Woo's Woo in Christianity

[Oldfarmhouse]

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they don’t blame the person who left then it’s that crafty devil who led them astray.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

[Confused]

Why should we expect there to be just one single reason? There are many different reasons people become Christians, so likewise we should expect there to be many different reasons people leave the fold.

One reason is probably that they were never intellectually grounded in the first place. Popular philosophies that are kind to the careful analysis of theology and metaphysics it takes to be an intellectually grounded Christian are very few. It is just a fact of our age that a popular philosophy happens to be the decrepit scientism you see pushed by so many even here on the forum.

Another is that they only ever get to know fundamentalist Christianity. Once they find that it is weak, they decide that all Christianity must be weak.

Lastly, maybe they're just emotional. How many people have left Christianity after some upsetting circumstance? Like, oh, now that evil has happened to you do you decide to see the power of the problem of evil?

I'm not very concerned with the reasons people leave Christianity. Perhaps it is unfair to point out that 90% of conversions happen for stupid reasons; but there you are, that is just a fact. Of the 10% for whom they have good reasons, then it would be because they find certain essential claims to be beyond belief. That is my own experience.

Do you have any data to back up your assertions here? Any studies that suggest that because someone sees one portion of Christianity weak, they decide it all must be weak? Where do you get your statistic of 90% of all conversions happen for stupid reasons?

And lastly, are you suggesting that emotions trump faith in God? That a mere hormone fluctuation can cause a person to completely discredit a belief in a God they have dedicated their live to?

[AquinasD]

Do you have any data to back up your assertions here?

Just personal experience that bears these out. We could do a survey, if you like, though that would be unlikely to support my contention that people's reasons fit into the category of rejection of fundamentalism --> rejection of Christianity or emotionalism since, for various reasons, people are either unlikely to admit such a thing of themselves or maybe they simply don't actually understand the reasons behind why they believe what they do.

Where do you get your statistic of 90% of all conversions happen for stupid reasons?

I was thinking of conversions as analogous to literature, such that you could cite Sturgeon's law. I might state that, generally, people's reasons for what they believe are crap.

This isn't entirely a problem. I'd be willing to say that a lot of my reasons for believing what I do are bad, but there are certain areas I've given more study and thus am more confident in my beliefs, whereas my beliefs in the area of, say, physics, are much more tentative and open to revision.

And lastly, are you suggesting that emotions trump faith in God?

I don't know if that's how I would put it. For some people, their emotions are their faith in God. When their emotions change, so does their faith.

That a mere hormone fluctuation can cause a person to completely discredit a belief in a God they have dedicated their live to?

What's one reason commonly cited as a cause for divorce? "Falling out of love with each other." How can that happen? Because people think "love" is just emotions. I think we have good reasons to believe that the same sort of phenomena can occur with people's beliefs in various things, including God.

[spoirier]

(...)
I'm not very concerned with the reasons people leave Christianity. Perhaps it is unfair to point out that 90% of conversions happen for stupid reasons; but there you are, that is just a fact. Of the 10% for whom they have good reasons, then it would be because they find certain essential claims to be beyond belief. That is my own experience.

Do you have any data to back up your assertions here? Any studies that suggest that because someone sees one portion of Christianity weak, they decide it all must be weak? Where do you get your statistic of 90% of all conversions happen for stupid reasons?

And lastly, are you suggesting that emotions trump faith in God? That a mere hormone fluctuation can cause a person to completely discredit a belief in a God they have dedicated their live to?

What's the point of asking him if he has any data to back up his assertions ? Indeed, he already explained what his assertions are based on. First, he explained :"I'm not very concerned with the reasons people leave Christianity", which means that he won't bother checking these things very carefully. He is satisfied of confidently making this report based on what currently makes him figure things out this way, that is his "own experience".

Now, if you are curious about what his "own experience" of these things may be, well, probably other people here can tell you more (as I only joined this forum recently and did not have the time to read much of his numerous messages), but for the little I could see, and especially in these two threads, the nature of his "own experience" appears quite clear:
He has the experience that, whenever he reads or hears about some hard, very serious and very solid work of some scientists who dedicated their life to carefully check a question, that would have happened to clearly establish some given conclusion, then, whenever their conclusion disagrees with his deeply held beliefs, anyway the most obvious and natural interpretation of these works is certainly not to go bother to figure out any incredible way in which such works could ever have been proceeded in such a way that it could seriously establish such an absurd conclusion; not go figure out any incredible way in which this could ever really mean what it claims to mean, and how these reported studies could ever be that serious as they claim to be.

