tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114038683893856969..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: My Conversion/Deconversion StoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64573390274599728032010-11-01T01:37:53.551-04:002010-11-01T01:37:53.551-04:00Hi John,
A couple of things occur to me when read...Hi John,<br /><br />A couple of things occur to me when reading your deconversion testimony. <br /><br />It seems despite all your study and training (which is enviable), you have fallen into a couple of elementary errors of thinking. <br /><br />1. A literalistic account of Genesis 1, which has led to...<br /><br />2. An 'all or nothing' adherence to Young Earth Creationism. There are, of course, other alternative paradigms within Christian thought available such as Day/Age Creationism and Theistic Evolution. Not agreeing with YEC should not have to be a 'deal breaker'.<br /><br />3. A misunderstanding of the role of Law vs Grace regarding the moral standards in the Bible. Of course the moral standards of the OT and Jesus were impossibly high - that's exactly the point. Post the cross, Christians live under grace, not Law. Surely you know that. <br /><br />Anyway, best of luck with your journey. <br /><br />Roger.Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796927098096872633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88869168679688246402010-10-30T19:27:45.446-04:002010-10-30T19:27:45.446-04:00"Alice in Wonderland" is a marvelous sto..."Alice in Wonderland" is a marvelous story, but I'd never assume the existence of the Mad Hatter based on it.Brohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12031862836627543832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20539734923717421222010-09-26T22:02:40.107-04:002010-09-26T22:02:40.107-04:00John,
I just wanted to drop you another comment a...John,<br /><br />I just wanted to drop you another comment and again say thank you for what you're doing.<br /><br />When I posted a while back, I didn't know where all of this was going. I have to admit, I thought it was wild that I was considering atheism. Although I had left church 7 years ago, I never confronted the big questions. Since I left you the first comment, I purchased your book "Why I Became an Athiest" and have read most of it. It's amazing how many questions we have or didn't know we have and thank you for answering so many of them.<br /><br />I've realized through your work and others, from watching/reading deconversion stories on YouTube and exchristian.net and here, that I'm not alone in any of this, and even in today's society on a somewhat smaller scale, how Christianity has affected so many people in such a negative way.<br /><br />For the first time in a long time, I feel in control of my life and my future and I'm seeking answers to the truth. It's difficult, it's uncomfortable, but it's worth it.<br /><br />Here's a quote I found that I think you'll like.<br /><br />"I want do what little I can to make my country truly free, to broaden the intellectual horizon of our people, to destroy the prejudices of ignorance and fear, to do away with the blind worship of the ignoble past, with the idea that all the good and great are dead, and that the living are totally depraved, that all pleasures are sins, that sighs and groans are alone pleasing to God, that thought is dangerous, that intellectual courage is a crime, that cowardice is a virtue, that a certain belief is necessary to secure salvation." -- Robert Green Ingersoll<br /><br />Thanks again!Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10450532200733490167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40915353114392168862010-08-31T04:30:21.114-04:002010-08-31T04:30:21.114-04:00Jack, thanks for writing. Go on now. Enjoy your li...Jack, thanks for writing. Go on now. Enjoy your life. There is no reason to feel guilty from religion anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30200149778180310792010-08-31T02:14:10.696-04:002010-08-31T02:14:10.696-04:00John,
I just came upon your blog about your decon...John,<br /><br />I just came upon your blog about your deconversion from Christianity. I have to say it hit home to a lot of what I've gone through in the past. I was heavily involved in church for about 4 years from 1999 to about 2003, not long compared to a lot of people, but it was a huge part of my life during that time, and I grew up going to church and like you, everyone believed and it was just something that seemed obvious to believe in.<br /><br />I left church for a number of reasons, namely addiction and probably the lack of not finding churches where I felt I could relate to the people in the church, whether it was fundamentalist or liberal. However,until very recently, I never really confronted or was honest about why I left the church, I just did it and haven't thought much about it until now. The main reasons I gave myself then were the need to focus on my job and have a sense of balance and not being so isolated from the world. <br /><br />I've read Thomas Paine a while back, I've taken astronomy courses and geology courses in college and those have really made an impact into what I believe now. But, even though I wasn't involved in church and had doubts about God, I tried to find reasons for why God still exists even though there is evidence for evolution and evidence for our existence because of the evolution of the universe.