I sat down with a young lady not too long ago and had a conversation. This was a conversation about faith—her faith. Better put, this was a conversation about a faith that once was and is no more. She was a very interesting and bright lady—inquisitive, well-read, and very suspicious. She began by telling me that she was a Christian (past tense) and had since left the faith. Christ was once a part of her confession, but, as she recounted to me, after a long voyage of not finding sufficient answers for her doubts, she believes that she had no choice but to follow her own integrity and renounce Christ all together. I asked her what her problems were and she became very emotional. It was like I represented Christianity and she was ready to take it all out on me.
Ignorance. Pity. Shame. These are all good descriptions of what she thought of Christianity. But the primary description that I felt coming from here was “betrayal.” She had been betrayed by the Church because they duped her into a belief not unlike that of the tooth fairy. When she discovered this “betrayal”, no one had a valid answer or excuse. So she left. She is now an unbeliever—a soon-to-be evangelistic unbeliever no doubt. She was at such a point in this process that no matter what I said, she was not open to listen.
One fascination, obsession, and focus (neurotic impulse?) I have in my life and ministry is with regard to those, like this young lady, who leave the faith. I’m sure you have noticed this. I have well over a dozen books giving autobiographical sketches of those who once proclaimed to be Christian and are now evangelistic atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, with their goal to convert or, rather, unconvert others. I have been in contact with many people who either have already left or are on the verge of leaving in the form of emails, phone calls and visits in person.
No, it is not a neurotic impulse. I believe that it is the recognition of an extremely serious issue that we are facing today. We are facing an epidemic in Christianity—an epidemic of unbelief among our own. Crowding our churches are those who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about leaving a denomination. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized expression of Christianity. I am not talking about leaving the church (though related). And I am not even talking about renouncing religion. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ. (And this is coming from a Calvinist who does not believe that the truly elect will ever leave).
Over 31 million Americans are saying “check please” to the church, and are off to find answers elsewhere. Jeff Schadt, coordinator of Youth Transition Network, says thousands of youth fall away from the church when transitioning from high school to college. He and other youth leaders estimate that 65 to 94 percent of high school students stop attending church after graduating. From my studies and experience I find that leaving church is many times the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.
The question that we must ask is a very simple one: Why? Why are people leaving the faith at this epidemic and alarming rate? In my studies, I have found the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs.
First, I want to explain this transition process, focusing on the first: intellectual challenges. You might even find yourself somewhere on this journey.
Step one: Doubt
Step two: Discouragement
Step three: Disillusionment
Step four: Apathy
Step five: Departure
Step One: Doubt
Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. This doubt is not wholesale, but expresses an inner longing to have questions answered and the intellect satisfied to some degree. Normally this person will inquire of mentors in the faith, requesting an audience for their doubt. There are many reasons for the onset of this doubt. Here are the three that are primary:
Maturation: Much of the time it comes from simple maturation. People grow and begin to ask serious questions about their beliefs and that of their parents. It is the stage of intellectual maturation in which discernment becomes strong.
Intellectual challenges: Often, the doubt comes from intellectual challenges. Challenges to the Bible’s reliability. Challenges from science. Challenges to the very need for a belief in God. Tonight, Bart Erhman is speaking at the Sam Noble Museum at the University of Oklahoma. I am sure that he will challenge many of the college students intellectually, causing some of them to question their faith in the Scriptures.
Experiential challenges: These type of challenges come from God’s actions (or lack thereof) in our lives. This is exemplified by prayers that don’t get answered, the apparent silence of God in a person’s experience, or (and related to the former) a tragedy out of which you or someone else was not rescued.
Any one of these (or all three together) can be the catalyst in someone’s journey away from Christianity.
Step Two: Discouragement
This is where the person becomes frustrated because they are not finding the answers. They ask questions but the answer (or lack thereof) causes them discouragement. Their church tells them that such questions are “unchristian.” Their Sunday school teacher says, “I don’t know. You just have to believe.” Others simply say, “That’s a good question, I have never thought of it before,” and then go on their way on their own leap-of-faith journey.
This causes great discouragement in the life of the person as they begin to see that their questions and concerns are legitimate enough not to have an answer among those who should. “Are others scared of these questions? If so, why?” are the thoughts of the doubter.
Step Three: Disillusionment
Now the person begins to become disillusioned with Christianity in general and proceeds to doubt much more deeply. They feel betrayed by those who made them believe the story about Christ and the Bible. They feel that much of their former faith was naive since not even their most trusted mentors could (or would) answer basic questions about the Bible, history, or faith. In their thinking the intellect has become legitimized and the church is therefore an illegitimate contender for their mind. Once the mind has been lost, the turn has been made. They may still be emotionally routing for their former faith, but it will soon pass as their intellect will talk them out of their emotional conviction. This is a very sad place for the leaver as they realize that they are truly leaving. They will go through a long period of depression and indecisiveness here.
