The Atlantic: How I Came to Unbelife
Not quite sure what you're criticising here, exactly. What I, as a christian, took from the article was, basically: "Dumb theology kills belief. Let's not do that. Atheists aren't stubborn doubters, but rather idealists who "cannot" believe." Not sure what you would find this to be "rather unsubtly suggesting".
If you reduce proselytizing to a certain form, such as walking up to people and telling them they're going to hell and that they can be saved if they do such-and-such (or much softer versions of that same basic communication), I can see why you would think what you think. But I would also think you're completely wrong, both theologically and practically.
Originally Posted by me
If you reduce proselytizing to a certain form, such as walking up to people and telling them they're going to hell and that they can be saved if they do such-and-such (or much softer versions of that same basic communication), I can see why you would think what you think. But I would also think you're completely wrong, both theologically and practically.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Given that the New Atheism fashions itself as a movement that is ruthlessly scientific, it should come as no surprise that those answering my question usually attribute the decision to the purely rational and objective: one invokes his understanding of science; another says it was her exploration of the claims of this or that religion; and still others will say that religious beliefs are illogical, and so on. To hear them tell it, the choice was made from a philosophically neutral position that was void of emotion.
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.
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.
Asking for something like that to be unbiased is to asking a Zebra to choose between wearing white or black.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Given that the New Atheism fashions itself as a movement that is ruthlessly scientific, it should come as no surprise that those answering my question usually attribute the decision to the purely rational and objective: one invokes his understanding of science; another says it was her exploration of the claims of this or that religion; and still others will say that religious beliefs are illogical, and so on. To hear them tell it, the choice was made from a philosophically neutral position that was void of emotion.
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.
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".
Also: Which topics did you find most interesting...and why?
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
The relevant part of the original article:
With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well.
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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).
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.
- 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.
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.
***And if you quibble at my choice of words here, I'll you.
With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for "exclusively rational reasons".
With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us exclusively rational reasons that they had become atheists
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.
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.
Originally Posted by the article
"What led you to become an atheist?"
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.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE