Becoming an apostate is a hard thing to do

But Dr. Ken Pulliam did it anyway. Here's his bio:

I was "saved"(trusted Christ and Christ alone) at the age of 18 and was baptized in an independent Baptist Church in Georgia. I graduated from Baptist University of America (1981) with a B.A. in Theology. I earned an M.A.(1982)and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology from Bob Jones University. After graduation, I taught at International Baptist College in Tempe, AZ for 9 years. After a few years of accumulating doubts, my Christian faith evaporated sometime during the course of 1996. I am no longer a believer. If I had to pigeon-hole myself, I would say I am agnostic.

Keep in mind that there are myths about such deconversions and more research needs to be done by scientists on the transition out of faith. On the flip side, a friend of mine writes about Ken's conversion:

As an apostate myself, I can imagine the pain this has caused him and his family. Ken has spent his entire life, earned and M.A. and a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University, and taught passionately for 40 years about the "truths" of the biblical account of humanity. And to live with this nagging feeling that "I think I may be wrong. I think I may be changing. I think that there may be more to life than this." is a devastating proposition to those who have not only built their lives around the faith but have built their careers around it too. I was 24 and had a much greater opportunity to start again. Ken, like another friend John Loftus, didn't have that luxury.

I just wanted to write this as I stand on the side of love with Dr. Pulliam and others and say you're not alone, you aren't a fake, you're not a fraud. For some people this is easy, for others it's the hardest thing you've ever done in your life. And know that there is life, even abundant life, as you put the pieces of your world back together.

And honestly, for me, after a while it became easier to live the life I always wanted, I became closer to people than ever before, I became more loving as I was able to move past an "us vs. them" worldview, I was able to more easily join people on their journey of life rather than be defensive against it, I discovered the compassion that Jesus, Buddha, and others had always talked about, and I spent less time focusing on the after-life and more time focusing on the now-life. I found out just how much I was missing.

To all apostates, and apostates-to-be, and Christians, and future Christians-to-be, whatever you do, don't live in fear of being the person you feel that you are right now.

On Ken's blog he does a lot of work refuting the notion that an innocent person (Jesus) can die in the place of a guilty person (sinners) in order to meet the demands of justice. This biblical concept is called the Penal Substitutionary Model of Atonement. It was definitely one of the most problematic ideas for me to swallow, especially when pastors used lame "courtroom" scenarios to try to sell it. Courts don't allow people who don't commit murder to sit in jail for people who do because they follow the law, which stipulates that the person guilty of a crime must be the one punished. More on that here.

Dialog with Andy

Two of the guys at work are very thoughtful theists who I enjoy bantering with about theological issues. I've posted my recent dialog with Andy below, his responses are indented further and mine are between carets (>>, <<). The hyperlinks have been added to this to refer to things I've already written on the topics:

Andy wrote:

God is recorded in the sacred writ as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I've been pondering lately the implications of the third quality, given what we've learned about relativity.

>>I actually don't know if I agree with this premise or not. I think that early Christian thought didn't have this concept, but that later Christian thinkers, re-discovering philosophy from the Greeks and Romans, adopted it. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. What I would bring up, though, are certain aspects of the OT, in particular, where God asks questions and other things in the Bible that don't comport well in a literal reading with these properties.<<

Someone ostensibly traveling at the speed of light need not age. (Is this correct?) The closer one travels to the speed of light, the slower time "moves." (I guess in actuality, there may somehow be a continuum and time moves more slowly as speeds are gradually increased, so that even at 60 miles an hour, you might age a fraction slower than someone standing still?) But this is not central to my thoughts.

>>You are right, but an important distinction: Remember that in physics, you must always clarify your frame of reference. More time passes for an observer to your frame of reference than for you within the frame of reference. It isn't that there is such a universal thing as "time" -- in the same way that there isn't such a universal thing as "space" -- space-time is experienced locally for each person, thus the need for different frames of reference. In other words, if God has on a watch, and goes near the speed of light from X to Y and back to X, the amount of time that has passed for God will be very very little compared to what we experienced in watching the space ship leave and return (observers).