Step Four: Apathy
At this point in the journey, the disillusioned Christian becomes apathetic to finding the answers, believing that the answers don’t exist. They are firmly on their way to atheism, agnosticism, or pure skepticism but don’t have the courage to admit it to themselves or others. Many times those in this stage live as closet unbelievers, believing it is not worth it to come clean about their departure from the faith. They want a peaceful existence in their unbelief without creating controversy. Therefore, they are content to remain closet unbelievers. For some, this helps them to deal with the depression that their loss of faith has afforded. If they are never honest with themselves or others about it, they don’t have to deal with it.
However, not everyone stays in the apathy stage.
Step Five: Departure
Here is where I meet this young lady I told you about. (Really, she was somewhere in-between apathy and departure.) At this stage the fact that they have left the faith has become real to them and they are willing to announce it to the world. Because of their sense of betrayal, they feel as if it is their duty to become evangelists for the cause of unbelief. Their goal and mission becomes to unconvert the converted.
This is the stage that Bart Erhman is in as he speaks tonight. His zeal is his sense of betrayal. Either he feels that he has to legitimize his departure by taking as many along with him as he can or he is truly attempting to help people quit living a lie out of true concern. Either way, his emotional commitment to Christianity is gone and reversed. He is now an Evangelist for unbelief.
“I don’t really even care what you have to say to me,” she told me that day. “I just don’t believe anymore and there is nothing anyone can do about it.” As I thought about this young lady, only one thing keeps coming to mind: how was she a part of the church for so long without the church ever engaging her on these issues. You see, her issues were numerous, but foundational. She doubted the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration, inerrancy, canon of Scripture, and the historicity of the Christian faith in general. If the church had legitimized her questions during the doubting phase and truly engaged her from an intellectual front I can’t help but think, from a human point of view, things might have been different. But once she reaches the point of apathy, this seems to be a point of no return.
Folks, we have a lot on our job description. But rooting people theologically by presenting the intellectual viability of the Evangelical faith must be top on the priority list and it must come early. While I understand this is not all there is to the Christian faith, it is an absolute vital part of discipleship and foundational to everything else.
Everyone will go through the doubt phase. Everyone should ask questions about the faith. If you have not asked the “How do you know . . .” questions about the message of the Gospel, this is not a good thing. We should be challenged to think through these questions early in the faith. The Church needs to rethink its education program. Expositional preaching, while very important, is not enough. Did you hear that? Expositional preaching is not enough. It does not provide the discipleship venue that is vital for us to prevent and overcome this epidemic. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that it does.
The church has been on an intellectual diet for the last century and we are suffering from theological atrophy. What else do you expect when we have replaced theological discipleship with a gluttonous promotion of entertainment, numbers, and fast-food Christianity that can produce nothing more than a veneer of faith seasoned for departure?
The solution: to reform our educational program in the church. To lay theological foundations through critical thinking. To understand that the great commission is to make disciples, not simply converts. And most importantly, we must pray that God will grant a revival of the mind knowing that without the power of the Holy Spirit, no amount of intellectual persuasion can change an antagonistic heart.
Without these, the epidemic of leaving Christ will only worsen. We will have more evangelists of unbelief than we do the Gospel.
190 replies to "“How People Become Evangelists of Unbelief” or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic"
Yet another thoughtful post (and more wonderful comments) on a critical issue. We as the catholic (note the lower-case “c”) church do have a problem but we’re not alone in it. People leave causes — if you read Thomas Paine you’ll find the “summertime soldier and the part-time patriot” and that leaving process didn’t end with the American Revolution. As a culture, we have been conditioned to the primacy of “I” — everything is about my needs. If something doesn’t meet my needs on my terms then I’ll just shop for the next fad on the block. One of the saddest things I ever heard was a comment by Carl Sagan’s wife on his rejection of his faith — “He didn’t want to believe. He wanted to know.” Dr. Sagan sought proof (say a video message encoded in the digits of Pi) and a lot of us would feel more secure in our faith if God would just step down off his throne and submit his bona fides to our examination.
As I recall, John’s father asked an archangel for his “driver’s license” and that didn’t work out too well (he was struck dumb for a year) so I think I’ll give that idea a miss. 🙂
I agree that we must encounter people and their doubts openly yet humbly but at all times repect their terrible freedom of choice. God could have told Adam and Eve that “It’s OK” but He respected their freedom of choice and went the awful path of becoming man and suffering crucifixion in order to provide a way of redemption if we choose to follow it.
