for to suggest I might accuse you of not being a <<
*true researcher* >>. Rather I think you are mistaken, just
like I think I once was and as I would think you see me. I think some
people are dishonest (like Craig who uses purported evidence where it suits him
and discounts it when not - as I discussed last time), but so far I have
not pointed the finger at you personally.
You mentioned that you remain a Christian despite reading critical
material. Reading material critical of Christianity does indeed, as you know,
often lead people out of Christianity. Even so, the passage is usually long and
tortuous and it is rare to find a serious Christian who deconverts without years
(frequently decades) of struggle and varying degrees of on and off doubt. Would
you really expect someone with a long background in a religion to be easily
persuaded they are wrong?
That you can read the secular web and remain a Christian is no surprise. I
have also conversed with Muslims who have read plenty of critical material on
Islam and yet remain Muslim. I too read critical material and did not deconvert
without a struggle. Before he even had an inkling that anything was up, Ed
Babinski (author of "Leaving the Fold") exchanged over 300 letters with former
evangelical friends, including such formidable adversaries as one who had read
about two hundred or more volumes of historical criticism and was getting his
Ph.D. in N.T. Theology. As you admitted, reading critical material and
discussions with critics has bought to light mistakes you have made. Like
Michael Goulder, it may take decades, or maybe too long for a lifetime, for the
ex-Christian perceptual switch to click. However, it is striking again that
there is an asymmetry between who converts and who deconverts amongst those who
really tackle opposing views. On Christians vs. critics debate lists Christians
occasionally deconvert, but I am yet to see it go the other way. Since the
Christians and critics are numbered pretty evenly on these mailing lists this is
even more evidence for the asymmetry of conversion on all counts. For examples
of online deconversions, see
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2.html#7
Objective Resources
You claimed that "The Anchor Bible" series and others are
"objective resources which can aid in open ended research." You also appeared to
disparage "quick-fix-it apologetic books."
Since this conversation is mainly about "quality apologetics" do you
believe that "apologetics" can possibly be objective?
As I asked previously, why even bother to do "apologetics" rather than open
research? To even seek for "quality apologetics" looks like an
attempt to buttress a belief system rather than honest examination
- a desire for dogma greater than a desire for truth. You said
you are a true researcher and I believe your honesty, given your openness
to examine both sides, but am distressed at the barriers "apologetics"
immediately places on objective thought. Tell me why you feel you need for
"apologetics" at all? If Christianity is false then you are going to have a
tough time finding that out if you insist on apologetics - looking for reasons
to defend Christianity against attack rather than giving equal weight to the
possibility that the critics might be right. If Christianity is false, how are
apologetics going to help you find that out? How quickly is a
Muslim/Mormon/Moonie going to find out the errors in their belief systems if
they write from an apologetic angle?
What is so wrong with a critical appraisal, just as you would critically
examine another religion or world view? Why does Christianity get special
treatment? Without equitable treatment it is no wonder that there is so much
special pleading in Christian apologetics and why quality apologetics are so
hard to come by. The very idea of quality apologetics is an oxymoron.
Quality criticism and quality evaluation, yes, but quality apologetics
is like looking for square circles. Apologetics necessitates special pleading,
looking for solutions in one religion in a way that you would not entertain
doing in an opposing religion. Hence apologetics has a massive logical error
(special pleading) inherent its very practice and a quality endeavour it can
therefore never be.
The numbers game (...more on the asymmetry of
conversion)
If I was just arguing on numbers alone, then I agree I would be
committing a fallacy. However this is not my argument. My argument is about the
asymmetry between who converts and who deconverts. i.e. it is the
quality education in Christianity that ex-Christians frequently have
before they deconvert. Is this reflected in those who go the other way? That is
what I am trying to find out (remember that my asymmetry of conversion pages are
described as an
investigation - see
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#contents).
Before assuming that Jordan is well informed one should first judge for yourself
the quality of his arguments in our debate starting at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html
That Michael Goulder was a Christian scholar for decades before his
deconversion should be seen as an argument against the security of Christian
evidence. i.e. despite all that work, ultimately he found the evidence led him
out of Christianity. It should also illustrate how difficult it is to find one's
way out. Would a Christian consider the trickle of educated ex-Muslims
http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm to
indicate the security of the truth of Islam?
As I said above, once the divine hand is postulated, that makes the
asymmetry even worse. "Seek and ye shall find" = false. Michael Goulder sought
for 30 years.
You wrote that deconversion involves:
<< a drastic change in attitude towards the Bible and its underlining
authority >>
Well, of course Christians and ex-Christians will have drastically changed
views, but once again I don't think you've appreciated, Mark, that we had views
in favour of biblical authority first and our researches demolished
that view! Read again what Lüdemann wrote above. Hence it is not fair to appear
to lay some sort of moral blame on us and write that it is "more than just
evidence" as if we had decided to try a new philosophy or something. Rather the
evidence against Christianity is what causes our Christian view to be
demolished. Some go quietly, others go kicking and screaming, but it is grossly
misrepresentative to imply that in anyway we have chosen or decided to try
apostasy. Loosing faith is something that happens to a person, and not a
deliberate "choice" despite what Christians are frequently told at church.