But...yes, this is the basis for the Lorentz factor.<<

I cannot be in two places (let's call them points X and Y in three dimensions) "at the same time." However, as my speed increases, I can move from point X to point Y, closer and closer to "the same time" Time becomes a sort of fourth dimension, so that as I move faster, the interrelatedness and interdependence of time and space become apparent. Indeed, exceeding the speed of light even allows me to move backward on the timeline?

>>Indeed, the four-dimensional nature of space-time makes it such that if you sort of have to pick three to move through rapidly, so that you are not moving through the fourth rapidly. A really good overview of both special and general relativity is given in both of Brian Greene's layman-oriented books: The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos.<<

The Christian theistic concept of a God that exists outside of physical time (Ravi Zacharias maintains that the Judeo-Christian God is the only God of the major world religions that attempts to speak of a God existing outside of time) then allows for a quite elementary explanation of an omnipresent God, in the sense that God is able to be in multiple places at the same time. I don't know whether it's better to explain it as God moving at an extremely fast speed, so that time slows or even reverses, allowing God to move back and forth on the space-time continuum, or whether you simply view God as existing outside of the fourth dimension of time, able to move through space without the constraints of time. In either case, this would make issues like prophecy, omnipresence, etc, all much more palatable to our limited human reason. God can simultaneously be at points X and Y, given his ability to "move quckly" and be free from the constraints of time. And so on for points, Z, W, V, etc. :) Any thoughts?

>>There is an a priori issue that must be addressed about the idea of omnipresence: what does it mean to say that God "is" somewhere? Is God even composed of a substance? If so, then we could speak of how His matter is located within space-time at those coordinates (think: Columbia, SC are the 3 space dimensions and Sun, 8/24/08 @ 1 PM is the 1 time dimension), but then we start to wonder -- is God's matter/substance interspersed between physical matter/substances? Is it like God exists between the atoms in my body (and everywhere else), and if so, then can we say that God exists "within" space-time? Can we say that God is actually omnipresent, since to be between two things is not to be at those actual things?

I think that a lot of the properties ascribed to God don't withstand serious logical scrutiny. If God "is" somewhere, does that mean being a part of that space/matter, or distinct from it? If God is "at" distinct coordinates within space-time, then is God is just as much a part of the universe as you and I? Then does that make God just as bound to the laws of physics as we are? And if so, how could God create that which God is a part of?

I don't think that special (or general) relativity really serves to provide a basis for omnipresence, because omnipresence itself is antithetical to the concepts of physics.

There is also a fundamental physical issue that makes it problematic to say that relativity "allows for a quite elementary explanation" of omnipresence. One of the things relativity does is prevent anything with mass from actually moving at the speed of light, and definitely not faster than it. [note: a differentiation must be made between c (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) and the speed of light outside of a vacuum (c/n), thus things like the faster-than-light Cherenkov radiation observed in nuclear cores]. This is a first principle issue that would diminish the ability to use the physics to justify omnipresence. Nothing is actually allowed to travel at light speed with mass, and it must travel in only one distinct direction at a time. This would also prevent traveling backwards through time as nothing could travel faster-than-light.

If God is massless, then in that sense God is not composed of anything. If God is not composed of anything, then God isn't "located" anywhere. And that gets back to the a priori issue of whether omnipresence even makes sense. You can't say, "God is at coordinates: A, B, C, D within space-time," because there isn't any "stuff" (matter/substance) which actually occupies space or time there.

In addition, as I said above, special relativity allows for objects moving rapidly in three dimensions to move very slowly in the fourth. This would put a lot of limits on your idea of being "able to be in multiple places at the same time" -- for although God could (theoretically) travel from X to Y with no apparent time loss to the observer (us), this framework still puts God thoroughly "inside" space-time. God's frame of reference is still very much bound by space-time in the sense that time still passes for God. So God is still bound to physics, rather than, as most theists believe, able to create physics.