<br /><br />The reason I've been looking more at this now is because of certain circumstances in my life. I'm in college away from home and feel isolated from the world and have problems with anxiety, so I've thought about going back to church to at least have some sense of support, but that's difficult with the realization that I'm happy with the way I am now, for the most part, and don't want to give up a lot of things, which I believe is necessary if a person is involved in a church. I'm talking little things like music, movies and so on. Also, I'm a journalist, so I thought to myself, I need to see and understand both sides of the issue, so I've read a Don Miller book, "Blue Like Jazz" and now I'm reading more about reason and science.<br /><br />But, even with all of my reading about these topics, the one thing that seemed to break through to me just now was your struggles with guilt while involved in church and another person's comments about the five stages of grief. <br /><br />I nearly cried when I read these things. When I was a Christian, I felt guilty every day for everything, nothing I did was right. I at least knew that we weren't saved by works but by grace, we just had to ask for salvation, and I was a pretty unselfish Christian, I wasn't in it for Heaven, I was in it for the love of others. I could go on and on about that, but let me get to the point.<br /><br />Since the point I got so involved in church and Christianity, I've struggled with guilt, even to this day, 7 years after I left church. I've come to realize that I have an anxiety disorder that may be a result of the consistent feelings of guilt. And, what you said made me realize this, that I had the same experience as you did and probably many others. Another commentor said this "A friend of mine made an interesting point once pertaining to the five stages of grief: denial, anger, negotiation, despair, acceptance. As regards one's own mortality, religion stymies this process at the negotiation phase, making the believer continually fearful that they may yet slip into hell's fires if God ever grows sufficiently displeased with them, thus perversely making them more dependent upon the faith for any fleeting sense of emotional peace."<br /><br />I couldn't agree more with both of you. I haven't gotten passed the negotiation phase, even after 7 years from leaving church and Christianity. <br /><br />There' so many other things that could be said about it, but I just want to say thank you for your work and what you're doing. It's nice to know there are others out there that have had the same struggles I've had.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10450532200733490167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69361354114655627182010-07-14T22:38:56.067-04:002010-07-14T22:38:56.067-04:00Apologies if this sounds strange, but it seems as ...Apologies if this sounds strange, but it seems as though you and I encountered some very similar things in our lives, except we went in entirely different directions.<br /><br />The irony is that the science that seems to have shaken your faith reinforced mine and I can say that during the period when I rarely went to church, it was seeing the universe as it is (without bending around the laws of science or math) that maintained my belief in a Creator. I think that very often there is a conflict--a very acrimonious one on both sides--where one need not exist. I don't have the expectation that the Bible is going to be a scientific treatise, nor do I have any expectation that science can unequivocally prove anything theological. (I do think that someone had a vision--but expecting it to be rendered in scientifically coherent terms, or even in sequence, is not necessary as purpose is what we're to draw from it, not a how-to manual.) And that I say even in light of my experiences when engaged in its study.<br /><br />There are other points I could take on right now, but above all I want to apologize for the lack of grace you experienced in the church. I know it's not much (right now I have just a tiny startup blog), but I have tried to dedicate myself to helping to make us as a community more aware of how our lack of self-awareness as a community brings pain to others. Some of us are trying, and it's hard, but there are those of us out there. You mention guilt, and I recognize how I fall short--but if approached levelheadedly, it is not something in which one must or should drown. Again, if people were unkind or condemning to you, I'm sorry.<br /><br />Basically, I just wanted you to know that not all people of faith simply blow off the experiences of those who have left the faith, or been outside it. I see it as feedback to try and do better.M. C. Evershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514967652907935080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51163312320979258902010-06-11T15:47:52.170-04:002010-06-11T15:47:52.170-04:00An Atheist Manifesto:
www.positiveatheism.org/hist...An Atheist Manifesto:<br />www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis03.htm<br /><br />Atheism:<br />http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis06.htm<br /><br />Index to Joseph Lewis' writings and books on line:<br />http://www.positiveatheism.org/tochlews.htm#LEWATHRuthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07487353994277648802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16058492502445267742010-06-11T15:30:55.483-04:002010-06-11T15:30:55.483-04:00Stone:
