Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"When a Christian foundation interviewed college nonbelievers about how and why they left religion, surprising themes emerged. [...]
- They had attended church
- The mission and message of their churches was vague
- They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions
- They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously
- Ages 14-17 were decisive
- The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one
- The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism
[...] ...these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable."
The politicization of religion also has a lot to do with it. Young people are liberal and they can't relate to a religion that demands they vote Republican. I don't think ages 14-17 are as decisive as 18-25. Most college freshmen who start out Christian will be atheist by the time they receive their diploma. There are so many Christian teenagers who have been in youth group their entire life, saved and baptized before age 10, who will go to college unable to defend the faith they grew up with and will lose it.
The politicization of religion also has a lot to do with it. Young people are liberal and they can't relate to a religion that demands they vote Republican. I don't think ages 14-17 are as decisive as 18-25. Most college freshmen who start out Christian will be atheist by the time they receive their diploma. There are so many Christian teenagers who have been in youth group their entire life, saved and baptized before age 10, who will go to college unable to defend the faith they grew up with and will lose it.
Agreed ... college takes a lot of 'em out. Like you, I'd think it would be more decisive than one's high school years. You are not living with your parents, in general they are not in touch with you on a daily basis micromanaging you, and college is just a wide open deal compared to high school.
Before the 1960's, skipping or skimping on college was still an option for a lot of Christian young people, but to compete in a technological society it became unavoidable. Conservative denominations combatted this in two ways -- people like Josh McDowell wrote their pseudo-intellectual apologetics, such as Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which was pushed on HS students to "innoculate" them. And churches redoubled their sponsorship of "Christian colleges", where in loco parentis was pushed in an effort to make students feel the Watchful Eye of parental authority. But the apologetics did not actually make a good case and Christian colleges soon found that the accreditation process let too much of the secular world in -- plus a busy, underfunded bureaucracy is no substitute for helicopter parents.
The subtitle was "Lessons For A Stronger Christianity" which suggests that the purpose of the study was to learn how to more effectively prevent defections from faith. It also implies that corrections by these faiths based on what was learned, might help in re recruitment.
If the faith departure realization was...."this dogma with which I have been indoctrinated is clearly false", then why would anyone return simply because the presentation has been improved? The doctrines would remain false. I think that someone who bounced between belief and non belief on the basis of such considerations, was probably never a true believer or non believer, merely someone looking for someone else to supply the answers. As such it hardly matters whether he or she is an atheist or not.
I also have my suspicions raised by this finding:
Quote:
The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one
Do atheists "embrace" non belief? Do atheists use that sort of language to describe their conclusions about the workings of the cosmos? That sounds to me like the way the religious minded like to think of atheism, just another version of a faith.
I wonder about the process of recruiting the study subjects. We recently had a thread about people's "conversion" to atheism and while there were some who described it as an emotional experience, the majority described it as a rational decision process. I would think the question presented in a scientifically designed survey would yield a clear majority who described the decision to stop believing as just that....a decision, not a catharsis. So perhaps the deck was a bit stacked by those conducting this survey.
If the faith departure realization was...."this dogma with which I have been indoctrinated is clearly false", then why would anyone return simply because the presentation has been improved? The doctrines would remain false. I think that someone who bounced between belief and non belief on the basis of such considerations, was probably never a true believer or non believer, merely someone looking for someone else to supply the answers. As such it hardly matters whether he or she is an atheist or not.
What makes people unable to decide is when they are in conflict between their rational mind (just the facts, ma'am) and things they wish were true ... or more often, I suspect, things that, if true, would make their lives easier in that there would be no conflict or pressure from family, no loss of church support (real and perceived), etc. Some people have a high ability to tolerate BS, some have very little. You sound like you have a low tolerance, as do many others here. I am somewhere in between, so it took me several years to leave the faith and a few more to really straighten my brain out.
The "you were never a true X" argument is something we normally disparage believers for ("you were never a True Christian"). I hate to see it used in the other direction as it's equally invalid there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I also have my suspicions raised by this finding:
Do atheists "embrace" non belief? Do atheists use that sort of language to describe their conclusions about the workings of the cosmos? That sounds to me like the way the religious minded like to think of atheism, just another version of a faith.
Yes, it's just the way the theist author chose to frame it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I wonder about the process of recruiting the study subjects. We recently had a thread about people's "conversion" to atheism and while there were some who described it as an emotional experience, the majority described it as a rational decision process. I would think the question presented in a scientifically designed survey would yield a clear majority who described the decision to stop believing as just that....a decision, not a catharsis. So perhaps the deck was a bit stacked by those conducting this survey.
I'm inclined to think that any bias was unconscious, but who knows. The part that seems "off" to me is the idea that high school years are more decisive than college years in departing from the faith. I do smell some kind of problem there. Maybe a lot of college kids who leave the faith began that journey during high school and were chomping at the bit anyway, and they tend to self-report as "turning" when they first had significant private doubts rather than when they went public with it.
As to how emotional a deconversion is, that is mostly a side effect of the disturbance of one's support structures and relationships and how big of a change it was to their daily lives. I don't think the level of emotional response takes away from validity of the rational aspects of the decision. You can experience genuine and significant loss and grieve that loss. Not everyone hated being a Christian. Some miss the daily devotionals, the music, the sense of high purpose -- and would still gladly be doing it if only their pesky mind hadn't got in the way, robbing them of the ability to believe unsubstantiated things. Some people lose everything -- parents, spouse, etc -- even if not disowned / divorced it drives a cold wedge into things.
The "you were never a true X" argument is something we normally disparage believers for ("you were never a True Christian"). I hate to see it used in the other direction as it's equally invalid there.