So, to me, to try to use physics to justify or explain omnipresence is both unnecessary and illogical. You can't use a physical theory to try to explain an immaterial God. You can still believe in God, of course, but you can't support the property of omnipresence using physics.<<

On an unrelated note, what do you think about having some sort of "faith forum" in the chapel from time to time, where different faculty or staff are free to speak on topics of deeper significance, eventually even allowing some debates, Q & A, apologetic lectures, etc. I think it would be neat to all come under one figurative big tent in the collective pursuit of truth.

>>I think that sort of thing would be great. I just don't know if I personally would want to participate as a religious skeptic, since it could really be a bad thing for me career-wise. A lot of parents would just never forgive me or like me again if they heard me present arguments against the existence of a theistic God, and you might be surprised at the ways that some people would bring that up later on as ammo against me. But I would go, I would enjoy it, and I would push my students to attend. I just don't know if I personally would want to be up there at the podium/lectern. Maybe in a few years...

-------- Original Message --------

	Subject:	Re: chat yesterday
	Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
	From:	Andy

Ultimately, for better or worse, I chose to focus on one or two key points. I’ve found in discussions like this it’s quite easy to try to advance on a dozen different concurrent fronts, leaving both sides unable to address any of the issues fully. Perhaps we just take a bite-size piece at a time in our pursuit of the truth. And I’ll try to provide a more timely response next time, should you respond.

>>I understand and agree.<<

First, by way of introduction, let me say that I understand why it would appear to you that Christ’s claim to BE truth is a conflation of terminology. You must admit this would follow naturally for someone who denies any metaphysical personality*. J But assume for the sake of argument that that a metaphysical personality exists (for you must grant that a finite being cannot posit with any certainty the non-existence of an infinite one). If you can picture even for a moment that this possibility exists, it becomes easier to follow Christ’s seemingly incongruous statements.

>>It seems here, and below with your asterisk-marked footnote, you may be admitting that there are things that are not philosophically "neutral" to discuss. If that is so, then you may be literally wasting your time in this dialog. I don't think that it is so. I think that most of what we'll disagree on can be examined objectively without the need for presupposing a certain viewpoint. I hope so, or else we're just arguing post hoc to legitimize (to ourselves, mostly) what we already want to believe is true, because we can't be persuaded by rational argument.

I don't think it's possible to ascribe personhood to a logical relationship. Logical relations and things like properties are the "basement" or foundation in metaphysics -- part of what philosophers refer to as universals, and there are some different ways that they describe them: nominalism, conceptualism and realism. Without getting off on a tangent, truth is a relation, or a correspondence between particulars. It is also universal because it is the relation or correspondence between an infinite number of particulars.

Personhood implies a mind (intentionality), and a mind implies more than one simple relation or property. Therefore, a mind occurs much higher up on the scale of metaphysics. Mind is not a universal. This is true whether or not I believe in God or an immaterial spirit. Minds are more than just one logical relation or property, but cannot be an infinite number of them. It's a non sequitur to say that relations between things are equal to the things themselves: walking is not just two legs, but the relationship between how they move in space-time; thinking is not just a brain, but how it functions in space-time. Another example: if Jesus is truth, and if it is true that evil exists, then Jesus is the evil that exists. I think we'd both agree that there is an error in the logic here.<<

In the same way, when he claims in the same unbelievable statement to be THE truth, is he saying that he is the representation of every physical truth? Of course not. But is he the only truth that matters in an ultimate, metaphysical sense?

>>But determining that which is true depends on knowing how logic works. Logically, Jesus can be "the way to avoid damnation" or "the only way to heaven" or something like that. Jesus cannot be "truth, period"...which is what people sometimes say or imply by referring to Jesus as truth. I think we probably agree on that.<<

I’ve found it a fascinating reinforcement of this concept that in many cases, people who reject Christ’s claims often begin to part ways with Christ as the source of Truth when a clear prohibition of scripture does not square with their lifestyle. They are unwilling to adhere to God’s moral law, and seeking to create their own moral code, they exchange the metaphysical “truth” of scripture for their own metaphysical “truth,” typically establishing moral boundaries that fit their lifestyle. Isn’t it interesting that modern attempts to invent a new morality seldom forge any rules that would de-legitimize the new moralist’s own behavior? The moral code they create always seems conveniently to square with their current behavior.