As you point out, we (practicing Christians) do sometimes put stumbling blocks in the way of others’ belief (through “just beleive” or our attitudes toward one another and we must struggle to minimize those.
A wise man once told me that it was OK to have doubts because that meant that I was trying to apply what I beleived but he prayed that I would always be wise enough to recognize when what I called a doubt was God’s opportunity for demonstrating faith as we are saved by faith.
— Ishmael
I’ve never comprehended the value of bringing the catch phrase “world views” into the discussion. Hodge is correct, it is impossible to shake off your world view because as soon as you do… Voila! your new and improved world view shappened and honed by your old world view….??
Ken,
As I’m sure you know, sin runs deeper than surface immorality..that’s peanuts! Maybe the sin in all of our world views is preoccupation with our world view and lack of desire for an understanding of God’s world view.
This matches up to some of my experience (that’s the short version: extended play version here), except that I’d describe myself as embarrassed rather than apathetic in that penultimate stage: there was about a year and a half between the time when I stopped going to church and the time when I was happy to admit to everyone that I was no longer a Christian. While some of that was me working through things in my head, some of it was also social: my friends knew I was a Christian, my then-girlfriend was a Christian, and so on, and one unfortunate part of human nature is that we find U-turns socially embarrassing, rather than commendable.
I also found that it wasn’t so much that the church had inadequate answers, as that I didn’t even feel I could ask. Part of this was down to my own embarrassment, again, but I went to a church well known for “sound teaching”: they certainly weren’t anti-intellectual, but looking back, I don’t recall many occasions where someone could question things.
I am, in my small way, an evangelist for unbelief. While there were some worthwhile things about my experience as a Christian, in many ways I consider it time wasted pursuing one narrow idea of the truth. I wish I’d known sooner the things I know now, hence my web “de-conversion testimony” page, blog and so on.
Michael
You claim to be a Calvinist but then write a post grieving over evidence of predestination and then say my sarcasm towards your confused emotionalism is tangential? It is this kind of tortured logic which led me to see christianity as nothing more than primitive superstition built from bad logic leading to inauthentic character and intellectual suicide. Calvinism is simply an idea that says some are accepted by god and others aren’t. To grieve evidence of that and believe your efforts will reverse it contradicts the ideological premise you claim. In short it makes no sense.
Chuck, this post is not about Calvinism. Please respect what I say and stay on track.
Why then did you identify as a Calvinist if Calvinism is not germane to this argument? Is Calvinism only in bounds when you want to illustrate the perseverance of the saints but out of bounds whne one wishes to bring up limited atonement or unmerited grace?
Oh and C, the historical argument against religion driven by the evidence of calvinism’s closed system and brutality is one of the driving reasons I claim atheism. Now do you care to practice the advice you dispense in this post and discuss the calvinism you brought up or, will you be an object lesson to the intellectual suicide you dismiss as bad?
Chuck,
I think what CMP is saying is that Calvinism isn’t the focus of this thread and he tries to keep the threads on topic around here. The reason he identified as a Calvinist is because Arminians (like myself) would often accuse Calvinists of not caring about issues like this or Evangelism (since those who leave were never really saved and God is going to save those who he wills regardless of our effort or lack thereof). His comment was related to an internal squabble among Christians and not the subject of the post. If you want to talk about Calvinism there are a dozen other posts on this website as well as numerous posts on Theologica or TWeb.
Also I have difficulty understanding how Calvinism would cause one to reject Christianity just like I have trouble figuring out how penal substitution would. It’s not like these are the only interpretive options. I’m personally not a Calvinist, and have some problems with penal substitution, but I’m still a Christian, I just hold other beliefs on these issues.
Hmm,
If there is a historical argument against religion based upon the atrocities that religion has committed is there also a historical argument against atheism based upon the same?? I mean the truly atheistic state has only existed for a little over a hundred years and it’s given us Nazi’s, Stalin, Mao, and Kim ll-sung and the deaths of hundreds of millions that came with them. Atheism just has such a great track record…..
All “historical arguments” prove in this case is that humans (call us fallen, call us imperfect, or call us driven by animal instincts – doesn’t really matter) will use whatever institution or beliefs (religious or otherwise) they can to manipulate, control, and exercise power over other human beings.
In comment #4, I asked: “But I wonder if there might be another vital factor at play, and that the “intellectual viability” excuse is simply a smokescreen for it.”