Instead, it is much more rational to use Ockam's razor by just simply ignoring the effective contents of these studies, and even ignoring the precise expression of the reports, abstracts and conclusions from theses studies, to conclude that they must obviously all have meant some completely different and stupid sort of reasonings instead (it does not even matter which one: just confidently sum it up in one ridiculous way, and if anyone protests against this misrepresentation, you can just as confidently sum it up in another ridiculous way, until they give up protesting).

[AquinasD]

What's the point of asking him if he has any data to back up his assertions ? Indeed, he already explained what his assertions are based on. First, he explained :"I'm not very concerned with the reasons people leave Christianity", which means that he won't bother checking these things very carefully. He is satisfied of confidently making this report based on what currently makes him figure things out this way, that is his "own experience".

This is to construe me in an uncharitable light. I am not saying of my general method that my concern with discernment of how things are extends only to "what I warrant is of my own experience," only that for the given topic, I lack overall concern as to the sociological and psychological aspects of people's conversions. My interest lies in what is to be believed, rather than the believers; my method is anti-hominem, in other words, I don't care who believes what, I only care of what to believe and why.

He has the experience that, whenever he reads or hears about some hard, very serious and very solid work of some scientists who dedicated their life to carefully check a question, that would have happened to clearly establish some given conclusion, then, whenever their conclusion disagrees with his deeply held beliefs, anyway the most obvious and natural interpretation of these works is certainly not to go bother to figure out any incredible way in which such works could ever have been proceeded in such a way that it could seriously establish such an absurd conclusion; not go figure out any incredible way in which this could ever really mean what it claims to mean, and how these reported studies could ever be that serious as they claim to be.

Where ever have I outright denied the data of some given scientific study? I might have some particular theory I hold to, but then so do the scientists in the relevant field, so to say that I am exercising some undue prejudice by rejecting some particular scientist's theory when there are in fact many scientists who also do say is not to establish any worrying ad hominem.

You have simply accused me of maintaining consistency with the metaphysical framework I hold to that provides a basis for interpreting some given data; to suggest that my having a metaphysical framework would earn you a tu quoque.

I wonder how much your claims against me are rooted in my rebuttals to your objections, which you seem to have taken personally. But whatever; this thread is about conversions, not myself.

[Haven]

Just personal experience that bears these out. We could do a survey, if you like, though that would be unlikely to support my contention that people's reasons fit into the category of rejection of fundamentalism --> rejection of Christianity or emotionalism since, for various reasons, people are either unlikely to admit such a thing of themselves or maybe they simply don't actually understand the reasons behind why they believe what they do.

In my personal experience, those who convert to Christianity do so for emotional reasons, while those who leave Christianity do so for intellectual reasons. While I am sure some cases as you describe exist, I would argue that they are the extreme minority. All "ex-atheists" I know and know of converted to religion for purely or almost purely emotional reasons.

I was thinking of conversions as analogous to literature, such that you could cite Sturgeon's law. I might state that, generally, people's reasons for what they believe are crap.

I would agree with this statement in a general sense. However, when it comes to people leaving Christianity, I feel that there are (usually) good reasons behind indivduals' decisions to become ex-Christians.

I don't know if that's how I would put it. For some people, their emotions are their faith in God. When their emotions change, so does their faith.

I agree with this statement fully. For a long period of my "Christian walk," emotions were my faith in God. When I was on a "spiritual high," I loved God and felt confident in my faith, when I was on a "spiritual low," I questioned God. I know many other Christians who live their "Christian walks" in such a manner.

What's one reason commonly cited as a cause for divorce? "Falling out of love with each other." How can that happen? Because people think "love" is just emotions. I think we have good reasons to believe that the same sort of phenomena can occur with people's beliefs in various things, including God.

I agree.

[AquinasD]

In my personal experience, those who convert to Christianity do so for emotional reasons, while those who leave Christianity do so for intellectual reasons. While I am sure some cases as you describe exist, I would argue that they are the extreme minority. All "ex-atheists" I know and know of converted to religion for purely or almost purely emotional reasons.