>>As I think you know, I'm not a moral relativist. Thus, a lot of what you said above doesn't apply to me. However, I can say that my lifestyle today versus my lifestyle at the time I was in church are pretty much identical. That is, I haven't taken up anything since leaving the church that was prohibited, and thus there was no incentive for decadence for me.

I'm not sure if you are in this boat, but lots of people don't believe that atheists exist. It's an interesting thing for me to hear that, as I wonder how these same people would react to me if I claimed that religion was just opiate for the masses, or said, "No one really believes in God. Deep down they know it's an invented device to help us live with the belief that there's cosmic significance to our existence, and it helps us cope with death and hardships. But they establish this to fit their lifestyle, their desire to believe that we're all more important than we really are..." It's a little insulting, isn't it? And presumptuous. Now, am I saying that you may not be correct about *some* people? No. But I'm sure the above parallel argument (that no one really believes in God) also applies about *some* people as well. I'll agree with you that sometimes it is the case that person X actually believes in the Bible and the interpretations of it given by Evangelicals, but really wants to "fornicate" and engage in "lasciviousness" (I love the KJV), and so might try to stop believing in the suddenly-inconvenient moral standard that it is against God's commandments.

However, it doesn't explain, at all, any transition in metaphysical beliefs from conservative/Evangelical Christian all the way to atheist. It may explain why certain people would relax their moral standards in order to assuage their own guilt. But, all one would need to do is transition from conservative/Evangelical Christian to a liberal Christian (e.g., Unitarian Universalist) or Deist or any of the other hundreds of options in between. There's no need to change one's metaphysical views in order to change one's moral views.

Also, consider this: does it really serve a purpose to invent/create something you don't *actually believe* is true? This implies that people reject what is true in order to do what they want, and yet if they really don't *believe* that what they reject was wrong, then they're self-delusional, and one would think, probably won't be able to live with a mind divided between what one wants to be true versus what one really thinks is true. How does it gain any relief to the sinner who pretends not to believe in his sin, but deep down still feels the guilt and shame?

The last part of your sentence could be (and probably was) used to explain why the church no longer puts people in stocks, no longer prohibits movies, music, technology, etc., etc., etc. That is, one could always say that freedom/liberty of conscience is really a "crutch" or a symptom/sign of the loss of spiritual goodness. Lots of people still refuse to allow women to wear pants or makeup, etc., etc., and they might look at you and say, "Isn't it interesting, Andy, that your 'new morality' is supposed to be grounded in God's grace and liberty, but it always legitimizes those things you already *want* to do?!?!?" The same logic works there. I think the premise is what's flawed.<<

Interestingly, while your moral realism proposes that there is a transcendent moral standard out there, in the same way that you would accuse those who follow a certain religion of “creating” their own codes through their own creativity, I believe that it’s impossible for you to prove that the moral realist is not doing ultimately the same thing—as every moral realist out there may not agree on morality, and must fabricate his own moral code. I think more problematic, though, is the issue of consequences. What consequences does Hitler suffer for his actions?

>>By your own beliefs, if *anyone* repents and asks God for forgiveness, they will suffer no consequences in the afterlife for their actions, yes? And thus the dilemma of many theistic beliefs is exposed -- you can't have both mercy and justice. You can have mercy for some and justice for others. To say that by Jesus' death, justice is served, is to pervert what justice means: Jesus was said to be morally perfect and thus innocent. Letting someone innocent "take the fall" for someone guilty is not just. It's merciful on the part of the one who volunteered to take the fall. <<

Perhaps we can relegate this to our next debate.

>>Probably a good idea. This can get convoluted in a hurry.<<

To say something “ought” to be a certain way becomes a meaningless distinction, simply a set of neurons firing in your brain at the present time, if there are no consequences. It immediately begs the questions, “Who says so?” and more importantly, “So what?” To put a moral standard out there that no one need follow might avoid the unpleasant thought of ultimate consequences in the afterlife, but it would seem there is little value in following this moral law, and little danger in breaking it. I would be eager to hear your thoughts on this, though, since I haven’t studied it except for a cursory reading online…

>>In responding to that, I would point out that there are no consequences for not believing that 2+2=4. Morality, to me, is the same way. You don't have to have consequences in an afterlife in order to make something true.