I want to thank Cadis in #66 for providing a clear answer:
“I don’t believe the excuse that their intellectual questions have gone unanswered or at least not to those who are leavers and have become evangelists of doubt and are the subject of this post. The God of Abraham and Moses and David has given proof after proof and miracle after miracle, prophecy fulfilled and promises kept and still they will not believe. It is an old reply, but the problem is not the intellect, It is sin.”
And I want to give props to Hodge in #93 as well for confirming what Cadis has said:
“I would add sin to your list. I think unrepentant sin cuts off the life line that was convincing an individual to believe, since it must be supernatural to have genuine faith, and ends with the person being judged by God in being convinced of the falsity of Christianity. I know tons of former Christians, and sin was the first step that I saw in a decline toward unbelief.”
So this raises the question: Do the Evangelists of Unbelief recognize that they sin? And that they sin because they are sinners?
Atheism doesn’t claim to be indwelled with the living god as counselor in the form of the holy soirit so, the brutalities practiced by men would be consistent with atheism’s claim there is no god. What’s the excuse for those who do the same as the atheists they condemn but proclaim revealed truth from the crator of the universe?
TuAD,
I’m having difficulty here with your and Hodge’s statement. We are all sinners. We all sin daily in most cases and I think I’m on pretty firm Biblical ground when I state that if you think you don’t have sin you are fooling only yourself. So how could this be the causative factor in somebody leaving the faith if it’s something everyone (Christian or not) has???
Do religionists recognize that citing sin as justification for their superstition is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy known as begging the question? Doubt it, they think !ohn Calvin was a good guy.
Why Calvinism broke me of christianity is that it is the most internally logical form of the superstition yet is morally bankrupt when examined both epistemically and historically.
Do the Evangelists of Unbelief recognize that they sin? And that they sin because they are sinners?
Do the Evangelists of Unbelief agree with Michael T. when he writes:
“We are all sinners. We all sin daily in most cases and I think I’m on pretty firm Biblical ground when I state that if you think you don’t have sin you are fooling only yourself.”
Do the Evangelists of Unbelief agree with Michael T. that if you, an Evangelist of Unbelief, don’t think you sin or have sin that you are fooling only yourself?
Citing sin as a proof of the bible and christianity’s claim we sin is cicular reasoning. It is a bad argument and a prime example of the kind of insular and illogical thinking that C. Michael talks of in this post.
Chuck,
“What’s the excuse for those who do the same as the atheists they condemn but proclaim revealed truth from the crator [sic] of the universe?”
So simply because someone claims to have divine backing for their actions means they in fact do have such backing??? One must remember a couple things. First Christians are just as sinful as everyone else. Second there is a difference between the visible church (those who claim to be Christian) and the invisible church (those who actually are Christians). Simply because someone claims to following the guiding of the Holy Spirit is no sign that they actually are. Furthermore when the actions they take under such “guidance” are antithetical to God as revealed in Jesus Christ I would humbly suggest that they have no such guidance and are only claiming they do for personal gain.
Chuck,
“Do religionists recognize that citing sin as justification for their superstition is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy known as begging the question?”
That wasn’t what I was attempting to do. I was only suggesting that often there is a disconnect between how we (meaning humanity in general) think humanity ought to behave and how it actually does behave in practice. The very basis of your argument from history is premised upon there being this disconnect because you are in essence saying that religion shouldn’t be used as a pretext to wage war and kill other human beings and that doing this is in fact wrong. At that point it’s just a matter of inference to the best explanation (which of course is a matter of debate – hence why I gave more then one option). The fact still remains that humans will use whatever they can to get ahead, religion or otherwise.
Chuck,
Actually hypercalvinism, universalism, and open theism are far more coherent and easy to understand then Calvinism or Arminianism, and the author of this blog has in fact stated so.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/the-incoherency-of-the-christian-faith-or-why-calvinism-is-confusing-yet-true/
“I agree that one’s world view does shape how one interprets the evidence. However, I also believe that one can change world-views when they come to realize that the evidence is more coherent within another world-view.”
Ken, as I said before, herein lies the problem. We’re talking about the nature of reality in terms of whether there is a metaphysical element to it. One’s view of the evidence relies upon one’s view of reality, not the other way around. Hence, this tipping of the hat to the obvious is just a smokescreen of false humility. When it comes down to it, atheists are empirical objectivists when it comes to their own beliefs. (which BTW is self refuting). So it’s simply doubespeak. You are assuming beliefs about the nature of reality that cannot be altered by evidence that is determined by that belief in the nature of reality. Either you are a trascendent being who knows the nature of reality by seeing it objectively, or you are a part of that reality and know it through subjectivity. If the latter, as I think we would all agree, you cannot gain an ounce of trascendence, i.e., an ounce of objectivity. Ergo, beliefs don’t inform your interpretations, they dictate them, and cannot be altered until they are replaced with other beliefs. Evidence in the area of the nature of reality is but the stage upon which you place your actors, the stage does not determine who the actors will be.