That might very well be. Those who convert for intellectual reasons are much less like to de-convert. Those who enter for emotional reasons and then leave for intellectual reasons are probably rather impressed by the intellectualism they perceive outside of Christianity because they never saw the intellectualism within.

I'd believe that in the future, when Christianity has many less adherents, we will see the opposite phenomena. But this has to do with the fact that the majority of people don't have good reasons for what they believe in the first place, so we are only really observing the movement of the less-intellectual masses, rather than a shift in intellectual strength between the two views.

[Haven]

That might very well be. Those who convert for intellectual reasons are much less like to de-convert. Those who enter for emotional reasons and then leave for intellectual reasons are probably rather impressed by the intellectualism they perceive outside of Christianity because they never saw the intellectualism within.

I'd believe that in the future, when Christianity has many less adherents, we will see the opposite phenomena. But this has to do with the fact that the majority of people don't have good reasons for what they believe in the first place, so we are only really observing the movement of the less-intellectual masses, rather than a shift in intellectual strength between the two views.

The problem I perceive is that the claims of Christianity themselves are indefensible. The creation story, the various Old Testament myths, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the afterlife (eternal heaven and hell), the "end times" that still haven't occurred 2,000 years later . . . the list of intellectually indefensible claims goes on and on. Even if one were able to come up with a rock-solid intellectual defense for God, that would only prove Deism, it would get us no closer to Christianity.

In my opinion, Christianity will die out in the next few hundred years, like countless religions before it. People will realize it offers nothing and they will move on to more productive life stances.

[Slopeshoulder]

That might very well be. Those who convert for intellectual reasons are much less like to de-convert. Those who enter for emotional reasons and then leave for intellectual reasons are probably rather impressed by the intellectualism they perceive outside of Christianity because they never saw the intellectualism within.

I'd believe that in the future, when Christianity has many less adherents, we will see the opposite phenomena. But this has to do with the fact that the majority of people don't have good reasons for what they believe in the first place, so we are only really observing the movement of the less-intellectual masses, rather than a shift in intellectual strength between the two views.

The problem I perceive is that the claims of Christianity themselves are indefensible. The creation story, the various Old Testament myths, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the afterlife (eternal heaven and hell), the "end times" that still haven't occurred 2,000 years later . . . the list of intellectually indefensible claims goes on and on. Even if one were able to come up with a rock-solid intellectual defense for God, that would only prove Deism, it would get us no closer to Christianity.

In my opinion, Christianity will die out in the next few hundred years, like countless religions before it. People will realize it offers nothing and they will move on to more productive life stances.

Ah, you've made the mistake of thinking that christianity requires that these be taken literally.

[Slopeshoulder]

Atheistic grounds are grounded in evidence, logic, and reasoning with an amplitude of critical thought on the subject.

Yes, but too often with an arrogant tunnel visioned commitment to outmoded 18th century thought forms and reductionistic postivism, ingoring what followed, like phenemenology, existentialism, neo-pragmatism, and post-analytic postmodernisms. Your claim is as inaccurate as what you reject. It's a pot calling the kettle black.

And this is what religions do not like.

Now who's talking utter nonsense. Sure, I AGREE, if you are referring to the average evangelical-fundamentalist or peasant expression of religion among traditionalists. But the religions also have HUGE and justifiably proud intellectual and logical traditions, from hinduism and chan buddhism to catholic scholasticism and theistic existentialism and hegelian or anti-hegelian protestantism and postliberal grammatical modes. If you think all religion is like television evangelists or storefront preachers, I invite you to spend a week at one of the top divinity schools or their jewish, buddhist, islamic, or hindu equivalents. It won't likely make you religious, but it will disabuse you of your uninformed assumptions about the place of the mind in religion.

They do not like people thinking for themselves or being critical of their ideological constructs.. What makes religion powerful is that it preys on human vulnerability and weaknesses by pure intention of doing so..

Wrong again, and flagrently so. Thinking for oneself is in the mission of most of the best divinity schools. This is only true of the worst kind of fundamentalist apologist (and even many of them indulge in a sort of faux intellectualism). Most schools I know do not really indulge in evidentiary apologetics, considering it to be vulgar and anachronistic.

