The thing that always amazes me about guys like this is he seems to feel he is the only person ever to ask these questions. He just has this moment of doubt but he seems to have nothing but his own mind to fall back on. He never mentions reading a bunch of christian thinkers on the subject of hell. Why not? Is his seminary training so limited he does not know how to do that?
He probably never did read a bunch of Christian thinkers on the subject of hell, and his seminary training was probably a joke, as is all too common with fundamentalist Protestants. He definitely shows that he does not think clearly and rationally, but few of us these days are ever taught how to think.
I appreciated the tone of Dave's essay, but I would like to caution the other commentators to be sure you maintain charity when dealing with both atheists and fundamentalists.
I am certainly aware now of opinions I held in the past that I firmly believed were founded on good sound reasoning, but that I now see were based on flawed premises. I once defended the rights of Christians to use contraception; by faith I submitted to the magisterium, and I now see the erroneous assumptions that were the foundation of my previous position. Such faith comes only by grace, given by God's free and good will and pleasure.
If this poor soul has not yet received that gift of faith, then we can certainly see that it is not so much a question of "he does not think clearly and rationally," as "he builds his reasoning on flawed assumptions."
It very well may be that deeply deficient seminary training is common with Fundamentalists. (I cannot speak to this.) However, I can say for sure that I have encountered priests who attended St. Charles Borromeo seminary in Philadelphia and were plagued by fuzzy thinking or false assumptions as much as this fellow.
Let us also remember that our current understandings of the faith likely have basic errors even yet. One day we may look back at 2006 and marvel at how naive we were.
At any rate, thanks to Dave for able and clear apology for Christianity.
". . . it is not so much a question of 'he does not think clearly and rationally,' as 'he builds his reasoning on flawed assumptions.'"
Someone who thinks clearly and rationally does not build his reasoning on flawed assumptions. Rather, he will recognise his flawed assumptions and adjust his thinking accordingly.
But you are absolutely correct that grace is what enables faith -- if we have never had that grace, or if we have done things or are doing things that deprive us of grace, no amount of reasoning will convince us of the truth of the Catholic faith.
*He just has this moment of doubt but he seems to have nothing but his own mind to fall back on. *
That reminds me of something I think Peter Kreeft said, "Think for yourself but not by yourself."
It goes without sayig that grace and faith are basic to Christianity: without which one cannot believe. To deny that is the Pelagian heresy.
In replying to a "deconversion" story, however, I usually don't get into that, because I am dealing directly with the reasoning that the person himself gives for his change of mind. But that is not to imply that it isn't supremely important.
In fact, I would say that loss of faith and grace probably lies behind much of this. What makes a person suddenly stop believing? Lack of supernatural grace to believe is a sensible interpretation. Faith is not an absolutely airtight proposition (nor is virtually any other belief-system, if any at all).
We always have to make some sort of leap and trust God. One could opine that the reasons given for loss of religious belief and faith start flowing from the initial loss of faith, in order to try to rationalize the decision.
On the other hand, it is impossible to know one's inner states of heart and mind, so it is best in these sorts of endeavors to stick to the actual reasons an atheist gives and to see if they come up short.
This instance clearly does.
I also don't think Randy and Jordan's comments are necessarily uncharitable. If a person is using lousy thinking and inadequate theological training in the course of mocking and running down Christianity, then it is charitable both to him and especially to many who might be influenced by him, to point this out.
It's not like he is using fallacious reasoning to go out and serve the poor or rescue Christian slaves in the Sudan or something (in which case it might be overlooked); rather, he is claiming to give reasons why Christianity is false, which is a bad aim, even though he may be doing it with the highest of motivations (wrongly thinking that Christianity is a bad thing).
So when we set out to criticize this, it is necessary also to point out the illogical and irrational elements of such a rationale.
This will almost always appear uncharitable to the person critiqued, but I don't see how that can be avoided. Mostly, we should refrain from deriding motives or making out that someone is utterly evil because they have lost faith. It is more likely that they are a victim on many levels.
I tried to walk a fine line in my initial comment. I don't think Randy or Jordan was particularly uncharitable in his comment, either. I was just hoping to head off at the pass a wagon train that threatened to head down an ill-conceived path. Maybe I didn't manage to make myself clear, and for that I apologize.
FYI Dave: Your links on the right are not showing in IE but do in Firefox.....maybe add a "Download Firefox" link at the top. 
Thanks Martin. Not sure what to do about it. I'll see if I can do anything.
This poor fellow's "anti-epiphany" reminded me of a shiort story I read long ago. I think it was called "Our Father Witch" or something like that. A missionary loses his faith under the impact of just such a sudden "epiphany." Then he journeys throughout Africa, living with the natives, and essentially recapitulating the history of paganism in his quest for a meaningful alternative to the Christian God. And he winds up full circle. But you don't actually see this all happening to him firsthand: The story is told from the perspective of the search party tracking him, who keep picking up clues about his progressively unfolding spiritual journey at each village or outpost they reach, where he has preceded them.
Does this ring a bell with anyone? I don't know if the story is well known, but I thought it was pretty well done.
Hi Diane,
It's similar to the approach Chesterton takes in The Everlasting Man, though in non-fiction form.
Dave,
As a former-fundy-turned-atheist, I would say that rejection of fundamentalism did not immediately lead to rejection of Xianity in general. Instead, it led to my questioning all of my premises. In so doing, over time, gradually, I moved from a more generous orthodoxy to a liberalized form of Christianity to agnosticism to atheism.
We didn't all have a "deconversion experience" that sent us from fundy to atheist in a blink of an eye. And one thing you have to remember is that atheism is not a "commitment" per se. Xianity is. Atheism isn't a "pledge" or "contract" or any other such silliness.
In that sense, I still entertain the same questions now that before were doubts, and I still entertain new questions that before were faith. It is just that the arguments for atheism (or arguments against God's existence, if you prefer) seem to be absolutely airtight.
I would be interested in a discussion between Dave and Daniel. Seems it would be more fruitful that the Babinski stuff.
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for posting.
No arguments for anything are "absolutely airtight"! I'll guarantee that. And if anyone thinks they are, they are in self-delusion.
You didn't do a silly "either/or" false dischotomy; good for you. But it still remains the case that you had an insufficient initial experience of Christianity. One could posit that this set the tone for later developments in your thinking, all the way to atheism.
The importance of a good foundation is often crucial, just as the family one is raised in sets the tone for their later life in almost all cases. There are exceptions to everything, but I don't think this is an insignificant variable in the equation.
Maybe I'll take a look at your deconversion story, if you have one. It's sort of a hobby of mine lately, and it is a fun challenge for a Christian apologist, to respond to stories that recount the loss of faith and belief in God and comment on any holes in logic and fact therein.
We're accused all the time by you guys, of lousy, shoddy reasoning. So I love to turn the tables on that whenever I can and show that lousy or illogical thinking is by no means confined to Christians.
winning at casino winning at casino winning at casino // hotel and casino is cirque du soleil o performing hotel and casino is cirque du soleil o performing hotel and casino is cirque du soleil o performing
Commenting by HaloScan