BTW, what you are talking about here is not how a scientific view within an ultimate belief can be shifted to another scientific view within an ultimate belief, but from how evidence can shift one from one ultimate belief to another concerning the nature of reality. The paradigm you suggested, therefore, does not apply.
Chuck,
I wasn’t giving a reason as to why Christianity is true (i.e., because of sin). I was stating why, as a Christian, I believe fundamentalists and evangelicals become atheists. So there’s no begging the question there because there’s no attempt to substantiate an argument as to why Christianity is true. I believe it’s true and giving reasons for why I believe X occurs, since Y is true. If you can’t even listen to people, as many atheists I know can’t, in making statements to which you do not ascribe, then how can we trust that you understood Calvinism or Christianity in general?
I have a feeling that your “historical” argument is a wash, but I would like to know how Reformed Christianity, which to me is Christian orthodoxy, is epistemically dismissed.
Hodge
You don’t get it. Sin is a concept that can only be real based on the theism expressing it and therefore is plainly circular and question begging. What falsifiable standard do you use to identify the pathogenesis of sin?
Michael,
My historical argument against religion is not that people do bad things but that people claiming a savior in Jesus have not historically behaved in better than other people which, in my analysis indicates that a “holy spirit” is a superstitious creation with no real efficacy and thus no reality.
Divine command ethics from Shia Islam to Open Theism does not provide an historically more enlightened morality.
“First Christians are just as sinful as everyone else.”
I would say that christians are just as prone to ignorance and immorality as all else (sin is a prehistoric concept attached to theistic superstitions and has no objective test or consistent standard – therefore it is intellectually and argumentatively empty). The behavior of christians and their self-possessed immorality is one of the reasons I find their superstitions as empty as they would find a muslims or a mormons.
“Second there is a difference between the visible church (those who claim to be Christian) and the invisible church (those who actually are Christians).”
I consider invisible things unseen and for something to claim invisibility yet also reality there must be an observable and consistent effect to ensure its truth (e.g. quantum effects). Your concession to the inability of christians to behave any different from those not claiming the same superstition is evidence that your “invisibility” claim is nothing more than a rhetorical game.
“Simply because someone claims to following the guiding of the Holy Spirit is no sign that they actually are.”
And I conclude that the standard of veridicality to this claim is evidence to its flimsiness. Anyone can claim the holy spirit’s guidance whether there is real guidance or not.
Furthermore when the actions they take under such “guidance” are antithetical to God as revealed in Jesus Christ I would humbly suggest that they have no such guidance and are only claiming they do for personal gain.
So then appealing to traditions authored by historical figures like Calvin who supported the murder of Michael Servetus or Luther who authored anti-semitic writings would be the logical fallacy known as “appeal to authority”.
Hodge you said, “So it’s simply doubespeak. You are assuming beliefs about the nature of reality that cannot be altered by evidence that is determined by that belief in the nature of reality.”
There is good evidence and bad evidence. Evidence that can be tested and held to a testable standard over repeated experimentation is good evidence. The inner witness of an invisible force or appeal to the mythology of bronze age people is bad evidence.
Hodge, you said, “If you can’t even listen to people, as many atheists I know can’t, in making statements to which you do not ascribe, then how can we trust that you understood Calvinism or Christianity in general?”
You also said, “sin was the first step that I saw in a decline toward unbelief.”
I was listening to you and you were begging the question.
Maybe you don’t know what begging the question is.
Begging the question is when the premise includes the claim that the conclusion is true. For example, I could say that Allah exists because the Q’ran says Allah exists.
You say my unbelief exists because the bible says unbelievers will fall from faith due to their sin and therefore decline toward unbelief because the christian faith says we sin.
Begging the question.
I don’t believe christianity true because it doesn’t match reality. I prefer reality and truth to insular and self-possessed superstition.
Hodge,
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Surely you must admit that people can change world-views. I suppose you did when you became a Christian. I did when I left Christianity.
As for objectivity, I agree that there is no such thing as true objectivity. I would argue that you are not objective either. You may argue that your God possesses objectivity but you are not God. Your understanding of your God is subjective; it is based on your subjective understanding of what you believe he has said in the Bible. The fact that there are hundreds of different sects of Christianity each with a different understanding of the Bible is proof of the subjectivity involved.
While I don’t believe true objectivity is possible, I do believe we should strive for it by recognizing our biases and seeking to understand the reasons why others may disagree with our positions.