I was surprised at your statements regardi...Stone:<br /><br />I was surprised at your statements regarding Lokayata. <br /><br />I am nearly finished reading <i>Doubt: a History</i> by Jennifer Michael Hecht. I thought if the Carvaka had advocated selfishness, how did I miss that? So I looked it up. <br /><br />I suspect you misinterpreted the meaning of <i>materialist</i> and thought it meant <i>interested only in acquiring things</i> rather than <i>the belief that the universe consists only of material - no souls, etc</i>. On page 99 Hecht quoted, "We ought to keep a degree of kindness because it functions to our own advantage--it works..."<br /><br />The Carvaka probably bahaved no worse any other group so you needn't use them as a reason reject atheism.<br /><br />I suggest that you read <i>Doubt</i>. Through the years many atheists stayed in the closet because they valued keeping their heads. Most of them might have even been better people than the religionists who would do anything to quiet them.<br /><br />My 1976 dictionary's entry for <i>deist</i> says to see <i>atheist</i> for synonyms!<br /><br />http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Main_PageRuthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07487353994277648802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53025341930658772462010-02-15T20:30:42.806-05:002010-02-15T20:30:42.806-05:00A literal interpretation of Genesis is a colossal ...A literal interpretation of Genesis is a colossal stumbling block since it defies reason. There are no believers, me included, that can withstand the comparison concerning what we say we believe and what we actually live in conjunction to our beliefs.<br /><br />You have accurately identified the greates hypocrisy of all; the way we live and the eternal destiny of our neighbors. In response to that hypocrisy, and to eleviate that tension, we must espouse Calvinism, universalism, or use God's grace as conscience salve.<br /><br />There are very few believers in history whose hypocrisy is less than their commitment. Our statements of faith are much more accurate than is our organic manifestation. In the end it will completely rest on who was Jesus. If he was just a man then all opinions are equally valid.<br /><br />If he was God in the flseh then all truths are tethered and captured by that single reality. He is, in effect, the Big Bang.Rick Fruehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05879848568892457571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14058617541479648702010-02-03T18:09:23.863-05:002010-02-03T18:09:23.863-05:00Thank you for this blog. It may be that the voices...Thank you for this blog. It may be that the voices of former religionists (like myself as well) are insignificant in any era, but I think it is a noble effort and will help and encourage some to reclaim their self-trust and mental freedom.<br /><br />I, too, am happier than ever and find I don't need any particular beliefs to treat others well and live fully.<br /><br />Keep up the wonderful work!Vera Keilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12066788663410486523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2905415441661094592010-01-18T01:11:23.600-05:002010-01-18T01:11:23.600-05:00Hi John,
Cards on the table - I'm a Christian...Hi John,<br /><br />Cards on the table - I'm a Christian.<br /><br />I wonder (as if it's any of my business) how your personal relationship with God was over this time? You seem to know more than most ABOUT God, but did this actually result in a strengthened and authentic personal relationship with God himself?<br /><br />A concept, group of concepts or system of doctrines is much easier to walk away from than a person with whom you are in an intimate realationship with. <br /><br />I guess the best lesson to be learnt by believers and non-believers alike is that pure knowledge about God will not result in a stable Christian faith. In fact, without this head knowledge somehow seeping into the deepest reaches of the heart/cor/soul/spirit, an overly-intellectualised approach may well knock the stuffing out of someone's Christian faith. <br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Roger.<br /><br />http://www.faithinterface.com.au/Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796927098096872633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69529076793451925032009-07-22T14:08:55.746-04:002009-07-22T14:08:55.746-04:00[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]
Conclusion
...[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]<br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />Finally, putting all that aside, I would have to say that, while I'm no longer an atheist, and while I now accept a concept of deity, I don't necessarily believe in deity as conceptualized in any one creed. If forced to choose, I feel more comfortable choosing particular individuals as models of ethical fitness rather than institutional creeds. And if forced to choose certain individuals, then I'd say that the most closely vetted individuals via modern secular scholarship who appear to have genuine interaction with deity of some kind, and whose ethics also seem to stand up to the strictest scrutiny, appear to be Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Socrates and Jesus of Nazareth (Christ). We probably come closer to the essence of deity by restricting ourselves to the earlest textual strata on these three figures specifically, courtesy of modern secular scholarship, than we do by adherence to any one creed.<br /><br />Thanks for having the patience to slog your way through all this!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />StoneLizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11367192187098830794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23248946955756248742009-07-22T14:08:22.737-04:002009-07-22T14:08:22.737-04:00[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]
