Ojuice5001

Here's a thought I've had about the whole issue of faith versus reason. I will start with lists reasons people remain theistic, and reasons people abandon theism. They are not intended to be exhaustive, but they are the most important reasons. The first list is of reasons people remain theistic, and they descend from better to worse reasons for theism.

1. Personal experiences of a spiritual entity or aspect of the world.
2. Natural-theology arguments (first cause, etc.)
3. Inertia This is clearly the most common factor in the fact that people remain theists...at least at the present, when the shadow of Descartes falls over everyplace north of the tropics. It includes the people who became theists in childhood and haven't questioned much since, as well as people who started out believing on basis of reasons 1, 2, or 4 but would not become theists if they started with a blank slate and still knew the same experiences, arguments, or wagers.
4. Pascal's Wager

Now, why do people abandon theism? I can think of at least four reasons:

1. An "evidence epiphany" By this I mean that little or none of the deconvert's knowledge is reexamined or reinterpreted; they just end up thinking, "Hmm. High standards of evidence are a good idea. And to accept the evidence for theism, you have to have low standards of evidence. So I suppose with this amount of evidence, I should be an atheist."
2. A debunking of the previous reasons for believing Pretty self-explanatory. Someone who believes on basis of first cause or intelligent design, and reads one of II's refutations, falls into this category.
3. Reasons not to believe in theism By this I mean acceptance of any argument purporting to be positive evidence against theism. This could be an alleged disproof of theism in general, or an argument against a specific religion.
4. A shift in philosophical temperament It has always seemed to me that a lot of atheists deconvert for none of these reasons, but because supernaturalism seems somehow unbelievable. This phenomenon comes in rational and irrational forms, so don't think I'm putting it down. After all, I might have ended up a naturalist if supernaturalism didn't strike me as quite plausible. And you can expect supernaturalism to seem silly, once a culture's level of supernatural knowledge falls below a certain point. After all, if you have a lot of knowledge of nature, and only a little of supernatural reality, that little is going to seem arbitrary and foreign, even if it is true.

Now, there are sixteen combinations you can get when combining an item from each list, and not all are equally common. For instance, shifts in philosophical temperament are often combined with Pascal's Wager, because Pascal's Wager appeals to those who find plausible the god they wager for. They are found less among natural-theology believers, because the traditional natural-theology arguments are based on philosophical axioms, and people who change their philosophical axioms really belong more in category 3. But what about spiritual experiences, the reason that I placed at the top of the list?

Now, I know the atheists have arguments against accepting spiritual experiences as grounds for theism. But I'm interested in the question, Do they deconvert anyone? Theists who have strong experiences of god(s) do deconvert, but why? I've never heard of someone who had strong experiences of god(s), and ended up deciding that these experiences should be rejected because they werent' good evidence. No, such theists are much more likely to say that they are deconverting because of positive evidence against their faith, or because, experience or not, their faith has begun to seem silly. And even the latter category isn't that common. Remember that I'm not talking about everyone who has, at some time in his life, had such an experience. Spiritual experiences, though intense, are vague enough to be easily forgotten so that a theist can gradually shift from category 1 (experiential) to category 3 (inertia).

Now, why would this be? In general, the best arguments sometimes convince the unconvinced, yes? Also, in general, false experiences are fairly easy to talk someone out of (when we're not talking about the institutionalized mentally ill). For instance, if I dream that The Simpsons was cancelled, and end up thinking this is a true memory, it wouldn't usually be too hard to convince me it was a dream. This makes it look like experiences of a spiritual reality point to the actual existence of such a reality.

Now, if anyone here is an exception to this post's thesis, by all means speak up. But there will have to be five or six of you before I retract my claim that such deconversions are rare. And remember, I'm talking about strong spiritual experiences that were still vivid at the time of the deconversion. The kind that you could imagine converting a stable individual to belief in the experience. Not just something like an emotional reaction to a particular painting of the Virgin Mary, or experiences that ceased a long time before the deconversion.

By the way, this also explains why atheistic polemics have a fairly strong focus on arguing against theism and Christianity. I've always wondered, if your main reason for unbelief is a lack of evidence, why spend so much time debating the problem of evil, bible criticism, etc.? The "no evidence" position has all the advantages-- it's simplest, it's logically strongest, it applies to the most gods, and it may even be the most diplomatic approach. All this unnecessary attempt to disprove god(s) may be the result of the fact that so many atheists deconverted for such reasons.

Godot

As a clarification:
where eould you place emotionally-based theistic arguments? Yesterday, one of my flatmates tried to explain to me that god-belief was appropriate and valid simply because it made him feel better that there may exist something akin to an afterlife.
Would you classify that more as a class 1 or class 2 argument?


I think your reasons for theistic belief aren't all that bad, but they do not remotely hold up if there are to be used to try and "prove" the existence of a particular worldview.

I'm also not convinced that there need be any combination of items on your two lists. Perhaps I failed to see your justification for doing so, but in case I missed it would you be kind enough to clarify your thought process in that regard for me?

Jobar

Ojuice, I'm glad you decided not to leave II; I recall you said you were considering doing so. I find your polytheism interesting, even though I of course think it's wrong- but I think it's good for us to have you here, to keep our arguments from concentrating exclusively on monotheism. (Which they do, indeed, tend to do.)

My own de-conversion was more than 30 years ago, and I recall it as a combination of your points 2, 3 and 4. Plus, there was a strong element of cognitive dissonance; the ideas about God I had been taught in church were not in any accord with what I was being taught in school. Do you think that c. d. should be added to your list of reasons for deconversion? Or do you think it is contained in your #4?

Ah, but this is not really an EoG topic, I think. Let's see how it fares in GRD. Jobar.

emotional

You mean there are more people like me? Wow!

