I listened to the conversation below of two young men, one who, as they call it nowadays “deconverted” from Christianity. You’ll see why that’s an inaccurate term, but I decided I was going to e-mail him (his e-mail is on his website, Counter Apologetics). The reason I am posting the e-mail here is because it’s a great object lesson for Christians living in a thoroughly secular culture.
Greetings, Emerson!
I listened to your conversation with Zac and found it fascinating. I will say right up front, I do appreciate your backhanded compliment of we Calvinists. You get our theology wrong about what God does and does not do in predestination, but at least you have a grudging respect for us:)
As I was listening, it was pretty clear what you don’t believe, but I couldn’t quite figure out what you do believe. On the Youtube page, it says you are discussing some of your biggest reasons for rejecting theism. So then, I assume you believe in atheism? And you find a God-less universe more plausible than a universe created by Almighty God? I could see that in the 19th century, and maybe into the early 20th, but a merely material universe is a much tougher sell today.
Anyway, at one point, I think you said something like you are a non-believer or unbeliever. I’m sure you realize there is no such thing as an unbeliever (a title of a future book, God willing). So, I’m curious what you actually do believe. I’ve found people who “de-convert” don’t seem to understand they are not going from belief to non-belief. Such a thing isn’t possible. They are going from one set of beliefs to another set of beliefs, just like you have. You seem far too intelligent and well-read to think you are an unbeliever, but I would be interested to hear/read you defend your current beliefs and worldview. I see you have a podcast on your website, a debate with a Catholic (I hate debates, btw) where you defend the notion that God “probably does not exist.” So, maybe you consider yourself an agnostic? That is still a belief and worldview based on faith.
This idea that people who reject Christianity go from faith to non-faith was the inspiration for my first book called, The Persuasive Christian Parent. In May of 2015 I read a piece online about a young lady who grew up in a Christian home, very dedicated, went off to UVA, and promptly punted her faith. I thought to myself, that would never happen to my children! So, I decided to write a book about it. They didn’t call it “deconversion” back then, which is a misnomer because Lyndsay only de-converted from Christianity. She converted to agnosticism, as best I could tell. It would be more accurate to say she rejected Christianity and the Christian worldview and embraced some other faith and worldview. She clearly didn’t understand she went from one faith to another, and most people who leave or reject Christianity don’t seem to get this.
The reason I listened to your conversation with Zac was because of the title. I discuss something in the book made famous by the late sociologist Peter Berger called plausibility structures. You’re probably familiar with the concept. I argue that most people don’t leave the Christian faith for another faith for intellectual reasons (e.g., not enough evidence for the resurrection), but because it no longer seems plausible to them. So, when Lyndsay went away to college, her Christianity no longer seemed real to her, and the worldview of the secular university seemed more real. Christianity was no longer plausible to her, and another worldview was. I would argue it is the same for you, although you have a plethora of reasons, most of which appear to me extremely weak.
I’m quite certain you haven’t fully examined the assumptions that go into those reasons. In your discussion with Zac, you were consistently guilty of begging the question. Non-Christians do this all the time as from their high horse they pronounced imperial judgment on Christianity and find it wanting. Lewis nailed this, as he does most everything, in his introduction to Miracles related to the text of the Bible:
It is no use going to the texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts: we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question.
As I say in my latest book, Uninvented, there has been a LOT of time wasting in the last several hundred years. Non-Christians, with rare exceptions, ever bring the same intense scrutiny to their worldview and beliefs. They simply go along their merry begging-the-question-way as if every belief doesn’t have some alternative that needs to be defended. If we’re honest and see things as they actually are, we’ll have to admit the burden of proof is on everybody! I call this “the consideration of the alternative” because rejecting one belief means we’re embracing an alternative. The question for me is always, is the alternative more plausible, reasonable, have more evidence, etc. to put faith in it? It’s why I’m a Christian and have beein since the fall of 1978(!).
If you’d ever like to chat about these things, I’d be happy to do that. As I said, I’m no fan of debates, but I am a big fan of having conversations about deep, significant things. I’ll leave you with a quote by ex-atheist Lewis I put on the front of my book, which captures why Christianity is by far the best explanation for reality as we find it, warts and all (few ever address “the problem of the good,” which is a huge problem for the materialist, as is the “problem of evil”):
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.
Bingo! Life without Christ is all puzzle pieces that never fit, with him, they do! Not perfectly of course, but far better than any other puzzle. As I argue in the book, without him, life is a Woody Allen movie.
Thanks for your time.
Recent Comments