John Loftus at Debunking Christianity has a great standard to test your conviction, it is called the “Outsider Test of Faith”.
I would assume that the believers here would see Muslims, or Mormons, or Hindus or Buddhists as superstitious because christians are not inculcated into the doctrine of these foreign faiths. Look at your faith presuppositions as one would with a different cultural lens and you might see how preposterous, untestable and circular they are.
I took this test and realized that the Calvinist Christianity (yes Hodge I was one full five pointer TULIP – Evangelical Bible Fellowship, Evanston, IL) was nothing more than a fear-based control belief predicated on shoddy history and accumulated superstition.
I could care less if you believe what I believe. Having to convince others that my growing knowledge is absolute knowledge was a burden I left behind with the superstition of evangelism.
I just don’t like superstitious people to act as if they have revealed knowledge and then have these people’s tax-exempt superstitions look to force their superstitions on civil society and science (e.g. stem-cell research; homosexual’s 14th amendment rights).
I’d suggest you all take a look into a great site called Common Sense Atheism and the podcast “Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot” to see how insular and short-sighted your absolute revealed “truth” is.
Michael,
The theologies you mention are another argument against a personal creator god – the plurality of religion.
Why would a god who loved us so much invite such confusion?
If my son were lost and needed to come home I wouldn’t give him coded directions that might lead off to all sorts of contradictory conclusions.
As such, the bible is exactly what one would expect it to be if it were the invention of primitive and superstitious people not, if it were the insight of the most powerful being in the universe.
I believe you believe but don’t believe that belief has much to say about what is real or true.
I believe what christians believe that Romans is the most theologically sound book in the christian myth and as such it demands Calvinism. Which, as I said, is barbaric and morally bankrupt.
Guys, this is not a debate about whether or not Christianity is true. Last warning.
131.C Michael Patton on 27 Mar 2010 at 2:10 pm #
Guys, this is not a debate about whether or not Christianity is true. Last warning.
Yet when it comes to Christianity, this is really the only important question, or at least the ultimate one. All other questions or discussions about Christianity mean nothing unless this is and can be answered in the affirmative.
A little late to the discussion. I have very recently discovered that an alternative to Step 4 – “Apathy” is “engagement with other explanations of Christianity”. A very good friend of mine who has spent years as a committed Christian, has looked for answers in mythological based explanations of Christianity that espouse Christianity as being a “knock-off” religion. I think this is just as dangerous as apathy leading to departure, since it is commitment to a form of religion disguised as Christianity that undermines the very foundation of Christianity. It would be like building a house and calling it a boat and advertising it as a boat.
To be sure, the source of deviation was raised questions without sufficient answers and something else filled that hole.
Eric,
True, I guess that every post on this site could ultimately boil down to a debate about why there is something rather than nothing. But we need to keep some focus even though it will only appeal to a certain population with the same presuppositions. Those who don’t share in these presuppositions need to wait until the topic of the post deals with the issues they want to turn things to.
Chuck,
Re: 124
First off who gets to define “enlightened”?? This is a worldview issue as Hodge has pointed out. What might be enlightened to you might be ignorant to others.
As to your contention that “Christians” haven’t historically behaved any better then others I would suggest that much of this is due to a corruption of Christianity that entered in as the Church became married to the Roman Empire from Constantine onward. That being said there is a tendency I think among atheists to only focus on the negative. Yet there are many positive things done by religious. Any idea what the largest US based international relief organization is?? World Vision. Any idea who is bearing the vast majority of the burden for treating the epidemics of AIDS and poverty in Africa with money and boots on the ground?? Mostly religious organizations. It’s popular to only look to the Crusades to define Christianity (an event most Christian’s disavow btw, and wasn’t as cut and dry as it is portrayed from a historical perspective), yet this is but a small part of the story.
Chuck,
Re 125:
“I consider invisible things unseen and for something to claim invisibility yet also reality there must be an observable and consistent effect to ensure its truth”
I’m not sure what this has to do with the idea of the invisible church since it is a completely separate concept from the visible church. Now you might like being able to be the judge of who is the real Christian and who is not, but this basically amounts to saying you won’t believe in God because He doesn’t give you the knowledge you want and with it the ability to judge. Furthermore it has nothing to do with how “Christians” behave since many claiming to be “Christians” are not in fact so.
“And I conclude that the standard of veridicality to this claim is evidence to its flimsiness. Anyone can claim the holy spirit’s guidance whether there is real guidance or not.”
