Reasons for my de-conversion (1 of 4)
October 24, 2009
I spent over 25 years as a Christian, and for most of those years I was quite happy. I forged many significant relationships, and learned much while within a Christian community. I do not feel, as do some non-believers who have never been on the inside, that Christians are, as a whole, evil people intent on forcing their agenda on others. I do, however, believe that most Christians are uninterested in an honest inquiry into what is true due to vested interests of various emotions. I will detail these emotions later.
First, I must comment on what I feel is the greatest overlooked truth when considering knowledge and belief; human minds are not well-equipped to assess what is true. This is in stark contrast to the tacit Christian notion that all truths that matter are immediately accessible to nearly every human without much cognitive effort. Let me elaborate.
Religious sects all around the world subscribe to a set of beliefs that set them apart from other sects. They then claim that these “truths” within their faith are either accessible through common sense, common rationality, or divine revelation. This forces them to conclude that persons in all other sects are self-delusional, and rebelling against the truth that is apparent either through reason or divine revelation. It is assumed that these persons feel some sort of guilt stemming from their rebellion or rejection of truth.
However, this assumption is testable. If Christians were to befriend Muslims, they would discover that this is not true. The Muslims do not possess this sense of guilt, and instead possess the same deep confidence in the tenets of their faith as do Christians. Persons who have spent time among persons of another faith normally do not find people who are evil, bitter and guilty, but rather persons who possess a faith that constructs a society of familial and social warmth without the guilt stemming from rejecting the “true” god.
So there exists this game played among religious sects in which they refuse to examine the minds of others, and instead assume that they know better. They assume this because their respective religious texts have told them it is true. This is just one of many assumptions that I’ll discuss later that religionists accept on blind faith.
When someone discovers that this assumption of guilt and general malevolence in others is false, there is only one other conclusion; the human capacity to assess what is true and false is dysfunctional and deficient. The human mind has no natural ability to correctly assess truths that extend very far outside our local daily lives. What is intuitive does not well-correlate with what is true.
This can be very easily seen in the way humans assess risks. We fear flying, but have no problem with a cholesterol-laden diet that is far more likely to kill. We have to ponder carefully even the simplest of syllogisms, and are often still in error.
However, most religions, including Christianity affirm the notion that we are fully capable of assessing intuitively, or with souls that directly interface with some spiritual realm, which god if any is real without considerable training in critical thinking. This is simply not true. Our own ability is essentially identical to the ability of persons belonging to sects that we claim are clearly wrong. There is no evil rebellion against the truth of god, only a lamentable cognitive inadequacy of humans.
To claim otherwise as a mature adult who should have by now identified this inherent flaw in faith-based assertions is to reveal one’s own xenophobic inexperience and arrogance. This arrogance is a hallmark of extant religions. Human cognition is inherently weak. This notion is not very palatable to many since it implies that truth is best assessed by those who have been trained in reasoning. Nonetheless, it is demonstrably true.
Because successful religions must appeal to the masses, these religions all possess scriptures that invert this notion. The wise become foolish, and the foolish wise. This is one of the most powerful lies of religion; you can intuit truth. This unduly credits human cognition with enormous power. Human cognition is never questioned when assessing truth.
Coupled with this is an over-reliance on the emotion of confidence. We “feel” that something is true, and therefore it is true. The hidden assumption here is that this sense of confidence is god-given. God gives us this confidence to bear witness that we are sons of god. Once again, many Christians arrogantly assume that this same emotion of confidence cannot exist in the hearts of Muslims, and that they are knowingly in rebellion to the truth. After all, that’s what the bible tells us, does it not?
This now brings us to faith. Faith is not a virtue. The concept of faith as something noble is incoherent. Christians decry the faith of Muslims, but praise their own. However, the emotions are identical. Much like the concept of intercessory prayer, the concept of faith is defined differently even by persons within the same congregation and morphs evasively whenever it is questioned.
I’ve even corresponded with a quite notable apologist on the definition of faith never to receive a clear answer. Yet, it is positioned as the cornerstone of many religions. When asking 50 Christians “where does evidence end, and faith begin?” there will be 50 answers. So also with their interpretations of Hebrews 11:1. It is a stop-gap that allows the “faithful” to smugly fall back on when the evidence for their faith thins under scrutiny.
