Husker_x
New member
So the other day I got a private message from TGHusker. He expressed curiosity about how someone like me could go from accepting the Christian faith to holding the positions I now do. I hope I am not trespassing on the privacy of the conversation, but I figured that since I am going to share the story with one Huskerboard member, I might as well share it with everyone. If TGHusker (or anyone else) would prefer to keep the conversation in PMs, that's fine with me.
First, a few of disclaimers.
1. The quoted text below is an edited version of a letter I sent to a few close friends and family members who were curious about what the hell had happened to me. If you had known me ten years ago, you probably would be shocked to think I was even capable of writing something like this.
2. Since I had already written versions of this story in the past a few times, I decided to use the core of the material but rework it so it would make sense in the context of a message board. I cut out some of the more personal/private parts but kept the bulk of the relevant material. My goal with the letter was to be clear but firm, and to keep emotion out of it as much as possible. I don't know if it would be the best approach for anyone else considering doing this, but I felt it was the best of bad options in my own situation.
3. My hope in posting this is not to wage the Religion Wars again, but rather to open up the forum to anyone else with similar stories. I've heard from many of you over the past couple of years, or at least gleaned a vague idea of what happened in your own lives, but if you feel like telling the story in full here, I'd be happy to read it, as I'm sure others would be.
4. This thread isn't just for atheists/agnostics/NONES to congratulate each other. If you're a believer feel free to join in. Also don't hesitate to scrutinize what I've said. Just because it's personal doesn't mean it's above discussion or criticism.
First, a few of disclaimers.
1. The quoted text below is an edited version of a letter I sent to a few close friends and family members who were curious about what the hell had happened to me. If you had known me ten years ago, you probably would be shocked to think I was even capable of writing something like this.
2. Since I had already written versions of this story in the past a few times, I decided to use the core of the material but rework it so it would make sense in the context of a message board. I cut out some of the more personal/private parts but kept the bulk of the relevant material. My goal with the letter was to be clear but firm, and to keep emotion out of it as much as possible. I don't know if it would be the best approach for anyone else considering doing this, but I felt it was the best of bad options in my own situation.
3. My hope in posting this is not to wage the Religion Wars again, but rather to open up the forum to anyone else with similar stories. I've heard from many of you over the past couple of years, or at least gleaned a vague idea of what happened in your own lives, but if you feel like telling the story in full here, I'd be happy to read it, as I'm sure others would be.
4. This thread isn't just for atheists/agnostics/NONES to congratulate each other. If you're a believer feel free to join in. Also don't hesitate to scrutinize what I've said. Just because it's personal doesn't mean it's above discussion or criticism.
Why I'm an AtheistI want to keep this letter as brief as I can. Rather than posting a massive preemptive strike of tangled arguments common to the debate over the existence of God, I would rather begin by sharing my own story and explaining in the clearest terms possible why I now hold the positions I do. I will make several claims throughout this letter and I’m sure many of you will disagree with them. However, I believe that truth has nothing to fear from investigation, and I am both able and willing to defend and and provide evidence for all of the conclusions that I will share with you. I am also happy to answer any questions or objections you might have. Most Americans who identify as atheists are ex-Christians and arrived at their position in the same way I did––through rigorous investigation of the facts without any concern for the difficult emotions that sometimes come with the discovery of new and uncomfortable information.
I’ve had an interest in philosophy and religion since high school. I especially enjoyed theology, and I took seriously the admonition of I Peter 3:15 to “always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you for the hope that lives within you.” I studied apologetics obsessively, especially the methods of debunking religions like Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, and others. In college I had many conversations/debates with non-Christians, even atheists––people I had never actually encountered until leaving the insular world of Christian communities––and it was by having these encounters that the seeds of doubt were first planted. I was astonished that not only could my atheist friends answer all of my practiced objections about evolution, morality, the bible, history, logic, etc.; they also tended to have a knowledge of the Bible that far surpassed your average Christian.
Over time I began to notice something troubling about my thought process. While my Christian education had provided me with the tools to study the Bible (and a lot of other things), it had also constructed a kind of paradigm-box for the mind. Like most everyone I knew growing up, the Bible was the primary source of information. I believed the Bible to be a book without mistake or contradiction––inerrant, the absolute and final word of truth on history, creation, morality, the meaning of life, and the life to come. You are free in Christianity (most of the time, anyway) to argue finer points of theology. However, by playing that game you manage to avoid a much subtler and more important question: How do we know that the Bible itself is what it claims to be? I read a lot of material and had several conversations with very intelligent people of faith, but I was never able to find a satisfactory answer to this question. Over a period of years the question stayed with me, and my nagging doubts began to grow.