Causing harm is immoral. You (all of us) ought not cause harm.

That's just the simple truth of the matter. Trying to get into why, and how, and whether or not someone believes it or accepts it are all different issues. I would say, briefly, that just as singular objects have a metaphysical property about them that we call "1", so moral actions have a metaphysical property that we call "good" or "evil". The labels themselves may be arbitrary (imagine for a moment switching around the labels, or the numbers), but the underlying properties are not. And the underlying properties (causing harm, or alleviating suffering) exist independently of our human mind and desire.

In the same way that 2+2=4, morality is all about causing harm and recognizing the symmetry principle: you have to apply the standard of actions to others that you want applied to yourself.<<

Looking forward to more good discussions on Truth, Andy

Me too! Now it's your turn. Tag, you're it!

I'll post the responses later on. Since it took us a few months to get this dialog fully going, it'll probably be a while.

Something re atheism

I started reading Doubt: A History, by Jennifer Hecht this weekend (a damned behemoth, with 500 pages spanning 12 chapters -- not counting the 25 pages of notes, 7 pages of bibliography and 20 pages of index). The book has been reviewed and covered well: NPR, APM, PoI. It's interesting so far, and some of the front matter actually hit directly on the topic of my debate with Andrew on facebook: what she calls "the great schism" between "our human world...a world of reason and plans, love and purpose," and "the world beyond our human life--an equally real world in which there is no sign of caring or value, planning or judgment, love or joy." A similar take was given here, but this author talks about a sort of schism between "heart and head". Some beliefs are definitely more reasonable than others, but we still long to believe unreasonable things. Why?

As I began reading, I was transported back a few months in my own mind.

I think that for a long while there, especially when I was writing regularly at Debunking Christianity and arguing incessantly with people like Triablogue and (please forgive me) CalvinDude, I was really struggling with my own set of beliefs. I knew I had lost faith in the idea of an all-good and all-powerful God, but I wasn't sure what that meant, or how I was going to set about replacing my old beliefs with new ones, or what those new ones were.

What about meaning and value? What about morality and virtue? I would sometimes stare out of my window and feel the urge to finish my graduate degree completely gone. I began to think about things from a cosmic perspective -- how damned insignificant our dreams and hopes are, in the scheme of things. I flirted with existentialism and tried to find meaning in a godless universe:

My own burden at the moment is in maintaining rationalism -- a commitment to reason, and optimism -- a commitment not to only see things as better, but to be better and in so doing, this purpose makes "all well".

I soon realized I was depressed...

I don't know if ex-believers ever really come to peace with the "great schism" any more than devout believers do. The ones I envy are those people in the middle; the people whose apathy and lack of curiosity and intellectual drive confers upon them a sort of "ignorant bliss" from which they can merrily go about life either believing or disbelieving but not spending a great deal of emotional/mental capital on either one.

I don't know exactly how I'd describe my current state of ataraxia, a sort of tenuous equilibrium in which I've found I have completely lost the obsession I used to have with arguing with theists online. I also started to evolve in my thinking during my time transforming UF's atheist group (AAFSA) into a freethought group. I would say that I now regard "organized atheism" in a completely different light than I used to. I see things like the "coming out" campaign and I wonder if, in the end, this is just a passing fad as it was in the early 20C. I worry about global politics and environmentalism now much more than I worry about "discrimination" that non-believers face. Although I still see the dangers that religion can have, I see the twin danger that some organizations of atheists pose to themselves in not acting effectively towards common goods.

While I think that a lot of good work remains to be done by groups committed to freethought, I think it is primarily political and concerned with issues like church-state separation. Eddie Tabash had a nice speech on this topic given at the AAI conference a few months back (he also visited UF and spoke to my old freethought group on this subject). Some groups aren't focused on real-world issues and instead are "activists against religion," so to speak.