Part 4
The...[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]<br /><br />Part 4<br /><br />The key point here is that the startups of pioneering countercultural expressions of atheism within many historic communities and cultures always seem linked with countercultural calls to unalloyed self-centeredness, and vice versa, while the startups of pioneering countercultural conceptions of deity within many historic communities and cultures always seem linked with countercultural calls to unalloyed altruism, and vice versa. These curious symbiotic relationships at the startups of creeds on either side of the divide appear to hold firm throughout history. It's only later in the history of these creeds that positions sometimes get reversed: Hateful figures like Torquemada sometimes emerge who warp a theistic philosophy of caring into a savage orgy of blood, even as peaceful and humane figures like Holbach and Ingersoll similarly tend to emerge who then transform an initially callous atheistic philosophy bent only on self-satisfaction into a gentle warning that the people at large should eat something more than just cake......... (BTW, contrary to some assumptions, Robespierre, one of the most brutal of the French Revolution's leaders, actually singled out atheists for the guillotine[!] along with the royalty and the nobility, being a devout believer himself -- oh yes! -- so it's a canard that atheism was always at the back of the most brutal tendencies of the Fr. Rev. -- unless one blames everything on Meslier, of course.)<br /><br />Since I view humanity today as staring down the barrel of "perfect storm" conditions for its imminent extinction within one or two generations at most, either through ecological collapse or WMDs run amok or something else even more horrific, it is imperative that all our available brain power be used in ascertaining as accurately as possible each and every comma of whatever was said or done by figures like Buddha, or Jesus -- or Tolstoy, or Gandhi, or Mandela, etc. We must gain a proper understanding of how these ethical insights were arrived at in the first place. Knowing exactly what was said and understanding precisely the mainsprings behind what was said is more important than anything. Knowledge is power. And it took the writings of the sometimes skeptical Jesus Seminar researchers to make me see this, and it was my own historical research that made me see as well that deity might quite likely be behind such insights. For the first time in my life, I took Scripture seriously: at the least, it is one of humanity's preserved written laboratories of altruism versus self-centeredness in a fearsome agon.<br /><br />So, when we have a closer knowledge of whatever facilitated a Buddha's or a Christ's transformative impact on a selfish culture, we'll have a better knowledge of how we can trigger the better angels of our nature today without the jackboot (which is already a sell-out right there) and thus stave off the imminent extinction that not only seems highly likely today but -- IMO -- totally inevitable under current circumstances within many of our current lifetimes. Wherever the Seminar works of Borg or Crossan or others lead us, that can only be to the good. Wherever biological or chemical or general scientific research leads us, that can only be to the good --<br /><br />http://www.slate.com/id/2165026/<br /><br />-- . If such research leads us to the conclusion that something other than deity is at the back of these altruistic cultural reformers, then that's fine. If it confirms my working conclusion that deity is the common denominator behind these altruistic cultural reformers, then that's fine too. This question is worth pursuing today because we have no other choice. The selfishness and the smallness and the violence and the stubbornness of most world leaders today have left us with no choice. We have to pursue this kind of study, whether it be of Jesus or of Urukagina (the earliest known cultural reformer of all [in ancient Sumeria]), without fear or favor. Otherwise, we can kiss our grandchildren's adulthood goodbye.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11367192187098830794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54306875297712296222009-07-22T14:07:50.287-04:002009-07-22T14:07:50.287-04:00[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]
Part 3
Now...[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]<br /><br />Part 3<br /><br />Now, within the four corners of this phenomenon, the strict historical approach would be to ascertain which factor is the variable that causes such a pattern to obtain for one group (countercultural theists) and not the other (countercultural atheists)? If this evolving process for ethical codes comes from nature itself, and I would guess that it does for precisely the reasons provided by Gould et al, then how can the "hallucination" process of deity from specific -- (?)highly attuned(?) -- counterculturalists not come from the same thing, nature? -- particularly since it so frequently has this symbiotic relationship with ethical evolution? Of course, ascribing the "hallucination" of deity to the general nature of our species still doesn't automatically make deity real. It just makes the "hallucination" natural and inevitable, which says nothing about its reality. But since the practical value of evolving ethical codes seem all too real and urgent to me, not an illusion at all but an urgent reality without which our species would eventually sink into anarchy, I have to ask why an individual direct deity "hallucination" isn't also reality-based after all, given the (apparent) symbiotic relationship between the two -- "hallucination" of deity and insightful countercultural ethics -- throughout history.