Around the time that I was wrapping up my four-year degree, I came to a point where I knew I could no longer ignore my suspicions, and that I needed to seek out better information. I was aware that most of my knowledge about atheism specifically had come from second-hand sources, filtered through apologists who trained me to ignore, avoid, rationalize, pray about, or dismiss any skepticism. But I knew that if God really existed, he would easily be able to provide the reassurance I was craving, so I set myself on a path of research to find out what the Bible really was, when, where, and how it was formed, and pointed the same critical eye on my own faith as I had done for many others. I read book after book, article after article, watched debate after debate from the leading theologians, scholars, and textual critics of our day. As a result of this long and at times very painful process, I was forced to conclude that belief in the Bible’s inerrancy is nothing but a presupposition. It cannot be supported rationally or factually. It can only be dogmatically believed via the application of circular reasoning: The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. Christianity itself rests on this presupposition.
Through my research I discovered that the simplest and best explanation for the Bible is that it is a man-made document and an obvious one. Generally speaking, the style of writing is mythical, containing fantastic stories about talking snakes and donkeys, forbidden trees, men who live hundreds of years or draw superhuman strength from the length of their hair, hordes of people two million strong wandering a vast wilderness for forty years––stories that defy the historical record, the scientific record, and common sense. You can trace many of the myths found in Genesis to other, more ancient near-Eastern cultures and religious texts like the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish. The God of the Old Testament is said to be a morally perfect and superior being, but if you remove the filter of faith and simply read the book, it is clear that his character and actions are completely inconsistent with such a claim. His stated approval of or direct involvement with slavery (Exodus 21:20-21), genocide (Genesis ch. 6-7, I Samuel 15:7-8, Joshua 10:36-37), the slaughter of children (II Kings 2:23-24), famine (Jeremiah 16:4), plagues (Exodus ch. 8-9), and wars of conquest (Joshua, Judges, I-II Kings, I-II Chronicles, etc.) prohibit him from consideration as a moral being, let alone a perfect one. These actions and attitudes are irreconcilable with the claims made by Christians about an all-loving God, but they are perfectly consistent with the brutality of ancient near-Eastern cultures and the religions they invented to justify their inhumanity. Now it is true that very few of the stories in the Bible can be verified historically (in fact many of them directly contradict archaeological evidence). But if you take the Bible literally as many Christians do, these problems are unavoidable.
The core of the Christian canon, the four gospels, also present extraordinary claims about historical events, and yet the gospels themselves are not evidence, much less extraordinary evidence. The names we give the gospels are traditional only. Historically speaking, they are anonymous books written by non-eye witnesses many decades after the events they purport to describe. The gospels are filled with contradictions small and large, dissimilarities, confusions, and historical inaccuracies. These are nothing new. Founding Father Thomas Paine wrote a book called The Age of Reason as early as the 1800s detailing these problems when a historical-critical approach to the Bible was first developing (it’s now the dominant view in seminaries across the country). A much larger problem for the Bible’s reputability is the simple fact that we do not have an authentic original manuscript of a single book. What we have are copies of copies of copies passed down through the ages by hand. No two manuscripts in existence are identical, and the earliest complete copies we have date no earlier than the second or third centuries. Basically, if there ever was an inerrant Bible, it no longer exists. I find that impossible reconcile with the perfect plan of an all knowing God.
There are also human fingerprints smeared all over the centuries-long political struggle to finally produce what we now know as the Biblical canon (a collection which still differs from the Roman Catholic canon to this day, by the way). We do know of other, earlier attempts to produce a canon, the earliest being the work of Marcion of Sinope. It was a heavily edited copy of Luke and a handful of Paul’s letters. His theology was completely foreign to any modern understanding of Christianity. The more I looked, the more obvious it became that the Bible you read from on Sundays is the product of little more than happenstance. There are ‘apocryphal’ books that were ultimately discarded, but which could have just as easily been included, and books like Revelation which only narrowly made the cut. The rationale behind the books which were finally included is/was so paper thin it’s mind boggling. In short, claims of the Bible’s inerrancy are as extraordinary as the stories found in its pages.
