Fine, Ill read Romans (again, as Ive read it many times). In exchange, Ill ask you to go back and read the original essay again, including and especially #21. Therein I explain and predict your experience and mine, including being angry at things that dont exist.

Take care,

Richard

Read Romans 1. Isn’t it odd Paul was able to explain and predict exactly what you feel?

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. As I see it, there is no conflict here so long as one accepts, explicitly or implicitly, a kind of fallibilism — i.e., a recognition that one’s opinion can be wrong.

You said: “So if they now honestly believe that their rejection of the rules of that system could place them outside the purview of the living God, then did they really believe in that system to begin with?”

But a deconvert is not just rejecting the rules. He is changing his or her mind about the very existence of the basis or ground of those rules. What he rejects is the rules **because he rejects the basis for those rules** —- he rejects the entire system, whole cloth. Of course, he may be wrong, and may still be subject to those rules no matter what his opinion. But the, so too can the believer be wrong. The point is, all we have is our own opinions about what the truth is.

In other words, all the deconvert has done is change his mind. Again, he may be wrong, but that was also true before. So yes, he truly, honestly did believe, just as he truly, honestly now does not.

A somewhat stupid analogy, but one that I think makes the point, is if all your life you never squashed a spider because your beleive the spider-god will get you if you do. Then, you deconvert from this “faith.” So its not that you just want to squash spiders now and just dont care about the rules. Its that you now think those rules are entirely man-made and thus never had any authority in the first place, even though you used to.

“So perhaps we have incommensurable perspectives here.”

That very well may be the case, however (and I am more or less verbally processing here) I want to run one more thing past you.

“If I still believe in the fundamentalist God, and am angry at him and reject him, then by the rules of that system, yes, that’s a bad thing. But the de-convert is more or less by definition no longer in that system, and no longer accepts those “rules” as valid.”

Here is the rub. The “fundamentalist” belief system trusts in a God who lives, acts, and redeems independent of the believer. So if they now honestly believe that their rejection of the rules of that system could place them outside the purview of the living God, then did they really believe in that system to begin with?

To put it another way, if I subscribe to a belief system that says Antarctica exists independent of my believing in it or not, but then reject that system of belief because I no longer believe Antarctica exists, then could I have ever really believed Antarctica existed outside myself?

Understand that I am making no claim whatsoever to anyone I have interacted with here, I am just asking your honest opinion if you think there is a potential problem here with this line of thinking.

Mike

I can assure you that *you* get angry for reasons that are “irrational”, and if you think you dont, youre kidding yourself. Which many, perhaps most, fundamentalists do. Which is half the reason I left it. Its psychologically dishonest.

The predicates “rational” and “irrational” apply poorly to emotions. Thats also the point.

I think so.

Mike – You said : “Anger at God may lead to apostasy, but it is certainly no justification for it.”

True, maybe, in the fundamentalist belief system, but we are talking about people already outside of that system. If I still believe in the fundamentalist God, and am angry at him and reject him, then by the rules of that system, yes, that’s a bad thing. But the de-convert is more or less by definition no longer in that system, and no longer accepts those “rules” as valid. So perhaps we have incommensurable perspectives here. And I still reject the implication that emotion is that determinative of belief. If the IRS audits you and harasses you, makes you mad, do you or could you stop believing they exist? My larger point is that emotion accompanies everything we think or do, and we should make our peace with that.

JustCant & Karen – I agree entirely that the “anger” accusation rarely comes across as especially caring. More likely, as karen mentioned, it has to do with explaining away apostasy, which I agree is indeed very frightening, or at least incomprehensible, to believers. Most systems of thought tend to find a way to explain disagreement with the system – usually in terms of the system (which is obviously question-begging) and Christianity is no different.

Im actually writing a post on this very issue, but in brief, I think it runs roughly like this: fundamentalists feel very certain of their beliefs, which I submit is a reflection of the powerful way that belief system assuages basic human fears. For a fundamentalist to take the view of a non-believer seriously, to admit that a non-believer has good reasons for their position, is to admit doubt as to that certainty. If its reasonable to disagree, how can I be sure Im right? So it must be unreasonable. Liberal Christians tend to have no problem with nonbelievers, and are open to understanding their experience, in my view. Why? They dont hang their hats on being certain.

Boxofbirds – Good point. So we would need to get our hypothetical Christian interlocutor, in this situation, to clarify his implication.

My overarching point is to encourage and exhort former believers to make their peace with their emotional selves. God was a psychological reality for you, and he let you down by not answering your anguished prayers, not giving you the victory you were promised, for threatening you with Hell for minor transgressions, for not giving you a sense of his presence, for being punitive and distant…. and, in the end, by not existing. In much the same way that it is very, very common for widows and widowers to go through a period wherein they are angry at their late spouse for dying – “He left me!” – so too would it be normal if de-converts were angry at their former God. Not that anyone is necessarily angry, nor that that anger (if present) determined their belief. Only that it may have been present and would not be surprising if it were. Just be honest with yourself. No one is a paragon of rationality. Thats okay.

Emotions are ubiquitous, color all aspects of our experience, and always make sense if you understand what the issue or object in question means to the person.

Richard