<br /><br />If someone could uncover a peer-bucking atheist who introduced her/his atheism out of whole cloth to her/his own culture and did so in tandem with a profound social reform of that culture of some kind, the apparent monopoly that countercultural theist "spinners" have on jump-starting this seemingly natural process of evolving ethical codes throughout history would be broken. There would then be no reason at all for explaining this "hallucinatory"(?) deity phenomenon among the most altruistic and impactful pioneers. I could simply drop this notion of deity as something real altogether. But right now, given the historic patterns I've observed, it would seem intellectually dishonest for me to ignore the possibility of deity entirely. Even the introducer of the first thoroughly atheistic philosophy in Western Europe of the second millennium C.E., Matthias Knutzen in the late 1670s, while his ethics happen to be quite other-centered, shapes the ethics of his philosophy around the injunctions of another, the Roman jurist, Ulpian, instead of arriving at a new "spin" on altruism of his own.<br /><br />I should add, BTW, that I don't think I have any great emotional attachment to my newest conclusions that deity is (probably) real after all. If this described monopoly pattern were to be broken, I would then calmly conclude that I was originally correct to be an atheist. But right now, since it seems intellectually dishonest for me to stick with my erstwhile atheism, I won't do that. At the same time, the most extensively documented figures who articulate new and deeply personal "spins" on deity and new "spins" on altruism symbiotically -- Buddha, Socrates, Christ -- are not agreed on an afterlife. So I still feel the jury is out on an afterlife, even though I now view deity itself as a probability and no longer a possibility.<br /><br />Clearly, atheists are just as likely to feel the call of the helpless on our conscience as are any believers. The question is not Are all atheists all-good or all-bad? In fact, they show the same mix of good and bad common to the rest of the human family. Instead, the question is, Where do humanitarians like Russell get their inspiration?Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11367192187098830794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31224994523759625292009-07-22T14:07:14.047-04:002009-07-22T14:07:14.047-04:00[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]
Part 2
Mos...[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]<br /><br />Part 2<br /><br />Most importantly, what is the earliest (extant) example of an unequivocal self-centered philosophy overtly deaf to any claim on society by the more helpless among us? That question can be answered. It is the ancient Lokayata philosophy in ancient India, ca. the 7th century B.C.E. No earlier such philosophy can be traced. There may have been some earlier such philosophies, but this is the earliest for which we have any info. This philosophy claims, first of all, that resting places and watering holes for travelers are a waste of time and designed only for people who, being indigent, are therefore of no value. It also decries the notion of general dining invitations to people in the neighborhood, decrying these precisely because they are ultimately of benefit to the indigent only while inconveniencing those of greater substance and therefore of greater worth. Instead, it should be the interests of oneself only that guides individual behavior. Here is the earliest direct quote of the founder of Lokayata, Brhaspati:<br /><br /><br /><br />"Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.<br />"The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others.<br />"The Agnihotra ritual, the three Vedas, the triple staff, the ash-smearing, are the ways of gaining a livelihood for those who are lacking in intellect and energy."<br /><br /><br /><br />Now, an odd coincidence here: Lokayata is not only the earliest overtly self-centered philosophy extant. It is also the earliest extant overtly atheist philosophy as well. Ascertaining the latter gave me, as an atheist, a bit of a shock, I can tell you. At the same time, I still think it very likely that certain primitive theistic assumptions (addressing the how and/or the why of the intricate ways of this universe) should still be viewed with some wariness today. And I have to say that I also view warily certain primitive concepts of deity itself that still prevail today as well. But the behavioral tendencies of those countercultural figures throughout time who feel a visceral sense of deity around them (such as Buddha et al) and link this with a pioneering "spin" on altruism, versus those tendencies of those who counterculturally articulate both self-centeredness and nonbelief as a linked philosophy, certainly make one wonder which philosophies are more conducive to a thriving and evolving human community, as described by Gould et al.