During the same period when I was studying the Bible and its historicity, I reexamined common arguments put forward by apologists like Matt Slick, Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, et al for the existence of God. Arguments I had even used myself against other faiths. When removed from the tar pit of presupposition, it’s not all that difficult to conclude that no one in the history of religion has put forward a compelling argument for the existence of any god. All of the arguments made by the gentlemen I mentioned have been refuted repeatedly. One of the most striking flaws all of their arguments share in common is that even if they were logically consistent, they could just as easily be used as validation by Muslims, Jews, Deists or any other faith. In fact, they routinely are used by apologists of other faiths.
The discovery of this information was not a single event. Unlike conversion to religion which can happen in an instant, de-conversion is usually a journey of a thousand small steps. Along the way I grew increasingly skeptical of authority figures I had put my trust in and was forced to reexamine myself and what I thought I knew about a lot of things. This includes people like Young Earth Creationist Kent Hovind, who lies repeatedly about his credentials (he has neither a PhD––only a mail-order diploma from an unaccredited mill called Patriot University––nor any high school science credentials/teaching experience), and yet he is/was looked on by a disturbing number of Christians, including myself, not only as an Einsteinesque revolutionary, but an expert in damn near everything else. Contrary to Hovind’s seminars of nonsense, there is a deluge of evidence for evolution.
Evangelical Christian and founder of the Human Genome Project Dr. Francis Collins has said that even if the only evidence we had for evolution came from the genetic code, it would be all that was necessary to make a slam-dunk case for our kinship with all life on this planet (and the time-scale it takes to see species diversify like they have). Fortunately, it is not even close to the only evidence we have. The theory of evolution is the unifying theory of biology. Without it nothing in the natural world makes any sense, but with it we find branching lines of evidence––entire branching fields of evidence––converging unanimously on the same conclusion: evolution is a fact. It has been proven, verifiably, conclusively, a million times over, and the evidence is freely available to anyone willing to look. It is only a minority of Christians––mostly American fundamentalists––that still cling to the disproven ideas of a young earth and a special creation ten thousand years ago. Most Christians accept evolution. It’s even the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. And when I look at the wonders of nature and the cosmos in as much as we can understand them, I find them so much bigger, so much more infinitely complex and mysterious than the simplistic, puny account found in the book of Genesis. That would remain the case for me whether God exists or not.
My search ultimately revealed Christianity to be a house of cards. Once you begin to doubt the core proposition, and allow yourself to put aside ingrained and psychologically toxic fears of hellfire and look for yourself, the cards will fall. I am an atheist because I took an honest look at the claims of Christianity, searched thoroughly and honestly for the answers, and found that Christianity either cannot or will not meet its burden of proof. It makes claims of absolute fact about reality, fails to provide a shred of evidence to substantiate them, but still requires those claims to be believed, absolutely, by faith alone––or else face the consequences. I am no longer capable of meeting that criteria.
My current position is technically called ‘agnostic-atheism,’ meaning that I lack a belief in a god, but I do not claim to know for certain whether or not one exists (and probably that information is beyond human comprehension anyway). This is the most common form of atheism across the world and is held by people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Carl Sagan. All of my views on everything are subject to change or revision, but it is only reason and evidence that can prompt a change.
My atheism is a product of what I know about the evidence. I can’t unlearn the facts. I can’t ignore the facts. I’m compelled to certain positions by them. My acceptance of evolution, for example, feels no more like a choice than my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. And when I look at religion as a whole, all of its myriad forms across the world, and I see that it’s filled to bursting with every kind of fraud and charlatan, swindler, faith healer, quack medical scam, marketing gimmick, pseudo-science, pseudo-history, emotional ploy, deceiver and deception, I can’t help but look at it like I look at everything else: with skepticism and caution.
I probably could have written a whole book and still not be finished. There are so many things I didn’t even begin to cover that I’m sure many will take issue with or want to ask about. Please do. I invite you to ask me anything and everything and not to be shy about it. But keep in mind that while I understand why believers hold the beliefs they do and how closely they hold them, in my view the strength of a belief is unrelated to its truth or falsehood. I love to learn. I want to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible during my lifetime. I am always open to argument, and I continue to question even though I have left Christianity behind me. To me the search has grown more interesting since, not less, and I would never abandon this freedom of exploration for another paradigm-box of faith.