My application of the characterization was limited to a specific type....those whose belief or lack of the same is not founded on analysis of the choices, rather it is a product of mood or life circumstances changes. Such a person who is not basing the choice on true belief or true rejection of that belief, is indeed neither a true believer nor a true non believer. They could be either at anytime subject to the caprice of fortune. It isn't a smear of some larger group, it is identification of a type which does exist.
Quote:
The part that seems "off" to me is the idea that high school years are more decisive than college years in departing from the faith. I do smell some kind of problem there.
In that I was a non believer by the age of fifteen, I happily support your thesis above because that would make me appear to have been some sort of advanced person. However, if we rule that ego boosting isn't a valid test of a hypothesis, it might be worthwhile to track down a survey of this question, one not conducted by a faith based group, which would establish the average age for faith discarding. I just now tried a Google search but could only find anecdotal, individual references, no population wide survey. Perhaps someone more clever and diligent than myself could locate it.
Quote:
I don't think the level of emotional response takes away from validity of the rational aspects of the decision.
So then do you think that the rational aspects would prevent re conversion despite emotional factors?
Last edited by Grandstander; 06-07-2013 at 06:44 PM..
It takes great courage and determination today as always to stand up for what you believe. Institutional religion has lost the confidence of well educated followers who would rather have a different dynamic, a different conversation. Previously, churches and religious following was associated with honor and identity. Communities are more pluralized now and more open to "non-believers". Materialism, globalisation, mass media has opened our minds to bigger questions and bigger conversations than institutional religions are willing to have. We still need direction and guidance. If we remember this then not having a particular affiliation is not a bad thing.
So then do you think that the rational aspects would prevent re conversion despite emotional factors?
Yes, and actually emotional factors could also prevent reconversion, in the same way that, say, the emotional toll taken by divorce would tend to put the brakes on a "hope triumphs over experience" remarriage -- particularly to the same person. But them I am the sort of person who stays well clear of anything that has incurred emotional debt for me. Some people are scarred by such things, others seem to feed upon constant drama. I just want peace.
In fact the above example is a pretty good one -- for most people, myself included, hope does triumph over experience because there is another factor in the picture that tends to counteract the very memory of past marital dystopia: the primal drive to pair-bond. It's less primal / universal and more killable, but one's attachments to illusions, one's tendency to agency attribution, etc., can act as a magnet to draw one back to faith.
Yes, and actually emotional factors could also prevent reconversion, in the same way that, say, the emotional toll taken by divorce would tend to put the brakes on a "hope triumphs over experience" remarriage -- particularly to the same person. But them I am the sort of person who stays well clear of anything that has incurred emotional debt for me. Some people are scarred by such things, others seem to feed upon constant drama. I just want peace.
In fact the above example is a pretty good one -- for most people, myself included, hope does triumph over experience because there is another factor in the picture that tends to counteract the very memory of past marital dystopia: the primal drive to pair-bond. It's less primal / universal and more killable, but one's attachments to illusions, one's tendency to agency attribution, etc., can act as a magnet to draw one back to faith.
You have frequently written about varying perspectives and the rationalist perspective on this "talk to atheists" is that it is treating the loss of believers as though it is a marketing problem rather than anything having to do with the validity of the doctrine. Consequently it comes across to me as someone trying to sell me a car by talking up its mileage, safety etc, but ignoring the fact I can see that the car has been wrecked in an accident.
Therefore the people behind this effort either fail to see how such a thing would be perceived by rationalists, or they are only targeting the emotionally oriented crowd. The rationalist in me wonders why they would even want such people or count it a coup that they were able to prevent such a person's defection or were able to re recruit that person. Is swelling the ranks of the believers considered so valuable that it does not matter if they include people who could be blown one way or the other depending upon emotions and prevailing circumstances?
You have frequently written about varying perspectives and the rationalist perspective on this "talk to atheists" is that it is treating the loss of believers as though it is a marketing problem rather than anything having to do with the validity of the doctrine. Consequently it comes across to me as someone trying to sell me a car by talking up its mileage, safety etc, but ignoring the fact I can see that the car has been wrecked in an accident.
Therefore the people behind this effort either fail to see how such a thing would be perceived by rationalists, or they are only targeting the emotionally oriented crowd. The rationalist in me wonders why they would even want such people or count it a coup that they were able to prevent such a person's defection or were able to re recruit that person. Is swelling the ranks of the believers considered so valuable that it does not matter if they include people who could be blown one way or the other depending upon emotions and prevailing circumstances?
Good points all.
I think they take each loss personally because to do otherwise would be to acknowledge even the conditional possibility that their value proposition is anything but utterly compelling to any and all comers.
And yes they think it's primarily a marketing / positioning problem, very similar to how US Republicans are unwilling to consider whether they have a relevant political message, but just simply need to "do a better job of getting the word out". I think the underlying idea is that there is Absolute Truth and they have nowhere to go with that -- to modify it would be to deny its absolute capital "T" nature -- so they just have to repackage it until people "get" it.
They are ever going to fail to see how a rationalist would perceive or react to it and they don't know how else to be, so it's a fool's errand for the most part to keep flogging the rationalist point of view to the True Believer -- except that it helps those with private doubts and reservations to think their way out of that particular box, and it helps those in transition to keep heading in one direction or the other rather than endless dithering.
All that said, my only point was that there is nothing inherently ignoble or shame-inducing about the emotional content of a deconversion -- nothing that would invalidate the core intellectual determination of facts. There are of course those people who are looking for a Magic Pill to Solve All Their Problems and Niggling Questions. They will not find that in either Theism or Atheism; the only difference is that Atheism does not promise anything in that regard other than the real potential for freedom from cognitive dissonance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