Faith has no virtue. Holding a belief in Santa as a little child is cute as best, and becomes pitiful if held past adolescence. Yet, such faith is encouraged in respect to the local god. And children with their under-developed rationality end up accepting the god of their parents with nearly no exceptions. If there were a god giving special revelation to the “foolish”, this would not be true. A number of children in Saudi Arabia would reject the god of their parents to accept the “true” god of Christianity on account of special revelation. This does not happen.
- Phil Stilwell
Entry Filed under: Phil Stilwell. Tags: christianity, de-conversion story, deconversion, religion.
15 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Submit your de-Conversion story
Top Posts
SU Users: StumbleUpon It!!
Just in case you were wondering 
hyumen
CrimsonMai
Simen
HeIsSailing
karen
The Apostate
The de-Convert
lostgirlfound
athinkingman
LeoPardus
carriedthecross
mysteryofiniquity
Lyndon
the chaplain
Richard
exevangel
confusedchristian
Jersey
evanescent
writerdd
Quester
deconversion
Gary
rfogue
Justin
orDover
Jeffrey
Joshua
Laura
neece
Phil Stilwell
1.
orDover | October 24, 2009 at 1:09 am
I agree that faith is not a virtue, especially if we’re talking about a blind sort of faith rather than an earned trust. I’ve challenged many Christians to explain to me why faith in God is considered a virtue when faith is something else, like, say, Nigerian Kings who want to make you rich if you give them your social security number and bank account information, is consider gullible and irresponsible. Why is “believing without seeing” ever a good thing?
2.
atimetorend | October 24, 2009 at 4:53 am
While intuitive thinking is something we all need to do every day, it is confusing that with the soul, or claiming that critical thinking should be subservient to intuition that causes so much confusion. The same thing as with faith as you mention in your last paragraph, elevating faith above critical thinking. You did a really great job of explaining those concepts.
3.
mikespeir | October 24, 2009 at 7:18 am
Interesting and well written. But I have a couple of concerns.
“This forces them to conclude that persons in all other sects are self-delusional, and rebelling against the truth that is apparent either through reason or divine revelation.”
I wonder if you’re not projecting Christianity onto other religions here. Now, I spent a year in Turkey, so I think I can say with some measure of assurance that Muslims are this way. I suspect it would also be true of Jews. How about Buddhists? I spent a year in Korea, too, but I have to admit that I never got close enough to any Korean Buddhists or shamanists to be able to answer that question.
Second, you seem to call faith an emotion. It may be a quibble, but why?
BTW, I think Hebrews 11:6 tells us more about Christian faith than 11:1, but that might be off-topic.
4.
Xtine | October 24, 2009 at 11:58 am
The problem with discussions with apologists is that, yes, they are willing to dig and examine their faith deeply, but ultimately it still comes down to faith – and if others don’t come to the same common sensed, or examined, faith as their own, the skeptic/non-believer just hasn’t dug deep enough. Apologists are some of the most stubborn in their faith though they acknowledge and are aware of every reason to not have faith. In the process of defending their faith to the world, they have defended their faith to themselves – which is nearly impossible to get around. Reason and logic skips a beat when jumping from rational truth to faith.
All Truth pointed to Christ, if a person was willing to see it. Most other faiths used the same argument, but ultimately true Truth seekers would find their way to Christ. (I don’t think Buddhists are as prone to this.) I learned that there was lower-case truth and upper-case Truth. I also learned to not respect apologists, though for the rational thinking Christian apologetics was a tempting route to go. Apologists water down faith while clinging to it as irrationally as those who don’t examine their faith. I almost prefer the unexamined faith to the over-examined.
Looking forward to future posts!
5.
Brian | October 26, 2009 at 10:23 am
I remember listening to a sermon on Christian radio one time where a pastor / theology professor asked his Christian students, “How do you know Jesus is God.” And most of them answered some variation of, “Well because, I have faith” or “Well, because I believe it.” And I’ve gotta give this guy credit because he challenged that stupid answer and said, “Is it true simply because you believe it, or do you believe it because it’s true?”
Unfortunately the speaker didn’t take it to the next logical step of, “How do you KNOW it’s true so that you can have faith in it?” That’s a question no credible Christian has been able to answer beyond “I just know.” Okay great, so do all the Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons out there.
6.
Phil Stilwell | October 27, 2009 at 5:46 am
Mikespeir asked “Second, you seem to call faith an emotion. It may be a quibble, but why?”