<br /><br />This accorded with a general pattern for all the pioneers in non-belief down the centuries. Lokayata is not alone in advocating a self-centered way of life instead of a caring one. The earliest extant overt articulation of atheism in ancient Greek literature comes from Critias, who was the ruthless leader of the Thirty Tyrants at the end of the Pelopenesian(sp.?) War, at the end of the 5th century B.C.E. The earliest overt expression of atheism in Enlightenment France comes from the early 1700s, from Jean Meslier, who linked his posthumously issued atheism with a call to brain everyone who disagreed with him, and a wish that every noblemen might be strangled with the ripped-out guts of every remaining priest (evidently a believer in collective punishment........)<br /><br />I was thus disappointed to find that, although there have been plenty of atheist social reformers of great altruism -- one thinks of humanitarians like Bertrand Russell, or Mr. Ingersoll, or Baron Holbach -- there does not seem to be a single such altruist who actually introduced both her/his new atheism and her/his own pioneering ethical code at the same time -- symbiotically -- and whose twin introduction of same resulted in a "fast-tracked" cultural impact on everyone around her/him. This contrasts with the picture for countercultural theist altruists.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11367192187098830794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48122854844100218742009-07-22T14:05:33.974-04:002009-07-22T14:05:33.974-04:00[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]
[warning: l...[from Stone; not Liz, my better half]<br /><br />[warning: long]<br /><br />Part 1<br /><br />Your essay certainly underscores the extent to which modern science has shown just how much of what is in Scripture is really myth and not history. It also underscores the extent to which evolution is a far more plausible model than anything in Genesis. As an atheist for most of my life, I never had any difficulty accepting that evolution has been shown as scientifically verifiable and that Genesis remains strictly a myth. Today, I would have no quarrel with any of that either. Consequently, for me, the dynamics of speciation within evolution and of individual fitness development for individual species are central to any understanding of what makes humanity tick.<br /><br />In my 30s and 40s, I became fascinated with, and a compulsive reader of, any and all written treatments of and on the various ways in which individual species manage to thrive and grow stronger and more fit in a variety of ways. And I began to be intrigued by the various steps through which humanity had managed to thrive and adapt in its behavior sufficiently to develop the kind of close cohesion within certain communities that we see today.<br /><br />To begin with, I'd guess that moral/ethical codes are an inevitable development for any species dependent on socialization of any kind, the way humanity clearly is. That guess alone got me interested in turn in all countercultural manifestations throughout the ages of socially frowned on expressions of solidarity with the helpless and the left out.<br /><br />At the same time, it's basically a chicken/egg problem to me, I guess: When I studied history as an adult non-believer, I approached it pretty much as a natural phenomenon akin to something described in Stephen Jay Gould's excellent book, The Panda's Thumb. Since I've never bought into the presumed dichotomy of nature versus civilization -- primarily since our civilizations seem to me an expression of our nature anyway -- I've always viewed all of our ethical values as contingent responses at discrete levels of our natural development. This became a chicken/egg problem to me because when reading up on history as a non-believer it struck me forcefully that the natural processes by which the earliest ethical codes expressing solidarity with the vulnerable have come about inevitably seem to entail some particular individual's expressed awareness -- hallucinatory or not -- of some new and deeply personal and visceral sense of deity as well, usually a countercultural and risky "spin" on deity at that, personally dangerous to the given individual in her/his particular culture at the time.<br /><br />So it's a chicken/egg problem because often it's impossible to tell if the "hallucination" of a deity inspires the new ethical code or the new ethical code inspires some newly minted "spin"/"hallucination" of a deity. Certainly, at the least, there often seems to be an oddly symbiotic relationship between the two.<br /><br />Yet before jumping to any conclusions on this, I got keenly interested in the history of the opposite side of the coin: the pioneering self-centered philosophies instead. Recent evolutionary studies like those from Stephen Jay Gould, Ed Wilson and others seem to show that when certain species whose daily existence depends heavily on socialization subsequently develop a support system that regularly looks out for the more helpless among them, that species tends to thrive better than those that stall at a discrete point due primarily to individually selfish behavioral patterns that are ultimately a species' undoing (in many cases). If modern evolutionary studies from Gould, Wilson et al reveal self-centered behavioral patterns as being ultimately self-destructive to their species -- as indeed they do -- then what exactly make similar self-centered philosophies in humanity's own history tick? Why do they arise? How do they arise?Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11367192187098830794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37116247884815283552009-06-23T13:45:24.141-04:002009-06-23T13:45:24.141-04:00Stephen Akinduro, thanks for your comment. Keep th...Stephen Akinduro, thanks for your comment. Keep thinking and growing.<br /><br />Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33653514774483821802009-06-23T10:18:43.693-04:002009-06-23T10:18:43.693-04:00Hi John. I am currently reading your book (why I b...Hi John. I am currently reading your book (why I became and Atheist) and am very impressed with the way that it is written. I really thought that it would be a rant from a disgruntled former-Christian, but it is really a thorough intellectual analysis of the loopholes in the Christian doctrine. I am a Christian, albeit a dissilusioned one. I could write a whole essay on the reasons why I am dissilusioned, but I won't bore you with too much detail. Suffice it to say that there are a number of issues that have led me down this path of doubt. One - my struggle with addiction and me praying and praying for some relief from God and not getting it (I know, I know, Christians will often point out that even Paul had his "thorn in the flesh", but doesn't 1 John teach that if you are a son of God, you shall sin no more? And doesn't God say that if I ask for something in His son's name, he will give it to me). The second issue is the problem of suffering and the empty answers that Christianity gives using the Bible. The inference is that people suffer because we have free will, we are in a fallen world, and original sin contaminated our existence. But then these same people will turn around and quote Galatians where it says we reap what we sow, infering that suffering is a consequence of things that we have done wrong. Try telling that to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, or to people who have lost loved ones in a plane crash, or parents who lost a baby to a fatal disease (what sin did the baby commit to deserve such a death?). The bottom line is that the formulaic answers that people give based on the "infallable" teachings of the Bible no longer make sense to me. Did Job really have to suffer like that because God made a cosmic bet with the Devil? Yeah, preachers love to point out that Job got double what he had at the end of the story, but let's be frank, can material posessions take the place of the people who died earlier? <br /><br />My second issue is with the whiole salvation by grace and not works thing. If it is true that we are saved by grace and not works, then why should it matter whether or not people "accept" Jesus as their Lord and savior? And if it is true that we are saved by grace, why do Christians then insist that even if you still don't obey the Bible (after you are saved) you will still go to hell, thus nullifying the fact that Jesus died for our sins. SO which is it? Christians say that they are saved by grace, but then use the self-righteous card to keep some people in and some out (depending on which denomination they are a part of)..I could go on and on, but I will stop there.Stephen Akindurohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12664425520629316405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17083737080145291852009-06-11T03:31:06.537-04:002009-06-11T03:31:06.537-04:00I fully respect Dr. Loftus' journey of "d...I fully respect Dr. Loftus' journey of "de-conversion". The part that I do not understand is that "I became an atheist by not being a christian." It seems absurd. Rejecting Christian may turn one into a skeptic. With Dr. Loftus educational and ministerial background, I would expect his train of thought on not only rejecting Christianity but also rejecting the notion that human is a spiritual being to support his conversion to be an atheist. I found that disappointing.oscarspazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01775042687720893498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63092888168468578402009-04-15T11:17:00.000-04:002009-04-15T11:17:00.000-04:00What an amazing post. I’m have been an evangelica...What an amazing post. I’m have been an evangelical (pronounced fun da•men tal•ist) for 33 years and share some similar passions and observations, I was happy to see your book synopsis. Hell John, your veritable voice crying in the wilderness. (Sorry, that was a cheap shot at all the intellectually challenged and ego development challenged Christians that love to argue the facts but miss the point about their role as Christians). Apologetics without relationship and genuine caring is the stuff Pharisees are made of. I think it was Augustine that made the distinction about treating people as means vs. ends. Many Christians have only transformed the message but are still treating others as means. I would suggest this oversight is at the root of the Evangelical church’s complete failure to create genuine community.Christian UberCynichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12293267201235767904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44807357450845809712008-12-17T14:37:00.000-05:002008-12-17T14:37:00.000-05:00As is evident with many others who benefit both by...As is evident with many others who benefit both by notoriety and monetarily by creating controversy where none should exist in reality, Loftus is no different. Unless, or until, he addresses the beneficial 'need' that belief in a religion serves in most humans, he may as well charge a wind mill on a horse.denniscavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660871924114740087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84359952354437951582008-11-19T13:12:00.000-05:002008-11-19T13:12:00.000-05:00"The universe is just too strange, and our part to..."The universe is just too strange, and our part too unique, for it all to be an accident"<BR/><BR/>Why does this make my stomach turn? Why do so many believers pull the "this just can't be an accident" card when they try to explain why they are so convicted to believe.