Anyone can claim “science” as their reason just as easily, from eugenics to that infomercial on TV for weight loss pills. Ultimately this is again an epistemological and worldview issue. Again your basically saying that because God doesn’t behave the way you want Him too He doesn’t exist.
Chuck,
Re: 129
That test is almost laughable because it can be applied to absolutely any belief to invalidate that belief. Don’t think so? Try applying the “outsider test” to the belief that the scientific method is the only way to know anything with certainty. It appears just as superstitious and ignorant to Christians, Muslims, Hindu’s, etc. as we do to you. I can’t think of a single belief (including all of those contained with in science) which would withstand the outsider test. Even belief in gravity would be superstitious and absurd from the outside position of some ultra-postmodern who says everything only exists in our own heads (science, religion, reality…..everything – think The Matrix).
Again, this is not a post about whether atheism or Christianity is true. Please temper your comments with this knowledge.
“You don’t get it. Sin is a concept that can only be real based on the theism expressing it and therefore is plainly circular and question begging. What falsifiable standard do you use to identify the pathogenesis of sin?”
Chuck, I’m sorry, but the one who doesn’t get it is you. Question begging would apply if one were saying “sin exists because sin exists,” “theism is true because sin exists,” “sin exists because theism is true,” etc. No one was making an argument. Everyone begs the question when it comes to their beliefs, but this is a misapplication and abuse of the fallacy. The fallacy applies to someone making an argument, not an observation based in what they say are their beliefs.
“There is good evidence and bad evidence. Evidence that can be tested and held to a testable standard over repeated experimentation is good evidence. The inner witness of an invisible force or appeal to the mythology of bronze age people is bad evidence.”
Perfect example of my point. Good evidence and bad evidence in regard to whether reality is only physical rather than both physical and metaphysical? No, My Friend, there is only data interpreted by how you a priori answer that question. Now we really are at question begging, and you’ve given us a prime example of it here.
Your claim that I begged the question is refuted by what I said before. If you want to hold that definition then everyone who thinks a thought based on a belief, which is all thought, is begging the question at all times. This is just a ridiculous application of what is only a fallacy if used to substantiate a claim.
“I don’t believe christianity true because it doesn’t match reality. I prefer reality and truth to insular and self-possessed superstition.”
This is where you really should apply the fallacy, as you are assuming the nature of reality without claiming that you merely believe reality to be of such a nature.
“Surely you must admit that people can change world-views. I suppose you did when you became a Christian. I did when I left Christianity.”
They do so via belief, not based on evidence. That was my point. They may switch beliefs (although I believe my switch was a supernatural one given to me), but they do not do so based on evidence. If they believe evidence changed their minds, they have failed to grasp that presuppositions that determined the interpretation of that data was either always consistent with their conclusions and they did not know it, or they changed their ultimate beliefs somewhere midstream, and once again, were unaware of it.
“As for objectivity, I agree that there is no such thing as true objectivity. I would argue that you are not objective either. You may argue that your God possesses objectivity but you are not God. Your understanding of your God is subjective; it is based on your subjective understanding of what you believe he has said in the Bible. The fact that there are hundreds of different sects of Christianity each with a different understanding of the Bible is proof of the subjectivity involved.”
Well, of course, the if one believes the Bible then he or she also believes that God can communicate accurately even through the subjective. He is not bound to our limitations. So there cannot be a hybrid view, where I must naturally understand God through my own lost subjectivity. God communicates that to His people sufficiently as one who is objective and transcendent. He is outside the cave and communicate with those inside. I therefore believe all of Christianity, not half of it. My belief, of course, from the standpoint of knowledge is subjective, as all are.
“While I don’t believe true objectivity is possible, I do believe we should strive for it by recognizing our biases and seeking to understand the reasons why others may disagree with our positions.”
I agree, via recognition of their beliefs, not the myth of fact…
. . . not via the myth of fact versus faith.
Oops didn’t see your comments CMP. While I think this is an important discussion and I wish it would be allowed to continue I will respect your wishes.
Chuck,
If you were a full five pointer then you would know that the outsiders test doesn’t phase the Calvinist, as he already believes that God sets people in various places according to His divine decree. I would not expect Him to place a large majority of people who will believe in a given area, unless He planned to convert them through missionary activity, that ran counter to influences toward faith that He eventually wanted them to have. In other words, that He exposes those he wants to become Christians to Christianity is the most consistent witness to Calvinistic Christianity that I can think of. I’m not sure why you thought this was so grand if you were a consistent Calvinist. Why don’t you tell us the real reasons you left Chuck?
Second to this, if you don’t care so much about what people believe then why are you here arguing strenuously against Christians and their superstitious beliefs? Thou dost protest too much.