You’ve probably noted how people, in an attempt to ennoble their notion of “love”, add arbitrary or artificial criteria, stipulations and ontological frameworks. Yet at its very basic meaning, love remains simply an emotion.
So also with this emotional confidence called “faith” that is evoked to transcend the available evidence. It is irrational to go beyond the evidence, yet the warm fuzzy confidence somehow makes it feel right.
The biblical authors and other humans have attempted to place this emotion into a framework to give it a dignity that might somehow transcend the gullible faith of children in Santa, but as it is used conventionally by theists, “faith” remains primarily an emotion that is evoked to combat the cognitive dissonance that stems from incoherent or inconsistent scriptures, and invoked as something noble to combat the “ignoble” dependence of skeptics on reasoned evidence.
7.
mile high | October 27, 2009 at 11:00 am
“A number of children in Saudi Arabia would reject the god of their parents to accept the “true” god of Christianity on account of special revelation. This does not happen.”
I agree with your post. As you dig deeper into Christianity, the teaching becomes increasingly inconsistent with reality. Cognitive dissonance must be ignored to continue in the belief system. However- I do know of many former Muslims who came to faith in Christ through dream & visions, ‘revelation’ if you will. These people claim that Jesus came and spoke to them, leading to their conversion. So yes, it does happen even if it may be imagined.
Any thoughts?
8.
Phil Stilwell | October 27, 2009 at 11:26 am
Yes. Most Christians are unfamiliar with Muhammad. In contrast, most Muslims know much about Jesus as he was mentioned in the Koran (2: 87; 5: 110-117), and spoken about in mosques. Given this familiarity and the harsh reality of an Islamic lifestyle, visions of this sort are to be expected. An analogy is the sharp increase in the number of sightings of big-eyed aliens only after pictures of such aliens were popularized across America. Whenever you combine superficial knowledge with millions of malleable minds, you’ll have some interesting outliers.
9.
mile high | October 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Thanks for the insight Phil. I’d actually like to read more about the claims of Muslim dreams about Jesus if there is anything out there. Friends of mine claim it is happening all of the time, so I would like to have more information. Any links would be helpful.
10.
Phil Stilwell | October 27, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Thanks, Mile High. I’d be interested in the evidence that your friend can provide. It sounds like it may be another embellished claim.
My information comes largely from the guys from the Saudi Embassy whom I hang out with here in Tokyo. I’ll see if they have more to say on this.
11.
Joe | October 27, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Phil—
Just out of curiosity, since you mentioned it in #8—-is there a belief in alien abduction in Japan? Since the Japanese seem to always take something that was invented and make it better, I am curious if the same has happened with the alien abduction stories over there—–are they better than the ones here? :>)
12.
Phil Stilwell | October 27, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Hi Joe,
The Japanese already have an abundant taxonomy of unique monsters and myths. But most of them are spoken about very light-heartedly. Japanese television does pull from western myths, but these myths seem to not take on the same cognitive depth of reality.
13.
Joe | October 28, 2009 at 11:06 am
Phil—
Thanks. To this day every time I see Japanese twin women I expect a giant moth to show up.
14.
Joshua | October 28, 2009 at 11:35 am
Friends of mine claim it is happening all of the time, so I would like to have more information
Goodness, I hear that it is happening “all the time” myself.
Then I had my own story about a dream that blew my mind.
When I was around 10 I had an extremely spiritual dream. I have never forgotten it and have written it down in detail several times over the years. Each time I go back and read a previous writing about the dream, my memories remain accurate.
Then one day I told the dream to a lady friend of mine. Apparently she “remembered” it.
Then, when I left the faith, she came back to me and said “Josh, do you remember the dream you had?” She then proceeded to tell me my own dream. Except it was so convoluted and twisted I did not even recognize it and thought that maybe she got it confused with something else.
Goodness, I thought, if I can tell someone something and then a month later they come back and tell me what I told them and it is all messed up – on something as crucial as a dream… how can I trust any of these second hand spiritual stories coming from other countries?
It completely destroyed my trust of anything second hand – especially as it relates to spiritual experiences.
15.
mile high | October 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Joshua,
Yeah, it’s hard to know if the stories are reliable. I did actually interview someone first hand, a person who had the Jesus dream and changed faiths. That person knew others who had a similar dream. Many of the stories we hear turn out to be embellshed over time, so it’s worth looking at the source (if it’s available).