I thought so, you just seemed to be extracting more details than I thought were available about his character.


That the writer was blaming bad teachers for these atheists lack of faith, and ignoring whether it was the subject matter itself, regardless of how "well" Bible Study was going. After all, they were (in these cases at least) already believers.

I would not have thought to call them hypocrites, but I don't think it was a well thought out comment.

Can you clarify your last sentence. Wrong to ... reduce proselytizing to that form? Or to have the opinion that not trying to convert others is wrong? Seems like they are probably both wrong, but one in particular is completely wrong?

I can see why you would think that a Christian is being some kind of monster for not "proselytizing" all the time. But I would also think you're completely wrong about Christians who don't tell everyone that they're going to hell being some kind of monster, both theologically and practically.

I can't see a blaming taking place, but that aside, it seems very clearly the case that the author is suggesting a connection between bad teachings/teachers and some peoples loss of their faith and I'm surprised you find this a controversial suggestion.

That arguing for a faith in a simplistic and/or unauthentic manner might drive away a certain "clientele" seems to be a rather benign suggestion.

Just to clarify, this is not my opinion, necessarily, but a suggestion of how someone that does think that way could have got to that point.

Unless I am misunderstanding, presumably you are talking about showing how a Christian lives their life, "walking the walk", as being an effective way of proselytizing? I'm not sure that this includes much theology, in which case is it really converting? But such details are probably easy to address. Am I missing something?

I considered it biased, not controversial. There is not even a hint of alternate explanations.

Clearly. Not a hint.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought, but I was referring to the author's incite into alternate explanations, or "There is not even a hint of alternate explanations [from the author]".

Sure, there may be atheists that reject Christianity because they don't want to imagine their abusive relatives to be living beyond their death. Or perhaps a more convincing pastor might have made more converts than others. Being an atheist does not automatically mean rejecting belief for good reasons. But is this an important or interesting avenue to go down? Or are these 'straw atheists', from which the author is not going to learn much about an atheism that can stand up to even minimal scrutiny.

Its an editorial, in an editorial magazine about a very subjective subject.

Asking for something like that to be unbiased is to asking a Zebra to choose between wearing white or black.

Absolutely it is an important avenue to go down. So many atheists on here think that just because they chose to be atheist means that they have made the smart, logical choice when it comes to the question of "What is beyond?" when, infarct, maybe they come to the conclusion based on feelings or passions.

That maybe conversion towards a faith in nothing from a faith in something is made and maintain by some people out of the same core emotions as those who move toward something. That for many, there isn't much of a difference between a theist and atheist. They only come to different conclusions of the same open-ended data.

I guess I really don't understand your point: The author himself is giving my quote as a preface. The article takes the form "We're used to think of atheists in this fashion. But look what I learned when I talked to a group of very vocal atheists. Take Mike, for example: He used to go to ... blablabla"

If you think that in order to appear unbiased the author should make a footnote after each of his examples and refer the reader back to the initial statement, pointing out that of course he might just have acted on one of the reasons detailed in the opener, that would seem to me to be a quite peculiar requirement.

In any case - you thought the article was biased, I thought it was interesting. I don't really care enough to try to change your mind. There's, I think, a more interesting point here:

Here, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the article is focussing on few "straw atheists" to come to conclusions that are quite usably for innerchristian tummy-stroking, yet not widely applicable irl. You can only really say that if you assume that most atheists became atheist for a "good" reason (otherwise, by sheer number, it would obv. be relevant).

Well, I could pull out the rhetorical club and suggest that by reading pieces such as the one in the OP you might learn that your assumptions were perhaps not correct (after all, there may be straw atheists even in the SSA and FS, who, one would think, are on average more reflected on their beliefs), but I'd rather suggest that from what I've experienced -- remember, I live in eastern germany, one of the least religious regions in the world; I have a lot of this type of conversation --, a significant portion reverted to atheism because of the PoE, usually in the form of either "XY died a horrible death - no god would allow that kind of suffering" or "war/earthquakes/tsunamis happen - no god would allow that kind of murder/bloodshed." I think we agree that the PoE is - if it is to be stated intelligently - a bit more complex than that and that the "layman"-conceptualizations of it are quite flawed. Thus, one would have good reason to claim that all of them are what you called straw atheists.

