Review of Scott R. Stahlecker's "How to Escape Religion Guilt Free"

As you know I downloaded the e-book. I finished reading it last week. I love the e-book idea, as it means I always have a selection of books available on a small device I can carry everywhere. The other major benefit I find with e-books is that if I am reading contentious titles (like yours!) I do not have to worry about a god-botherer who may be sitting opposite/beside me on the bus/train noticing the title of the book I'm reading and feeling the need to chip in! I could cover books with brown paper (I once did!) but that looks dubious too and chapter headings are still pretty obvious to the "over the shoulder reader."

First off I felt that those who would get the most out of your book are those at the very cusp of deconversion, or those newly having lost faith. I don't need to dwell on how guilt, fear of hell and social disapproval plays heavily in the mind of such people for a long time and is probably utmost in their minds in those early days (months or sometimes even years).

At one point in your book you mention (words to the effect) that some people may find what you write to be shocking or disturbing. Quite possibly this could be true of those still in or newly out of their religion, but to me your book read as written in a very mild and measured tone. There was certainly nothing I felt was in the least inflammatory - all was in a quite affable tone!

Indeed your book came across to me as the sort of gentle fireside conversation one would hope to have about religion during a quiet night in with an understanding friend. As such I think it could well be helpful to those who feel unique, guilty and worried about leaving their religion. You are a friendly chap who gently talks trough some of the thoughts they have doubtless been having themselves and may even have stopped themselves short on for fear of thinking blasphemous thoughts. Indeed bizarrely that taboo against "blasphemy" can remain even after one concludes (fearfully maybe) that blasphemy is a victimless crime!

There is nothing I thought would shock someone further down the road. Indeed I found it very mild, but I don't think you had in mind the sort of people who've been surfing the secular web for years already! For the same reason I think those further down the line would want something more in-depth, such as your reading list of course, or maybe like some of those I have listed at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/books.html#exx

I do have some criticisms though. Firstly for those leaving religion it helps to loose the guilt to know that their questions and criticisms are well founded. I think it would help your case enormously if references were given for many of the claims made. Even the bible passages were un-referenced (or at least I found only one reference). What's more they are usually referred to generally rather than quoted anyway. For Bible references use direct quotes (including which bible version - I would advise a more literal translation like Young's Literal, rather than something evangelical like the NIV).

There are other claims, where references would assist. For instance you wrote: "There are an estimated one thousand different variations of the Christian faith alone." It would give confidence in your argument to back that statistic up with your source of data. Indeed, the number might be much larger than 1,000. i.e.

According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations."

"The influence of these religions is so great that members of societies are compelled to adhere to them for fear of appearing unpatriotic." I can't imagine that this is true in at least most of Europe. Maybe it is in America, but if it really is the case in the majority of countries then I think you need to quote a reliable source or otherwise it looks like a stretched claim that made your case look weaker.

Regarding Lourdes you mention: "the actual number of individuals who walk away healed from these icons is small." It would be worth looking up the statistics for Lourdes. I saw a documentary that claimed the cure rate for cancer patients visiting Lourdes is slightly less than the natural remission rate. You are more likely to be killed in a plane crash travelling there and back than to be cured. So Lourdes is bad for your health! Anyway, not taking my own medicine I haven't looked this one up (just remembered it from a TV documentary) but if I was writing a book (and whenever I put something on my website I do this) I would look it up and quote and reference a source.

I have some other minor comments later, but the following is my biggest criticism. Don't be alarmed though as you have much company in this even from the atheist web (at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html). At a number of places in your book you make statements such as: "freedom to choose beliefs...men and women have a right to choose what they will believe....deciding what they choose to believe or not believe." (Just as at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html they write "To find out why a particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.") Christians use this idea of belief being a "choice" with me and I have picked them up for this numerously in my feedback. Maybe by this you mean people should have freedom to examine their beliefs. i.e. without the psychological hold that Christianity has to prevent questioning is it true, let alone good - something you remark on in your "step 1." However I fear you may actually mean freedom to choose what you think is true or at the very least it looks that way which is unclear if that is not your meaning.

If this is what you mean then what I would say is I do not consider it possible that we can really choose our beliefs, rather we believe that which convinces us and cease to believe things once they no longer appear credible. Choosing or wishing to disbelieve is not something I think is possible or even desirable. Is it psychologically possible to believe something you do not believe (or not believe something you do)? It is responsible or even moral to choose what we think is true? Rather I think beliefs are something that happen to people.

Now I know people can be frightened or coerced into a certain state of mind, like the abused wife who believes she deserves her beatings - but I do not think this is the same as her choosing to believe she deserves it. Neither do I think she has the state of mind to choose not to believe her husband is actually an abuser. Indeed I think this is very similar to the psychology a lot of Christians have in their relationship with their god.

Of course Christians have been teaching us that people "choose" their beliefs so that they can feel more comfortable with the idea that people are culpable for not believing what they themselves do! So maybe this is a long ingrained habit of speech and writing.

