“Perhaps the issue lies in the difference between your wife and a philosophy for life? You assess them in different ways?”

Where is the separation you propose? If philosophy of life is derived from truth (reality, identity, who my wife is, etc.), I’m not sure I see how the two can be assessed differently. What is the standard for assessing philosophy of life if not truth?

The relational aspects of my knowledge of who my wife is cannot be quantified in the same way that science is primarily concerned with (objectivity). While science is a wonderful epistemological tool, it is only part of the picture. I would even go so far as to say that it is a solid foundation, but without building on it, it is just a concrete slab.

ESVA,
“I think many of us here agree that most people deconvert from various theisms primarily for rational reasons. ”

And I would have to agree that this is by far the most common reason! I agree whole heartedly. This is greatly due to a negligence of communicating biblical truth to INCLUDE rationalism along with other aspects of faith instead of the ONLY or PRIMARY aspect of faith.

For example, as the enlightenment gained steam, pastors and theologians adapted by communicating their message as objective truth. Well, the bible communicates objective truth, but very much through a subjective lens. The results of this have been an overemphasized literal translation (creation account in Genesis, for example) and direct comparison to scientific truth. The bible, however, was never meant to be a legal brief or scientific analysis. It is not lesser than science, it is a wholly different animal (“comparing apples to oranges”).

That said, neither is “wrong.” We can trust the observable evidence in the world around us, and we can trust the narrative of scripture.

“In short, even though my decision to deconvert was rational, it was not coldly so.”

ESVA, the last thing I want to be heard saying is that the decisions of those who deconvert are not rational, or that they are cold or robotic. I greatly appreciate the struggle and long road traveled to reach where you are. I sincerely apologize if that was how I came off, it truly was not my intention. I certainly see that your rational decision was not divorced from your heart, indeed I imagine it was greatly MOTIVATED by it. Without knowing the specifics of your journey, I suspect it had something to do with a tradition you were taught that emphasized the objectiveness of scripture itself (which is only partly true), and when it stood against the rational scientific, it did not line up. I would contend that this is not because scripture/Christianity is not “true,” only that how you were told it communicates truth is not true.

Dr. Jack Collins (BS and MS, MIT) wrote an excellent book, “Science and Faith: Friends or Foes” addressing (among others) this topic. I highly recommend it, as it is far more effective in explaining this than I.

For one thing, exquisitely constructed arguments are often identified by their resemblance to appropriate “forms.” They don’t always adhere strictly to the “model” forms we learned in logic courses, just as Beethoven’s symphonies sometimes expanded upon the bare-bones structures of sonata-allegro forms. Nevertheless, the underlying the structures of both Beethoven’s symphonies and clear logical arguments can be detected and examined. These structures have aesthetic qualities. They are carefully constructed rather than random.

For another thing, Occam’s Razor applies to art, music, etc., just as much as it does to logic. A great jazz artist, Charles Mingus, said (I’m paraphrasing, but this is pretty close): Anyone can make the simple complex; the trick is to make the complex simple.

In closing, I will say that, even though my deconversion was a rational decision (I wasn’t angry at anyone in the church, I wasn’t undergoing any kind of personal or spiritual crisis, etc.), it was, when I finally arrived at that point, accompanied by a strong emotion of relief. Moreover, this relief came after a period of grieving as I underwent the inner self-examination process that accompanied my rational evaluation of various arguments, apologetics, etc. In short, even though my decision to deconvert was rational, it was not coldly so.

I think that it is REALLY important in discussion of this topic to really define “evidence.” If balanced emotional attachment can be a good thing, then it must also qualify as “evidence.”

Now, if someone’s grandparent dies, and their body lies in the casket, no amount of “feeling that they are alive” will change the reality of their death. Thus a “balanced” emotional attachment is necessary.

“But there again, emotion must be involved and it may be impossible to make a totally objective decision.”

We are subjective creatures. We have no choice but to view the world with the lens that we have been given. Impersonal objective perception is not only impossible, but I would contend, undesirable. I am not anti-science by any stretch, nor do I overemphasize the emotional (indeed, I feel I lack heart-felt attachment sometimes), yet there must be a balance struck. A degree of objectivity is absolutely important, but it can never be divorced from an appreciation for experience and emotion.

“Emotion may be an important glue in holding us to a faith and in motivating us, but arguably reason and science should be the major basis for selecting a philosophy for life (?and eternity).”

And that is the basic premise that I would contend with. Does your objective knowledge of your wife’s DNA, anatomy, or neurological function help you understand who she is? Or, if you aren’t married, carry the example to any of your other relationships. Augustine said, “I believe in order to know.” There is much knowledge that requires a certain amount of risk and relationship to attain. While truth is certainly objective, we cannot engage it apart from our subjective perception (while understanding the characteristics of that subjectivity).

In the same way, the truth of your wife (or other relationship) is objective: she exists in a specific way apart from your subjective perception and is not altered by it. However, to understand her fully, you absolutely must engage her subjectively. Again, both subjective and objective knowledge are incomplete by themselves, but each will help and grow your understanding of the other.

nd I think that most of us don’t initially make attachments to a faith on the basis of science/reason alone. We are humans and respond because having faith meets some needs. When de-converting after a long time, I suspect that most of us are making a more conscious and objective decision. But there again, emotion must be involved and it may be impossible to make a totally objective decision. Perhaps we can aim to make a decision to de-convert, hoping to be nearer to the objective end of the continuum than to the subjective one.

Emotion may be an important glue in holding us to a faith and in motivating us, but arguably reason and science should be the major basis for selecting a philosophy for life (?and eternity).

A very interesting article. I particularly like the parallel examples between Loch Ness and faith in general.

I guess my question has to do with an unspoken premise: that emotional attachment is necessarily a bad thing. The heart divorced from reason is dangerous and unstable at best, but the mind divorced from emotional attachment is.. well… cold and robotic.

Neither should be held alone. I don’t know that it is even possible, as both thinking and feeling beings, to hold to one exclusively. Adrian Shine, while embarking on a quest for objective truth, had to have been QUITE emotionally attached to his pursuit! Otherwise, there would have been no reason to continue for so many years. The most driven and critical scientist is driven by love of their field, or the thrill of discovering new things (or maybe they just really love lab coats…).

The question doesn’t seem to be an issue of whether or not one is emotionally attached, but what we are emotionally attached to. If that is the case, what is the standard for judging the “worthiness” of what we are attached to? Does one evaluate that scientifically/rationally/objectively? Is that even possible?

I spent more than a decade sliding from evangelical Christianity to liberal Christianity to a de facto Deism and finally to atheism. That final step was the toughest one because I eventually had to admit that my “rock solid” worldview was based on quicksand. I think Karen nailed me with her idea about people sliding into liberalism because that’s a lot more comfortable than tossing out the entire Christian framework. It’s only comfortable, however, if one is willing to keep up with the mental gymnastics required to hold on to any theistic faith. Now that I’ve let go of the faith, I’m enjoying a totally new, invigorating intellectual and moral journey.