Which would suggest, for one, that the article is not misguided, or biased just by calling attention to the fact that even with "hardened and vocal" atheists, the reason for their initial alienation from the church might have been predominantly personal and emotional, and for two, that there might be a lot more straw atheists than you think.

Well, I'm not going to labour the point after this - no doubt I am not being as clear as I thought, as it is very simple. Taunton is saying that for atheists who received poor religious instruction, its not surprising they lost their faith because of the poor education. He does not mention a single alternative, such as the obvious (or so I thought) that it was the underlying material that was the problem, rather the teacher. Any alternate explanation from the author would at least gives the illusion that he hadn't started with his conclusion already in mind.
The preface statement has nothing to do with this - it is not even his opinion, in fact he disagrees that it is actually correct.
Sure, Taunton can write about whatever he wants, bias will be recognised no matter the author. But when an author is aware of their own bias, they can at least attempt to recognise / reflect upon it. If that ever happens, I think it would contribute a lot - but perhaps it's asking too much (and this applies equally with atheist authors).

I would still be interested in why you found it so interesting. I am trying to correct for my own bias, but I found nothing of real interest in the entire article, at least as the author intended. Every point he noted as significant seemed exactly as one would expect. The only exception was "The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one", which was a clear dig at the atheists "alleged" reasons for unbelief. Emotional events are going to be the most common situations that anyone thinks about 'Life Questions' so it is unsurprising that people come to conclusions at around the same time that they think about these questions. Does that mean that the decisions were emotional ones (as the author states), or simply that decisions are made close to the emotional events that trigger them? It's another example of Taunton having a conclusion ready and not considering that there are alternatives.


No doubt, many atheists will have come to their conclusion for partially or even completely 'bad' reasons. In fact, just like nominal Christians that do not hold 'good' reasons for their beliefs, they are probably in the majority of their demographic. All that says is people are generally not good at coming to rational conclusions (if I say one thing you would agree with, I think it would be this!).

What Taunton is doing is portraying the students he is studying as being no different to the atheists that you describe. There probably will be some that got caught up in the 'New Atheism' movement, but for the most part I think that these students will have fairly well thought through reasons for their atheism. All we get from Taunton, though, is his interpretation of the interviews and the data, and I don't know the guy well enough to trust him. In fact, from the albeit brief Googling I did recently, I don't find him trustworthy on this topic or in recognising his bias in the slightest. In this very article, he describes atheism as potentially dangerous (as well as historically naive, whatever that means? it sounds like an argument from tradition?).

He describes himself as a kind of bridge between theists and atheists. From what I found, this is obviously a self-appointed title. I would also expect him to wear a badge that reads "I knew Hitch" as he makes it a point to mention his friendship with the late Hitchens in article after article! Perhaps he thinks it solidifies his title. But Taunton is not a friend of the atheist, he takes the "atheists are communists, and will destroy the world" position as strongly as anyone else I have seen.

Relevant? Questionable...but when an apologist wants to make their niche the theist-atheist bridge, it's worth finding out what that really entails. That, and I just finished reading some of his writing, and it irked me!

Anyway, perhaps there will be more to say when the study is finished and released. Maybe the students he interviewed were just babbling buffoons unable to relate one thing in their life with another without Tauntons expertise

Also: Which topics did you find most interesting...and why?


ETA:

tldr, even I gave up editing my own post out of boredom, bork bork bork!

Wow, not quite sure where to begin; equally unsure whether it's even worth it. I can understand that you're annoyed reading someone state that he finds atheism historically naive and potentially dangerous - especially without further expanding on it. I agree it's a cheap shot and the article certainly doesn't need it. Other than that, I basically disagree with all your exegesis - mostly because most of it appears like an emotional response to the author and how he presents his stuff, rather than what he actually says. But I don't see how to approach this other than going basically line by line through your post and that seems rather overkill-y.