...if people attempt to choose belief then they are
forcing themselves to believe something that they are to some extent dubious
about and which may not even fit easily with their perceptions of the world.
This is not honest and, if a very encompassing belief, is likely to result
in psychological tension. It may partly explain why so many
ex-Christians report a much improved mental health after leaving Christianity
following the initial shock stages of deconversion. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html

Personally, I did not choose to disbelieve in Christianity any
more than I choose not to believe there is an invisible pink unicorn floating
in the air in front of me. I am simply no longer that credulous, and cannot
force myself to believe in Christianity when research and reflection has lead
me to the conclusion that Christian claims are not true. Neither do I find
it virtuous or responsible to make oneself believe things, even if it
were psychologically possible to believe something you don't
believe! So no, I have no responsibility for what I happen to believe.
Honest belief is something that happens to a person based largely on the
knowledge and understanding they have and how they perceive the world. I
neither choose to disbelieve in Christianity nor am I responsible for the
beliefs that happen to me. On the other hand, if others make themselves
believe things, and think that believing things is a virtue, then maybe those
people are choosing and 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.

Indeed it is usually the case that people are very reluctant to loose faith, desperately reading ever more apologetics and asking their elders for answers whilst their faith is crumbling. That's the more usual story. Personally I felt so much that Christianity must be good and stand up to the evidence that I had nothing to fear in examining what its critics had to say when I had questions. I also felt that if it wasn't true then I wanted to know. However I think that willingness to be shown wrong is quite rare (I also thought I wouldn't conclude that Christianity is a mistaken view of the world). Most attempt to shore up their beliefs as they feel them crumbling and this makes for a harder fall at the end when it becomes no longer possible to hold the clunky theology together any more.

That is a different question from holding on to bizarre beliefs because you have a reason for doing so. For instance many hold onto strange beliefs due to the religious feelings people get convincing them that Christianity must be true and hence the absurdities in the bible must only be apparent. Personally once I came to see religious feeling as common across religions (and for those without religion) such rationalisations no longer worked for me (also I was unaware of the more absurd parts of the bible - and was comfortable with accepting some of it as mythical but nevertheless spiritually valuable).

Once the rationalisations have gone can anyone choose to believe that
insects have four legs Lev.11:21, 23 or that commands to kill babies
Ezechial 9:4-6 and hamstring horses Joshua 11:6 are commands from
a good God ? I find such things unbelievable, without having to make a
choice.

You write: "...Religions should strive to teach people how to find God...Logical..."
This appears to claim that god is desirable & a logical concept, or at least begs the question that there is a god and the idea of god (which idea of god?) is logical. I don't think the logicality of (some idea/ideas of) a god has been established in your book (that I noticed). Neither has it been shown (as far as I can see) that it is desirable to be a theist. Indeed did you know that some Buddhists describe belief in God not so much as "wrong" but as "unskilful," claiming it harms the spiritual life of a person!

Claims for the logicality of a god concept may also be something that many of your readers may be dubious about. I ran a poll a while ago as to what beliefs ex-Christians go on to. About 80% of ex-Christians become atheists or agnostics whilst only 8% go on to a non theistic religion and 9% go on to a non-Christian theism (the rest were "still thinking" etc.)

At a number of places it appears that you are criticising biblical passages whilst simultaneously assuming their historicity which doesn't appear very rigorous. I've moaned about the historical unreliability of the bible at length at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html etc.

"...Both require a leap of faith"
Why does cosmology or evolution require "faith?" I did physics as my degree and have kept up a keen interest in cosmology. As far as I can gather there is now a lot of experimental evidence (e.g. COBE, MAP etc. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html) Indeed check out the excellent "Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial" at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm. I do not understand why cosmology earns the title "faith" when it is clearly theory and experiment. There are plenty of cosmological theories that have bitten the dust as the result of experiment, which is the scientific method, not faith.

You wrote: "Arguments will not convince ..."
This is not true since many of us have been convinced by arguments. Indeed again I think this is something that is preached by Christians (and other religions) with slogans such as "Christianity is caught not taught" (although nobody seems to start their evangelical career with that belief!) Although deconversion does have to encompass the emotions as well as the intellect (since the draw to religion is largely emotional - or rather psychological) it is largely argument and study that still deconverts the majority. At least so it appears to me from reading plenty of deconversion stories. This has been captured live in debate at times - e.g. For on-line deconversions see Peter Kirby, Anon, Wayne VanWeerthuizen, and Chris Ashton

I think your comments on atheism (step 11) are inaccurate and this surprised me given you have read Smith's "Atheism: the case against God." Of course you may not have agreed with him, but if so then I expected to see some reason why you do not accept his argument for "weak atheism."

Well, I hope that was useful review and criticism. I'll certainly put a link to your book (I nearly always read books and websites first before linking unless I have reviews from those I know already). Despite my criticisms it is indeed useful to have a book like yours and I am sure those for whom this is all new and frightening will find you a gentle source of comfort. I thought your writing on hell was the strongest part of your book, and it is that which causes the most fear (next being loss of social circle, what do I tell my fundamentalist spouse etc!). I also think people should read on extensively and would recommend a larger list of books for further reading at the end of yours.