IMHO, atheist "activists" like these are contributing to the problem with atheism; people like the RRS give the rhetoric "secular fundamentalism" validity. Their desperation to exist as some sort of full-time anti-theist organization is almost a ministry, and one which they've found themselves increasingly desperate to keep funded. But beyond sad, it goes to a littl scary: on Kelly's MySpace profile, she says her general interest is "ending religion" (a little piece of me dies when I see this and this) -- something that bothers me to even consider. It not only reads like a statement straight out of the early 20C fascist book, it completely overlooks the benign aspects of things like Zen Buddhism and lumps all religion together as "bad". In April I wrote against such nonsense:

I also agree with Elaine Pagels and Michael Novak -- we cannot paint religion with such a broad brush as to attack all forms of religiosity and call names and hold to the old, insulting phraseologies ("reality-based community" and "I live by reason" are tacit insults). We must remind ourselves that there are voices of reason in the religious community, no matter how silly we feel some of their views are. And the Pagels of the world are those we atheists and we scientists need to sit down and have more discussion with. If that happened, there would be a great deal more respect on each side of the fence.

While Pagels (and intellectuals like her) are focused on getting the fundies to grow their brains a little to encompass the more sophisticated aspects of theology, and PZ et al on getting the fundies to stop their anti-scientific crusades, perhaps they could realize that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Perhaps more honest discussion between the "evangelical", "uppity", "angry", "passionate" and "militant" atheists and liberal/moderate Christians would yield a rich reward in finding the assistance we can afford each other in reaching mutual goals.

Never mind that things like this just add fuel to the fire of the Pope's new screed on how "atheism causes social evil" and other such nonsense (of course, he's sweating a bit as the Vatican's coffers continue to shrink as Europe de-Christianizes). I don't think the dumb words of atheists nullify the fact of God's non-existence any more than the deviant sexual practices of Christians nullify historical questions about Jesus. I also don't think that trying to argue that Christians are dumb or that atheists are immoral are a good way to approach to these issues.

Although the importance of religion in our society must not be underestimated, neither must secular America, especially the trend as it applies towards younger Americans, something I've emphasized before:

The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22).

Looking at very recent polls, around 18% of Americans do not believe in God. This trend is in line with other recent assessments of the state of atheism, and the disparity in numbers between "atheist" and "82% of people believe in God" confirms that people are still reluctant to self-identify with "the A word" despite their admission that they don't believe in God. In the largest religious self-identification survey ever undertaken, 14% of those surveyed reported "no religion" but only 0.4% explicitly as "atheist". A more recent Baylor study found only 50% of "religious nones" identify as "atheists" -- again note the disparity between non-religious persons and people willing to identify as "atheist" and/or be active in some sort of atheist organization. Another recent poll in The Nation shows that the number of nonbelievers is much higher than commonly recognized - at around 27% not believing in a God (those willing to self-identify as atheists is still much lower).

Regardless of the exact number, the number of atheists visible in politics is next to zero, and that is unlikely to change. Atheists are still distrusted and that prejudice won't change overnight. And that's a lot of why people are reluctant to use the label, even when they admit that they aren't theists; I really think part of it boils down to groups like the RRS. Part of it can be attributed to the corrupt and increasingly-irrelevant Religious Right and their hatred and intolerance. When atheists start to look like those people (intolerant of religion in general), we're the mirror image of Falwell and D. James Kennedy, which turns people off in droves.

And that's scary.

Journal Article Researching Deconversion

A friend pointed me to a journal article by Heinz Streib studying deconversion experiences:

"The Variety of Deconversion Experiences - Contours of a Concept in Respect to Empirical Research" (co-author: Keller, Barbara), in: Archive for the Psychology of Religion / Archiv für Religionspsychologie 26: 181-200 (2004) (.pdf)

My comments will be placed below the fold.

The author reflects the lack of research done on deconversions, and I like his outline for clarifying the concept itself:

It may however be important for understanding the process of deconversion to attend to the loss of specific religious experiences which deconverts talk about in their interviews. The loss of religious experiences, or the attraction to a new kind of religious experience, may be an element of deconversion which occurs as early in the deconversion process and are as important for this process as intellectual doubt and denial or moral criticism.