Or intentional ignorance and dishonesty.

Can an ad hominem be made against millions? Check your facts and check yourself. Were DZ Philips or Raimon Pannikar for example intentionally dishonest and ignorant? Get back to me in a few years when/if you understand him.

However, your choice of faith / belief is yours unless someone has made if for you.

Athiests are immune from this? The culture of scientism has no impact (read Thomas Kuhn)? I'd say that your claims to socially atomized independane is as much a myth as those religious tribes you decry.

Being a part of the tribe is indeed a very powerful tool,

You say that like it's a bad thing.
Newsflash: everyone is a member of a tribe, and it's manifestly apparent that new atheists are currently deeply involved in shoring up their own tribal identity. Get a mirror and get real bub.

and it can be said that it takes a certain amount of intelligence and intellectual application to leave such religions.

Yes it does. I agree.
But it also does to join them if one is intellectually inclined.
For example, I got into religion through heidegger, jaspers, and kierkegaard. I stayed in due to wittgenstein, gadamer, and rorty. As well as the theologians who were influenced by them and taught me.
You're only arguing with anti-intellectual fndamentalists, and believe me, I know there are too many of them. They are our common enemy. But your riff targeted at AquinasD or me or others like us (for all our MANY differences) is a misfire directed at a straw man.

A robust freethinker

Ah, that 18th century mythic hero!

finds the need to know actual truth

need= emotion
know: define
actual truth: define

that can actually have some tangible and substantial backing

Agreed to a point. But beyond a point this betrays a positivist bias.

to it that doesn't rely entirely on preying on one's ignorance, weaknesses, emotions, and vulnerabilities... These are the first tools religion uses,

Sadly, this is true of some religions, and these days in america it is often the loudest aplologists who do so.
But what about the rest of us?
When I was at Yale Divinity School, we had one fundamentalist like that - he was going into broadcasting. He had no friends. My wife met NONE while in the divinity schools at Boston College, Boston University, Weston Jesuit, Harvard, Andover Newton, etc. None of my aquaintances from the other top divinity schools are like that (Chigaco, Union, Vanderbilt, Duke, Emory, etc, etc). And now I live three blocks from the schools of the graduate theological union at U CAL in berkeley california and haven't come across one person like that here either. Indeed, quite the opposite. Nor was anyone I ran into at receptions at the recent annual conference at the american academy of religion conference. NOT ONE. Dude, these people are LEARNED, hardworking, honest, and low paid. They humble the hell out of me. I was in a cafe two days ago listening to two middle aged div students at the next table discussing the impact of semiotics on liturgical and biblical studies.

and they are designed to stop critical thought, instill doubt, and make the person feel as if they should submit their lives to the ideology or face being an out-cast, a worthless being, or one to be damned as an abomination ect...

Yes, shame on them.
But we're not all like that! If you are in the bible belt, you need to leave. If you are in downscale churches, you need to leave. The intellectual discourse in the mainstream churches, div. schools, univerisities, conferences, publishing houses, retreat centers, etc., is as robust as you could ask for once you get past the basics.

Ever ask a Theist to convince you without needing to use social dogma, fear, or preying on your human vulnerabilities and weaknesses?

Yes.

Well, they can't,

They can and did. I found kierkegaardian-heideggerian existenialism, post wittgensteinian fideism, buddhist ontology, the deconstruction of scientism, and comparative contemplative wisdom to be most effective. But yes, emotion, heart, intuition, art, and narrative played a part. In my anthropology and epistemology (non-rationalistic/reductonistic), that's a fine thing. For me, "faith" was a leaning in, a taking part, a gestalt, a community of grammar and meaning and all that other modern religious thought kinda stuff. I like it, although religious dumbells and know nothings still drive me nuts. But I try to avoid them, fight them, or pat their heads and give them cookies, depending on the relationship between their abilities and obnoxiousness.

and they can't seem to not stop trying to. It's about 99% of their entire argument.. It's the fish school behavior where the outsiders get preyed upon.. Either join the school, or become an out-cast to get eaten by the Great White Shark in eternal damnation.

Among some, yes. Shame on them. I hate that.

Most theists I have debated spend most of their time on theses type of forums appealing to ignorance, preying on human weaknesses, and trying to circumvent logic, reason, and rationality while almost always avoiding having to deal with issues and those hard questions they don't like to answer.