No, I certainly wouldn't have expected that some of the most vocal atheists were former equally vocal christians for whom their churches teachings had lost their existential autheticity. About Phil, for example, he writes "He admired the fact that Jim didn't dodge the tough chapters or the tough questions: "He didn't always have satisfying answers or answers at all, but he didn't run away from the questions either. The way he taught the Bible made me feel smart." Based on that, it seems reasonable to suggest that to Phil, until his favored teacher Jim was replaced with the handsome Savannah - am I the only one hearing some misogynist overtones here? -, the core epistemological questions/uncertainties/doubts were not of predominant importance. He valued authenticity/integrity, especially in cases of tough and uneasy questions over feel-good kumbayaism. This, I think, is interesting and supports my suspicion, that most of the epistemological questions that are so often discussed around here and that play such big part in "the" atheist message is ultimately of limited importance, as many? most? religious people don't think of their faith in terms of epistemology. I, for example find the most compelling reasons for religion to be aesthetic, which is why the umpteenth thread about proving gods existence or the PoE or Free Will or what have you is of little interest - one way or the other - to me. Even if it turned out that there is an argument that proves gods existence, I'd be like "meh, big effin' deal". If an argument to the contrary was discovered, I similarily would't be "omg, I've build my life on a false premise, how can I live with myself" but rather "but, wow, that makes the world so boring!?"

Furthermore, obviously, if there is a significant group of people that the church loses "unnecessarily", so to speak, i.e. due to inauthentic teachers etc., this would obv. be relevant from a missionary pov. In addition, if it turned out that age 14-17 is key, one would have further evidence on how to conceive good RE, for example.

Honestly, I think this is you exemplifying the opening statement:

Sure - it isn't surprising to anyone that grappeling with significant Life Questions is a very emotional issue. Not surprising to anyone but you guys, apparently. In your very answer you all but deny the emotional significance and causality it can have in deciding on Life Questions, and (by your phrasing: "Does that mean that the decisions were emotional ones (as the author states), or simply that decisions are made close to the emotional events") seem to express a belief that there are emotional decisions - and then there are good decisions. I, on the other hand, would readily embrace that both can be the same and that in questions of faith an such, a divide in good vs. emotional reasons is simply misplaced. The very fact that you consider the suggestion that emotions might be a (or perhaps even the reason) to change ones core beliefs is a dig at atheism seems to exemplify the underlying premise that core beliefs are to be chosen (solely? primarily?) based on reason and rationality.

No, I would think the bolded is patently false (and more evidence suggesting that you - in accord with how he portrays New Atheists - hold that in case of religious faith, there are "good" reasons and "bad" reasons, and that "well thought through reaons" are by and large good reasons, while "primarily emotional reasons" are by and large ... at the very least not-as-good reasons).

In my view, he is portraying them as being very thoughtful and deliberate individuals who truly grapple with lifes big questions. What he does draw attention to is that their self-proclaimed reaons for atheism (and we do agree that there's often a significant difference between my self-rationalizations and what, say, a psychologist would say about my reaons) lack a specific element, namely "emotional connect".

"Religion is a net negative", because it's something that comes up repeatedly, yet I don't have the faintest clue how someone would even try to argue that. Seeing that most people who do say this are patently incapable of intelligently defending their position, I would've liked this being put to the test by two guys who can handle themselves.

Freteloo, I really don't understand what you are defending here.

The relevant part of the original article:

Let's translate that:

1 - Some undefined but large proportion of atheist students first claimed rational reasons for atheism.
2 - Some undefined but small proportion of atheist students first claimed non-rational (emotional?) reasons for atheism.
3 - Some undefined but large proportion of 1) then went on to claim emotional reasons in addition.
4 - Some undefined but small proportion of 1) did not go on to claim emotional reasons in addition.

I'm not going to bother to do a Venn diagram, but this implies that there are small subsets that claim only either emotional or rational reasons and a larger subset that claim a mix of both. Is this supposed to be interesting?

Furthermore, the sample is entirely comprised of college students. Are you suggesting that those who became atheist in their early-mid teens are representative of the New Atheism in any interesting way? Do you think a sample of teenage Christians will reveal deep philosophical / theological reasons for their theism?

I don't find the article offensive at all but, given that it's essentially an episode of Kids Say The Darndest Things, it doesn't seem like there is much worth debating. Just my 2p

I'm saying that the bolded is wrong insofar as they precisely didn't claim it, but rather their testimony suggested it (or so the article claims). To me that is a non-trivial point, but certainly nothing earth-shattering. It did seem to be a reasonably offensive suggestion to Beaucoup, though, primarily because he appears to view the article as unjustified in suggesting such a thing.