<BR/><BR/>Rabbit, what is this unique'part'you're talking about?Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05864363014248946345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67101878102332403012008-11-19T13:04:00.000-05:002008-11-19T13:04:00.000-05:00Congrats on your deconversion. My life has been A...Congrats on your deconversion. My life has been AWESOME since I stopped trying to make Christ fit into it. <BR/><BR/>To cling to the myth is just madness and it tells us a great deal about those who choose to 'believe' even when confronted with truth.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05864363014248946345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51961587624715923602008-11-18T12:18:00.000-05:002008-11-18T12:18:00.000-05:00I'm sorry you backed out of your Christian experie...I'm sorry you backed out of your Christian experience, but admire your honesty and attitude.<BR/><BR/>I grew up in church but found the place to make my own decision to trust Jesus and His way. As a science-minded person, however, the simplistic, churchy answers were difficult and chaffing at times. One day when a certain evangelist visited my town, he had been close friends of my father, in one of those reflective moments just before a heart attack, he looked at me and smiled then said, "I look at you here today, after all these years, I never thought you would make it."<BR/><BR/>Long before I went to a Christian seminary for my master's degree, I came to understand many things from my own search and study of Scriptures. You described a problem with the science and Bible connect, or lack of it, and I have to admit that a stock saying of mine has since before teenage years been, "Leave it to a preacher that if he speaks about science he will get it wrong." <BR/><BR/>But the Bible isn't a science text. For that matter it is often accused of being a questionable history text. The Bible is a record of people who had direct interaction with God. Take for instance the Jonah story. In the KJV the Old Testament account says it was a big fish, but in the New Testament Jesus 'said' it was a whale. In both cases, however, it was simply a blanket expression (Hebrew and Greek)for a big, yet undefined, sea creature that the translators had to somehow put the meaning into understandable English.<BR/><BR/>One of the problems with science, however, is they have blinkers/blinders on, to use a horse and buggy analogy that few today can identify with. The tunnel vision has tunnel walls that are defined by the physical universe as we see it. As a kid I read of C.S. Lewis' description of 'nature' being a box that humans conveniently use, but God is supernatural, God is outside the box. Humanistic science confines itself to understand everything that is inside the box.<BR/><BR/>I stumbled across this note when looking for something else and this event follows a presentation by my pastor this last week, who got his doctorate preparing to literally be a rocket scientist, and the week before with a presentation by an engineer from the Fermi Lab. Some of the common features of both their descriptions was that science has a ceiling (Relativity) and a floor (Quantum Mechanics) and both have features alien to the 'ordinary world' we see about us. Then, if you include the string theories or the Higgs theories, we have to include dimensions to the universe that are beyond the three physical dimensions, plus time. The guy from Fermi included models of nano devices, like pumps that are inside our cells, but superior to the nano pumps and motors that engineers are elsewhere trying to build. The universe is just too strange, and our part too unique, for it all to be an accident. The part that gets me is that if most of the universe is supposed to be dark energy/dark matter, and we haven't a clue to what it is, and if that is 75-95% of the universe, then what little part of the universe we think we have a handle on isn't even part of the bulk of the universe.<BR/><BR/>John, you've read the book, you know the end. To think that some day when the maker of your soul calls you forward, you won't want to see Him as family or friend, that is the sad part. Since you don't want to be associated with Him, then he honors your choice and separates you from him. It isn't too late until He says it is, fortunately. Thanks for something to think on.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10790977626902647220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33736421139887946642008-04-04T07:19:00.000-04:002008-04-04T07:19:00.000-04:00Interesting life story. I congratulate you on your...Interesting life story. I congratulate you on your noble quest for the truth, and you deserve further cudos for not allowing blind belief to cloud your judgement.<BR/><BR/>Concerning Perry Marshall, I debunked his flawed logic on one of my blog posts.<BR/><BR/>http://necrofiles.blogspot.com/2008/03/dna-proves-existence-of-god.html <BR/><BR/>Thank you, have a wonderful day!Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.com