I agree, with notable exceptions.

So I fail to see how that is intellectually grounded with any sort of intellectual integrity. Many of them don't even realize they are doing it because they are so programmed into doing it.

So look beyond them and find more worthy conversation partners. I did. At 21 I was up to my eyebrows in what you describe and hating it (I'm 52 in a few weeks, to my utter amazement). So I went and got two degrees in religion. It was better. But a few good books can work wonders.

Net, I hate what you describe as much as you do probably. But that isn't the whole of religion. AquinasD is right to point to Sturgeon's Law. So seek out the best and at least have a respectful conversation. In the end, we're all connecting the dots, interpreting in an imperfect world with imperfect knowledge and imperfect capabilities character, making truth as much as finding truth, and crafting a narrative for ourselves. Let's hope it's a lifegiving one. For me, some kind of participation and perspective informed by the best of world religion, with an emphasis upon the tradition I was born in and know best, works. No harm no foul. I also reason as best I can and reject patent BS as best I can. In the meantime, let's agree to argue with dishinets, psychologically immature, power-crazy, fantastical, anti-rational religionists, but let's also not tar everyone with the same brush, OK?

[spoirier]

This is to construe me in an uncharitable light.

Interesting that you don't reply by trying to argue that my analysis of your attitude is false, but only that you feel it as "uncharitable". It recalls me the quotation I made there from a Christian analyzing the widespread anti-intellectualist trend of American churches:

I am a Christian and a technologist. I am alone and unwelcome in the American churches. (...) Feelers tend to criticize Thinkers for being uncaring, while Thinkers tend to criticize Feelers for hypocrisy. It's not that the Thinkers don't care about people, but they value truth and justice over affirmation. (...) The conflict comes when the truth is disaffirming. (...) Thinkers value the truth over affirmation, and Feelers value affirmation over the truth.(...) the churches are implicitly (and often explicitly) promoting Feeler values and deprecating Thinker values. This is not just the conservative Bible-oriented churches, but all of them. Even more so the more ``liberal'' churches who make no claim to adhering to Bible absolutes.

And of course, your definition of the charitability of a position just consists in agreeing with you; while you don't see it as a lack of charity from your part to picture other people as having made very stupid false reasoning as soon as you are not ready to figure out what reasonings they actually made (or to admit that they could have been what they are) and you don't like their conclusion.

My interest lies in what is to be believed, rather than the believers; my method is anti-hominem, in other words, I don't care who believes what, I only care of what to believe and why.

This approach could work if you were effectively ready (able or willing, not sure where is your problem) to grasp what really is the structure of the arguments and evidences that can lead people to their conclusions, so as to correctly assess whether these arguments were rationally valid. But your reactions made it clear to me that you aren't. You ignore the effective contents/structure of their arguments and you invent something stupid instead.

You have simply accused me of maintaining consistency with the metaphysical framework

Of course this was not my argument. Here again you are giving another example of reinventing your opponent's position to dismiss it. Instead, my point is that I observe that you keep your metaphysical framework in the presence of people who have contrary evidence, by just ignoring their evidence, may it be by your unwillingness or unability to grasp it, and reinventing what you think their argument is. So you succeed to convince yourself in this way, but it is clear for others how disconnected from reality you are.

A metaphysical framework may be acceptable as long as it remains compatible with available evidence. When you are indirectly making it clear that it is not, by the fact that to "defend" it you visibly need to remain blind to the logical structure of the arguments of other people, and reinvent their lives, positions arguments against your views, in ways that are terrible straw man, clearly having nothing to do with what they really are for the involved people, then your "metaphysical framework" looses all respectability.

I wonder how much your claims against me are rooted in my rebuttals to your objections, which you seem to have taken personally. But whatever; this thread is about conversions, not myself.

If you prefer this to continue in a thread about yourself, maybe, though I doubt it could go anywhere, because, well, since the problem, is that you clearly can't grasp rational arguments, even light clear and simple ones, I doubt any amount of further explanations can ever succeed to provide you the awareness of this fact.
But I had to mention these things here because you claimed to have an experience about what usually makes people deconvert, so that it is on-topic to explain the reasons to reject the validity of your "experience".