I've been thinking about this more and more lately. It just seems to me like people like WLC and well... every other apologist I've ever heard of, have to come to their faith through some sort of revelation, some sort of first hand god experience. While I wouldn't go so far as to say this invalidates their defenses of Christianity, I would say that they have a bias which is obvious and strong. They found the answer first, and are now trying to prove that answer true, with a very obvious personal stake in the outcome.

This got me thinking, has any theist OTF/ do any of you know any theists who came to their beliefs through study? Maybe, after comparatively studying he monotheism, for example?

CS Lewis is one, through study, talks with JRR Tolkien and other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

Well, I was atheist until I was 21 or so, then started studying Christianity seriously instead of just making fun of it, decided to add a theology major to my other major and I became Catholic. But to be fair I went to a Catholic private college and it could have been the people.

What convinced you of the validity of Christianity?

You (people like you) are kind of what i mean, Do you mind extrapolating a bit? Why did Christianity become true for you? Did you consider the validity of other religions as well?

What significance is it really if someone did not believe first then changed their mind? Would you say that the likely hood of evolution being true is significantly less because it is taught to children and far less people come to the conclusion that it is "true" on their own?

That's comparing apples to oranges IMO. Scientific theories are taught to be evaluated on their own merits and the Abrahamic religions are taught to be evaluated on faith. Considering that fact, it is an interesting question to ask if someone who was once an unbeliever became a believer based on their own personal study IMO.

Honestly, its not the changing their mind part I am interested in. As I stated in the OP, I am interested in people who came to religion through study because it seems to me that most believers (or ones I have met, anyway) Believe due to a sort of personal experience, and are tasked (in the case of apologists, which I suppose most believers are to one degree or another) with defending the factual nature of said religion as something of an afterthought.

It would be interesting (and I think, potentially more persuasive) If one came to their faith because they believed it was correct based on evidence

I don't think the difference is as big as you think. Children don't makes such a distinction in school. And I don't know what school you went to but I was taught pretty much everything as fact and was never told to look into everything that was taught. These scientific theories are taught as "we know more than you so just trust us"

Either way though I don't see how this is really relevant. The question at hand seems to be more about whether or not the people looking into the question of God's existence are looking to justify their believe or looking into the validity of their belief.

And while your version of "faith" could be said of the way some teach, if someone is looking into their beliefs then they are already looking at faith in a different (more in line with the biblical teaching of faith) definition of faith which would preclude them from you above accusations.

I have stated many times that I have never had a "revelation" or the sort of personal experience you refer to here.

edit: so I should not be precluded, correct?

I dont know much about your Christianity, honestly. Would you say you came to it through study? What was the most persuasive element for you? I'm sure you've said this before so if you'd like to keep it short that's definitely understandable.

Also, as I said, I would never preclude any arguments based on that alone, but I think it may well help to explain explain why certain theists stick to arguments I would regard as obviously false.

Edit: and I do think it can be the source of a pretty strong bias.

I came to my current beliefs through study. I did however group up in a religious home (hence my terribly biblical name). But as I have mentioned, I believe in spite of my upbringing.

As far as what is the most persuasive element, there are many. Arguments like the argument from reason being a good example. To me reality looks like the greatest program ever written. Which logically leads me to believe that there is a programmer (to sum it up very quickly). Another big contributor would be the glaring lack of evidence that atheism is true.

I have no emotional attachment to my beliefs. And I have shown time and time again that I am more than willing to completely change my beliefs even when they are contrary to my up bringing and/or current beliefs. Which is not something that can be said about most of the people on this forum (not to attempt to say that I am more objective, but that I have proof within this forum)

Absolutely. But I would not say that this phenomena is limited to theists. Atheists also exhibit the same behavior.

What makes you believe that Christianity is the right religion as opposed to Islam or Judaism? This just sounds like a reason to believe in a deity. How do you know which one is the correct one?

Yea, I seem to recall you being a young earther and then being convinced otherwise (do I have that right)?

Anyway, thanks for the quick sketch. Was this an active study with researched arguments, or just sort of stuff you picked up... I guess more concisely my question would be, did you have a particular motivation behind your study? Were you studying religion at the time?

Just for future reference, I'd rather we didn't get bogged down in the strengths or weaknesses of one argument in particular... as there are lots of individual threads for those. I'm going for more of a generalized thing here.

Just making a prediction, this won't be answered. Arguing for God is one thing, arguing for Christianity is another. I'd love to hear someone who thinks Christianity is valid but Islam and Judaism is invalid explain how they came to that conclusion via study.

I understand this. But I don't get how this leads to Christianity specifically. It leads to an atheistic pantheism and stops there. SO that is what I am.

Is it right to say that Christianity advocates a '**** sapien only dualism'?

It is just way too close to solipsism on the spectrum for me. 'Only **** sapiens have an afterlife'. Stuff like that just flaws it. But I do see the idea of creation requiring creativity and this leads me to the god concept. But how do you get from the god concept to Christianity?

I honestly do not. But I do know quite a few people who became non-believers after studying the bible and religion. You can make what you want of that.

To keep this short the reason that I would put more stake in the bible is that is more accurately reflects reality than other revealed religions. It is also seemingly the least self serving which would make it less likely to have been created.

Think of it this way, if reality is the greatest program ever written the revealed religion would be like the owners manual. Have you ever tried to read the owners manual of program A to better understand program B? That's how I see other religions. It just doesn't jive very well. Now if they are both windows programs then there can be much overlap, but only one (the manual written for the program) will make much sense.

Now it is entirely possible that there is no "owners manual" and the being that created reality simply does not choose to reveal him/herself and that the bible closely reflecting reality is just happenstance. But that is really another conversation.

I dont want this to become a " attempt to poke holes in jibninjas world view" thread, so feel free to open another thread, ( or not answer) if you feel that that is what this thread is becoming. But my question would be "In what way does the bible more accurately reflect reality?" In what way does the bible "make more sense"?

Darwin !

There are many many ways. But the problem is that you would probably disagree with me on the nature of the bible or the nature of reality.

I think that a better question for this thread would be, in what ways do you/others feel another "religion" better reflects reality?