Thus we may add this to our list of elements in our conceptualization of deconversion.

We conclude the interindividual commonalities of deconversion with an extended list of definition elements.

Deconversion consists in:

1. Loss of specific religious experiences (Experiential Dimension); this means the loss of finding meaning and purpose in life; the loss of the experience of God; of trust and of fear;
2. Intellectual doubt, denial or disagreement with specific beliefs (Ideological Dimension); heresy (sensu Berger) is an element of deconversion;
3. Moral criticism (Ritualistic Dimension) which means a rejection of specific prescriptions and/or the application of a new level of moral judgement;
4. Emotional suffering (Consequential Dimension); this can consist in a loss of embeddedness/social support/sense of stability and safety;
5. Disaffiliation from the community which can consist of a retreat from participation in meetings or from observance of religious practices; finally, the termination of membership which eventually follows.

These interindividual commonalities of deconversion can be used to structure empirical research, and as criteria of what characterizes biographical accounts as deconversion stories.

I just find #1 rather problematic if it is not taken as an "interindividual commonality" - something which may not be shared coequally amongst deconvert groups. After all, many of us would argue that the phrase, "God has purpose for my life" is meaningless and inspired much confusion as a believer, and that self-ownership follows from, and is necessary for, one to evaluate the value/meaning/purpose of ones own life.

The implicit association here is between deconversion and ultimate loss, rather than temporary transition, in values and purposes. That is fallacious. All of us go through changes in the way we view our purposes and meaning whether we apostasize, remain Christian, or never become one. Life and its experiences bring us new perspectives, and it is rare (if not impossible) for people to be able to live in an existential vacuum.

5 Myths About Apostates -- Why We Abandon Faith

I wanted to pass along an item that Ed Babinski (also here) brought to my attention involving a talk given a few years ago highlighting some myths about apostates. The talk was given by Prof. Ruth A. Tucker, who is a Christian and a professor at Calvin College Theological Seminary. One of her specialities is missionology. She has written numerous books, including Walking Away from Faith, about why people leave Christianity. Another recent book of interest, published in Jan 2006, is titled God Talk, and cautions those who claim to hear from God and/or speak for God.

Below is a speech she gave at a freethought group meeting in 2001.

From the FTA Minutes:
(Freethought Association of West Michigan, Meeting Minutes for October 24, 2001, #102)

Professor Tucker disclosed that she had had no other doctrinal doubts or
peripheral problems with biblically revealed truths. Rather, her main
uncertainty zeroed in directly on the heart of the matter: the existence of
God Itself. Findings by science seemed to continually push back this Being
from a personal, proximal one-to a less and less involved entity far off
somewhere on the outskirts of the deep vastness of space. Its heavenly home
tucked away somewhere among the billions of galaxies. These "Night
Sky" ponderings made her wish to live in the old, pre-scientific times, with
the attendant beliefs of geocentrism and a small, personal system of an Earth
lit by the greater and lesser lights of Sun and Moon, all for the benefit of
Man. She had begun to teach religious tenets, but it wasn't until she stopped
and really critically investigated the subject matter that she discovered
sharp challenges to her religious beliefs and practices...

Professor Tucker listed five myths about people who have abandoned their
faith. 1) "They are angry and rebellious." She found virtually no evidence
for this. Rather, people felt sorrow, initially. They experienced pain, not
anger. 2) "They can be argued back into faith." Because the person leaving
his/her faith has carefully and painstakingly dissected the reasons behind
this major worldview change, the Christian who proffers apologetics is more
likely to convert into non-belief in such an exchange. 3) "Doubters can find
help at Christian colleges and seminaries." This is not seen to be the case.
4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely." Our
presenter pointed out that too many people who profess faith sin more often
than non-believers and that this argument was not a motivational issue in
de-converting from faith. 5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin
with." She has come across example after example of the most earnest and
devout of evangelical, fundamentalist believers who became non-theists. Dan
Barker was mentioned as just one of these erstwhile believers.