“Calvinist Christianity (yes Hodge I was one full five pointer TULIP – Evangelical Bible Fellowship, Evanston, IL) was nothing more than a fear-based control belief predicated on shoddy history and accumulated superstition.”
And so you are playing out your own presupps here. What a beautiful summary of the postmodern narrative into which you have been indoctrinated.
Sorry, Michael. I was working my way down the comments and just bumped into your last one. I’ll end my comments on this subject. Thanks again.
There are so many reasons people leave. Sometimes it is intellectual (the path mostly described above) but sometimes it is simply rebellion. Sometimes people just don’t want to follow God. The world does a pretty good job of making sin look attractive.
I think one way that Christians can keep our children in the faith is to have happy homes that have a lot of fun. Teach our children games. Laugh. Enjoy good food. Good conversation. Good friends. If the church is stoic and austere while the world is fun and lively…..there will be people leaving….regardless of their head knowledge.
131.C Michael Patton on 27 Mar 2010 at 2:10 pm #
Guys, this is not a debate about whether or not Christianity is true. Last warning.
132. EricW on 27 Mar 2010 at 2:34 pm #
Yet when it comes to Christianity, this is really the only important question, or at least the ultimate one. All other questions or discussions about Christianity mean nothing unless this is and can be answered in the affirmative.
134.C Michael Patton on 27 Mar 2010 at 2:54 pm #
Eric,
True, I guess that every post on this site could ultimately boil down to a debate about why there is something rather than nothing. But we need to keep some focus even though it will only appeal to a certain population with the same presuppositions. Those who don’t share in these presuppositions need to wait until the topic of the post deals with the issues they want to turn things to.
CMP: That’s not what I was saying. I’m saying that unless Christianity is true – not why there is something rather than nothing – all discussions about Christianity that depend on it being true (which is pretty much every discussion here) are meaningless. It would be like debating what Snow White should believe and do in order to marry the Prince; i.e., it would be the stuff of imagination and fairy tales. If Christianity is not true, then the debates and discussions about Calvinism, people leaving the faith, cessationism, etc., are like debates and discussions about video game strategies.
So I assume everyone engaging here believes that Christianity is true. Otherwise, they should probably be playing videogames or reading fairly tales instead. 🙂
So I assume everyone engaging here believes that Christianity is true. Otherwise, they should probably be playing videogames or reading fairly tales instead.
Exceptions to this statement of mine (only partly in jest) would, I think, be threads like this one, where the discussion of why people leave the faith almost by default raises the question of whether or not Christianity is true, because I suspect that many who leave the faith do so because they no longer believe it’s true, whether they went through 1, 2, 3, 4 or all 5 of CMP’s steps. And if a leaver like Ken enters the discussion, I suspect the bottom line for him or her is that Christianity is not true, and dwelling on all other aspects of why people leave to the exclusion of this are ignoring what to them is the Big Elephant in the Room – i.e., the falseness of Christianity.
Forgive me if this has been said as there are too many replies to read them all fully but I believe that the major reason people “leave” their faith is that they had no idea of the true gospel. Those who sit under preachers like Joel Olstein will be a prime target for leaving. When Santa Claus Jesus doesn’t fulfill all that they think he should, then he failed them. Most people do not truly comprehend what it means to pick up your cross! You need to grow in the faith that God’s ways are higher and yet he will give to you what is good. He knows what is good. It was good for Joseph to be thrown in a pit and then be sold into slavery and languish in prison for something he didn’t do. God was working out Joseph’s preparation to be royalty even though he had no idea for years why he was going through all this. Yet so many of today’s ‘believers” would leave the faith because Jesus didn’t work out something that they felt he should have in their way and their timing! The crux of most people leaving is not understanding the way of the cross!
Leaving is the form of final failure to commit. Those leaving Christ never knew Him, otherwise they would have found Him to be true to a “fault” and without hypocrisy, MUCH unlike the institutional church today. For the greater part of church history, the division of the church has resembled what takes place biologically with cancer cells. Out of control division creates a body unrecognizable in its death spiral. I would submit the woman who was honest enough to realize she was tired of listening to all the religious rhetoric without seeing transformation in the lives of those spouting it, is more likely to come back at some point rather than someone continuing to visit the congregational setting out of some superstitious ritual because he/she has friends and family there. When the Messiah of the World and His disciples lived, taught, and trained the early church in the way of Judaism and the current Christian world considers itself superior to “the Way”, of course the hypocrisy is blatantly turning seekers to others who will at least be “real”. Christianity has somewhat systematized discipleship into a religion of insecure ostriches afraid of their own shadows because they have left their first love. God have mercy on us!