Unfortunately for Christians they often have to believe that we are deliberately
choosing unbelief. If not then it makes the justice of hell look dubious, and
heaven rather disturbing. Therefore it "must be" our fault for so radically
and wilfully changing our views.
Also would you feel morally admonished if a Muslim accused you of having a
drastically different attitude towards the Koran and its underlining authority?
Does this also mean you don't have the necessary spiritual eyes to understand
the Koran?
You wrote:
<< Those who leave Christianity based on evidence obviously have a
different perspective than those who chose to stay based on that same evidence.
>>
Again, any different perspective is one we got at or after
deconversion. i.e. we did not have the perspective of an ex-Christian or
skeptic/atheist etc. whilst we were still Christians! We were Christians
who became convinced we were wrong and hence then became ex-Christians.
Although you did not explicitly state this, a casual reader might read your
sentence as if you personally think ex-Christians choose to leave and I
want to reiterate that I do not find this to be the case. In my
previous response I wrote:
Nobody really "chooses" to disbelieve in Christianity
whilst a Christian - as if they were looking for a reason to reject it - quite
the opposite is the case! How we can testify to pouring over books of
apologetics and asking in prayer for guidance as our faith was crumbling! It is
a gut-wrenching discovery that Christianity is untenable. Plenty of current
Christians appear to have enormous difficulty understanding this. Most people
become ex-Christians because their closer examination of Christian
claims convince them that supernatural Christianity is
unwarranted. We neither choose to disbelieve in Christianity nor are we
responsible for the beliefs that happen to us. On the other hand, if others
strive to believe things, and think that believing things is a virtue, then
maybe those people are responsible for dishonesty. The responsibility issue lies
in investigating ones beliefs. One can choose to investigate but cannot
honestly, or morally, "choose" what to believe.
Since you
wrote:
<<Those who leave
Christianity based on evidence obviously have a different perspective than those
who chose to stay based on that same evidence. >> I would like to ask for your opinion on those who "chose" to stay a
Christian. How can one "choose" beliefs?
Epicurus
This is a very weak criticism, since as the Freethought Zone website points
out, the argument from evil is still one of the most powerful problems for a
religion like Christianity. Whatever Epicurus' original argument was, that the
problem of evil is an ancient and difficult problem for Christianity really
ought to be obviously the point.
Nevertheless, even if a member of a freethought group did find a certain
argument weak, it does not matter. Unlike the bible for Christians, there is not
an authority I have to submit to. Rather it is the quality of the arguments that
convince or not. I do not agree that the free will defence is a sound theodicy
and I'm sure you have seen the powerful arguments against the FWD on the secular
web to compare with the sketchy comments apparently raised in favour
on the Freethought Zone website.
However, to finish their quote, what they actually said was
"This may be a reasonable rebuttal to Epicurus' argument,
but it really does not apply to the modern version of the Argument from Evil,
since not all evil is the result of free will." http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/rationalview.html
Since Epicurus only mentioned "whence cometh evil?" rather
than specifying whether evil was caused by free agents or nature,
the Freethought Zone website's assessment that Epicurus' argument only
applies to evil that is the result of free will does not hold. I think it rather
unlikely that Epicurus was unaware of evils that befall mankind as a result of
nature. Also as far as I am aware, the Free-will argument arose with medieval
thinkers - particularly Thomas Aquinas and Mamonidies, so it is unlikely to be
what Epicurus was referring to almost 1,500 years earlier! In fact, Aquinas
admits at the beginning of the Summa theologica that the problem from evil is
the best argument against the existence of God.
As you know I raised Epicurus to point out that centrally difficult
problems for Christianity are not confined to the 21st Century. So I think
my point that the argument from evil is an old and difficult argument for
Christians to handle is quite valid!
A reasonable approach?
Finally, you ask if I can identify with and think reasonable that "quality
apologetics seeks to *understand* the difficult portions of the Bible."
Is this not special pleading? Is it quality apologetics to seek to understand
the difficult parts of the book of Mormon/Koran etc?
What is the reasonable apologetic that can understand in what context is it
right for God to kill David's baby and arrange for his wives to be raped for a
crime only David had committed (2 Samuel, chapter 12)?
Until one is convinced that such behaviour is reasonable and can be shown why
apologetics efforts for Christianity should be given more weight than apologetic
efforts for any other religion, how can anyone identify with understanding the
difficult portions of the bible as a reasonable approach? As I pointed
out previously, the behaviour of the biblical God is often dreadful, and I can
understand, but not find reasonable, Christians' desire to excuse
him for it, just as I can understand, but not find reasonable, the attempts
of abused wives to excuse their husbands.
So, should I think it reasonable that "quality
apologetics seeks to *understand* the difficult portions of the Bible?" What do
you think? Do you advise the use of quality apologetics for Islam when
evaluating it, or should people critically examine its claims? Which is most
reasonable?
Remove all special pleading and where are quality apologetics?
That's enough for now. Thanks for the opportunity of mouthing off, and I
welcome further discussion on this.
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html