Godless Wonder

I was thinking about starting a thread along these lines. My ex broke up with me on account of the fact that I'm an atheist, and we tried converting each other (normally something neither of us would have done, but had major incentive in this case.), which turned out to be a hopeless exercise. That experience is what let me to iidb.org. After watching and participating in some of the debates around here, I think I have a better idea of what's going on inside the heads of religious people (though lots of them wouldn't agree with my ideas on that.) Anyway it seems to me that attempting to convert someone is nearly always doomed to failure. If they are convertible, then I think they are probably going to convert all on their own, given time. In the hard-core cases, there is simply nothing that can be said, no argument that can be made which will make any kind of dent. (I would like to be wrong about that.)

Maybe extended exposure the the arguments of the opposing side could have an effect on the hard-core, but usually they won't stand still for that kind of treatment, which you can't really blame them for. Generally they have to really consider the arguments of the opposing sides and give them a serious try if the neurons in their brains are going to have any chance of rearranging permanently. Most often people aren't willing or are incapable of trying that. In my own case, I am not really able to give the idea that Jesus is the Son of God a serious tryout. It is just too improbable and my mind revolts instantly before the idea can get any traction. I suspect that religious people have a similar mental revolt when trying to assimilate non-theistic propositions. Extreme cognitive dissonance is a tough nut to crack. You've got to tear down loads and loads of interneural connecitons which have been busy reinforcing themselves for a lifetime, and build up loads of new, conflicting ones.

Ojuice5001

I intended to talk about intellectual reasons for theism.

Quote:

I think your reasons for theistic belief aren't all that bad, but they do not remotely hold up if there are to be used to try and "prove" the existence of a particular worldview.

I don't think a worldview has to be "proved" to be rationally believed; it just has to be a good interpretation of the world. Belief in gods helps to interpret the world.

Quote:

I'm also not convinced that there need be any combination of items on your two lists. Perhaps I failed to see your justification for doing so, but in case I missed it would you be kind enough to clarify your thought process in that regard for me?

My idea was to look at people who are first theists, and then deconvert. They believe for a reason on the first list, and then deconvert for a reason on the second list. Now, the case in point was that people who believe for the first reason, experiences of the supernatural, very seldom see the arguments against acceptance of such experiences as convincing. I'm saying that this points to the validity of the experiences. I mean, atheists tend to think that supernatural thought is foreign to the real world, and that there are good refutations of the argument from religious experiences. But if those were true, wouldn't it be easy to convince experiences of the supernatural that they are wrong?

Vylo

I don't try to deconvert anyone (well on purpose at least ), but I do like to discuss and compare people's beliefs with one another. I generally try to prove myself wrong in relation to theism (meaning I go into a debate assuming I am probably wrong). If I end up re-affirming what I was trying to debunk, I stick with it. I haven't been able to debunk my atheistic view for any form of theism for a while, though I have tried, and for a short time almost got somewhere with intelligent design.

Boredom

cognitive dissonance. Yes, that's it. I had this problem. I was a fundy in college. Ironically enough I was studying physics, chemistry, math at the time too. I was learning that the universe was a wonderful place that was billions of years old and started out smaller than an atom. I was also learning that the universe started 6000 years ago when a grumpy middle eastern tyrant-deity decided to make a place where he could torture a naked guy with an apple. Years later, I started to investigate some of the more liberal strains of Christianity because I had problems with the idea that only Christians got into heaven.

I found there wasn't much to liberal Christianity. Many liberal scholars feel that there was not even a literal Jesus but that he was merely a typical middle eastern "godman" along the lines of Mithras. Liberal Christianity seemed like humanism with some spiritual frosting. I gradually drifted back towards the basically skeptical, athiestic view I had held in my teens before the fundies got to me.

For many people it's just a matter of asking a few questions and then watching the existing weight of truth crush the whole edifice of false faith. Looking back now I can see that I was only ever a few steps from abandoning the faith. If someone had asked the right questions at the right time I would have been spared many wasted years.

Rational BAC

I don't think there can be any real depth to a theistic position based on reason. Atheism will eventually win out on any kind of rational basis. The only reason that most believers are not atheists is that they never really think deeply about the subject in any kind of rational way.

Now, theism based on emotion is a much harder nut to crack. I do not think there is any way to deconvert a theist who is basing his theism on personal supernatural experience. Anyone who has encountered a rationally inexplicable experience in his/her life will end up unshakeable in their faith, no matter how much "reason" is used to counter that belief.


The end result is those believers actually do still believe in reason in a very practical sense. However not as a be all and end all. They realize deep down inside that "there really is something out there", -------something unexplainable in any kind of rational way. And they have to adjust to that. And they do.

And there is no way to deconvert those types. Reason---which is the best argument of atheists--just won't work.

Opera Nut

I went thru the motions, and prayed my ass off and all that and nothing changed. No evidence.
In fact my life got much worse b/c they wouldn't give me a job or pay me for anything we were doing for the churrch.

That combined with serious verbal abuse made me suicidal.

So I went back to my original position that the world is a random and scary place, and no amount of wishing and hoping and praying for God to do stuff will make it so.

So now I'm a happy secular humanist. Same thing I was before.

Sometimes I attend a mahayana buddhist temple and find it interesting and refreshing since it's eastern instead of western.

I think western culture is dead of imagination and Xtianity has refused to change and deal with science. Even the liberals have tried but it's a primitive and tribal religion, and its answers are just not enough anymore.

I'm in a play that we're rehearsing, and another actress, a young girl, came up and looked at my necklace, and said, "Hey, is that a treble clef?" and I said "Honey, that's my religion!!".

LOUDLY!!

Music has always been my religion. It was the purpose of my life and my total devotion, but I had to have a thinking shift to call it my religion.