She then listed some actual reasons given for "losing faith in faith."
Science & philosophy has eroded the faith of many former believers. The sense
of absence of any caring God was another. Another reason was the
myth-shattering experience of the critical examination of the scriptures.
Disappointment in God (Its apparent apathy or antipathy to Its creation) and
the hypocrisy of Christians were two other reasons listed. And finally, the
perception of a dogmatic anti-feminist and anti-homosexual stance of
fundamentalist Christianity was given for why some relinquish their faith.

I want to list those 5 myths concerning believers who leave the faith again concisely:

1) "They are angry and rebellious."
2) "They can be argued back into faith."
3) "Doubters can find help at Christian colleges and seminaries."
4) "They abandon their faith so that they can go out and sin freely."
5) "They were never sincere Christians to begin with."

I know I've certainly been accused of leaving Christianity due to numbers 1, 4 and 5. I've also heard all five of these myths about apostates. I do find it rather humorous when people think that atheism is necessary for #4 -- they tell me I'm an atheist so I can "do what I want", or something of the sort. The funniest thing about that is that one can believe in God and do what one wants.

There are Hedonist Christians, liberal Christians, and Evangelicals are nabbed all the time in sex scandals, child porn cases, as closeted homosexuals, etc. So is it necessary to abandon ones faith in order to pursue sin/pleasure? No.

Just ask Phillip Distasio, leader of Arcadian Fields Ministries, who was charged with sexually abusing 9 disabled boys. Just ask the Rev. Daniel Schulte, 53, of Chicago, IL, who was recently convicted for child porn. Just ask the Baptist minister Rev. Eugene Paul White, 71, recently sentenced to 180 years to life in prison for 12 counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14, convicted of molesting his 4 adopted foster daughters. Just ask Shawn Davies, 33, of Scott County, KY. Shawn is charged with 9 counts of 2nd-degree statutory sodomy, 7 counts of furnishing pornographic materials to minors, 5 counts of use of a child in a sexual performance, 2 counts of endangering the welfare of a minor, and 4 other charges...one of the sodomies took place with a boy under 14 at a church youth lock-in, where he was the youth minister, at First Baptist Church in Greenwood, KY...

Need I go on? Any of you who subscribe to Freethought Today know of their "Black Collar Crime Blotter" section, which every month is [sadly] filled with these exact same clergy-related crime stories.

In other words, if #4 were true, it would not be necessary to "abandon faith", I could still go to church every Sunday, pray (or not), read the Bible (or not), and repent of my sinful ways (or not). I'm sure that if you asked these fellows, they surely wouldn't tell you they were atheists. If I wanted to be like them, I could keep both my unbelief and my sins secret, couldn't I?

Obviously, if you are #1 -- angry and rebellious, it begs the question on the existence of God. If I say I do not believe in Santa Claus, I cannot be angry with Santa, nor rebel against jolly ol' Saint Nick. So if someone is #1, they are not an atheist. [obviously, I can still hate Christmas, or those who celebrate Saint Nick, or consider belief in Santa to be harmful, without violating the logic of unbelief]

I think #2 and #3 are intertwined. The question of interest here is -- have they abandoned faith because they are looking for answers, or have they found the correct answers, and realized that faith never gave them an answer to their questions? If we just have some doubts about the Bible's composition, the canonization process, etc., then going to seminary may be an option. But if the problem of evil, the problem of God's hiddeness, and other strong atheistic arguments plague our souls, we are quite unlikely to find reprieve from the cracks in the dam that holds back our unbelief. I also find it interesting that the professor's research shows that more Christians deconvert when arguing with apostates than vice versa. It reminds me of Saint Paul's words..."a little leaven leavens the whole lump."

The old canard of #5 -- that someone "was never really a believer" is just what helps believers sleep at night. As hurtful as it is to tell people this, believers have to ignore the reality of a genuine faith that was abandoned. It helps them to say that we couldn't be just like them, praying, loving God, worshipping, singing hymns, obeying...

...Otherwise, they could one day be just like us.
________________
Technorati tags: apostasy