What, to you, is the key difference between "claiming" it and "testimony suggesting" it, especially in the light of contrast with the claim/testimony of rational reasons?

If they claim it, they consciously attribute emotional reasons as having played a (non-negligible) part. If their testimony simply suggests it, that self-attribution need not be made at all - it can simply be an observation by the interviewer.

I.e. that Phil figure didn't make the connex between being disappointed with the new teacher and his identifying as Atheist himself, it was a connection that was suggested to him and (by his reaction) seemed neither to be one he had previously considered, nor one that seemed patently absurd to him.

I can't make head nor tail or this. Either they claim it (in which case it isn't true that they don't claim it, ldo) or they don't claim it and it is inferred by the interviewer, in which case it is just amateur psychological speculation to say it is a significant part of their reasons for atheism (as opposed to being the 'icing on the cake' so to speak).

No, apparently I don't?

Apologies for the ninja edit.

Whether it's amateur psychological speculation nor not is not up to me to judge. Certainly we all have had instances, in which we were sure of our reasoning for some action, yet upon being pointed to some other connection, had to admit that we may have to re-evaluate our formerly-held belief as to what caused our decision. Thus, it doesn't seem implausible to suggest that (in the cases of the interviews he presents) a process, which originally seems to have included strong feelings (of disappointment, for example) could have been interpreted in retrospect as a primarily analytic search for truth or whatnot. How likely/widespread/supported by further evidence/accepted by the participants of the study/convincing to the reader etc. that suggestion is, is another question.

If by your above analysis you meant something more like "3 - Some undefined but large proportion of 1) then went on to claim emotional reasons in addition once it had been suggested to them." then I don't disagree.

What is that based on? The one example of "Phil"? This is why I am concerned about the casual move from "claimed" to "testimony suggesting". It smells of weasel words. It also implies that there is some 'hidden reason' of which the kids are not truly cognisant. More straight-forwardly plausible hypotheses would include:

- They consciously prefer to give the strongest reasons first.
- The 'rational' reasons genuinely played a bigger part in their deconversion than the emotional reasons.

No-one has denied that emotional reasons can play some part in a persons atheism but, if you want to make the stronger claim that these reasons have primacy, this article gives you no support.

True - but they don't account for Phil being "surprised" (unless the author is more or less intentionally misleading).

Look, I'm fully aware that the article takes only a select few examples to make its point and that we're long past debating what the text says and rather argue of what the author meant. However, unless I have reason to believe that he is actively making stuff up or intentionally misrepresenting what his conterparts were saying, the least far-fetched and intrusive interpretation of what flimsy textual basis we have is that those interviewed by him initially saw their own transition from belief to unbelief as a exclusively or primarily rational journey, while, upon actually talking about it at length, giving evidence*** of this being not the case to the extend they initially stating it.

I guess it's good then that I never dreamed of making such a claim, and the interviewed persons apparently did: "With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons."


***And if you quibble at my choice of words here, I'll you.

Are you interpreting the quote as saying something along the lines of (and don't nitpick or you'll get a of your own):

rather than something along the lines of:

Because this sort of reading strikes me as absurdly improbable unless there were some extremely leading questions.

I believe the natural interpretation of the quote being the first, rather than the second version, yes. The "for" seems to clearly suggest one reading over the other. If you find that absurdly improbable, well then we're at the point where we either agree that the article is stating something interesting or is just a piece of shoddy interviewing/reporting.

And given how much Beaucoup seemed offended by the suggestion that their reasons might "actually" have been emotional rather than rational, I'm not sure we need very loaded questions. It seems to be a rather natural inclination of ours to construe our actions as being predominantly rational, logical etc.

It's not necessarily as strong as "shoddy interviewing" I just think you are taking a overly literalist interpretation of that sentence that almost cannot possibly be true. For all these students to explicitly claim that their reasons were exclusively rational they must all, when asked...

...said something along the lines of "only rational reasons".

If you really think this is more likely to be what the author is claiming (let alone the actual truth) than my second revision then I don't know what to say to you. Perhaps BeaucoupFish will pursue it further.