David,

What is so hard to believe about these stories? They are admittedly anecdotal and no one seems to be claiming that they describe the majority of students' experiences. Maybe the hope is that the majority of students simply haven't been so severely mislead by their religious mentors and are not thus set up for the experience. It doesn't seem at all remarkable that some would have such experiences as you yourself admit that we all know such fundamentalists exist.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.26.05 - 12:09 pm | #

What we need to see here is that David see alvation as certain, thus is a person is saved then they are saved forever, end of story (I largly agree but we have differences of opinion as to how strongly beleif should be held I think).

Thus we need to distinguish between actual saved Christians and kids who have grwon up in the culture of Christ and think they are saved but are in fact not.

The former will never be bamboozled by the kind of things the 'too good to be true' stories are about.

The latter will be tossed on the waves of the sea, the house they have built on the sand of thinking that their parents beliefs are sufficient for their own salvation.

We can only pray that they will come to their own saving knowledge of Christs sacrifice for them.
matt | Homepage | 10.27.05 - 5:41 pm | #

As we know, nothing people do is perfect. It's a sad excuse for people to attack Christianity as a whole from bad people experiences from a few. The few who claim disillusionment from Christianity are not exposed to what Christianity is really all about to begin with. Many people claim to be Christians, but how many really do things correctly?

Anyway, it's not Christianity that is at fault but how people distort it, and how some people look for any excuse to make fun.

BTW, just about anything else in life has bad points, too, because people are involved.
Anonymous | 10.27.05 - 9:25 pm | #

Both comments above reak of the "Only a true Scotsman" fallacy, and I say that as a Christian. I had a similar disillusionment with my religious background as I grew intellectually, particularly in knowledge and understanding of evolution. Fortunately, by faith I confess that it is God by his grace that saves me for Christ's sake and not my own "saving knowledge of Christs sacrifice". I praise God for God's unfailing embrace and claim even in the face of my fluctuating "belief".

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.28.05 - 11:36 am | #

How do the earlier comments reak of Flew's "No True Scotsman" fallacy, Shaggy?

If someone distorts the fundemental tenets of Christianity to such an extent that it no longer resembles Christianity I think it would be very safe to say that person is not a practicing Christian... regardless if the verbally align themselves with Christianity.

Christianity (as a religion with the beliefs, attitudes and actions that it entails) should not draw fire from skeptics because someone intentionally/unintentionally distort those fundamental tenets.

A person who states they are a Christian (or one that says that they know Christians) but acts in a way contrary to those teachings is not a Christian. Anyone can verbally affiliate themselves with anything.

A person born in Scotland or living in Scotland doesn't need to verbally affiliate himself with being a true Scotsman. That can be easily verified by checking to see where they were born or where they live... regardless of what they say.
pfalk | 10.28.05 - 3:24 pm | #

First, that post is clearly a parody.

Second, the "I used to be a creationist" stories are not the same as the "I used to be a Christian" stories. Many former creationists either became or remained Christian upon their conversion to reason. Many more Christians never were creationist.

Third, those stories are much more rare than the "I used to be a raving, drug-using, sexually licentious atheist" stories on the creationist and fundamentalist sites.

As I write this, there are 43 comments on that thread at Paul Myer's blog, Pharyngula. You pick the one done by a rather mean-spirited (if clever) guy who was zinging one of the worst exponents of intelligent design.

I think your post is affected by extremely selective attention.

I do urge your readers to hie their browsers over to www.pharyngula.com, however, for some of the best biology blogging on Earth. Pharyngula provides more solid science data in a given week than the entire Discovery Institute can with it's $2 million PR budget in a year -- and it's free to the world, at a cost of probably $150 to Dr. Myers.

You can complain about the atheist views he expounds. But you should be worried. When an atheist can so easily lay over the entire intelligent design movement on the facts, there is cause for concern.

Worse for the church (in a catholic sort of way), Myers demonstrates higher ethical standards both in the way he regards students and in the way he deals with issues than most ID blogs (yourself excluded, of course (I hope)).

When the atheists win the ethics meet with the Christians, it's time to change something. Ranting at atheists isn't the right thing to do about it.
Ed Darrell | 10.30.05 - 7:34 pm | #

Hi pfalk:

The tone of the first two replies seems to clearly say something along the lines of "well if they were _really_ Christians, they wouldn't have had such an experience, therefore the reported experiences are not important". If that's not "true Scotsman" reasoning, I'll admit I don't know what is.

First of all, I can say most assuredly that I know, first hand, at least one Christian who has had such an experience along his journey of faith. Others have described such personal experiences to me and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. The post in question may have been written as a parody, but my assertion is that there is a basis of truth underlying it. Simply dismissing it out of hand as "not what a real Christian would experience" is, imo, naive at best.

Second, I don't know about you but it makes me more than just a bit theologically uncomfortable when I read anything written by someone presuming to speak for what a "true Christian" may or may not think or experience. The only logical way to do so, it seems to me, is to define Christianity statically as conformity to some litmus test list of received beliefs. Calling individuals into reconciliation with God for Christ's sake is God's work. Presuming to speak authoritatively about who is and is not a Christian is confusing one's role with God's, imho.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.31.05 - 11:28 am | #

Who's speaking for a "true Christian," Shaggy? Is it unsafe to assume Christians hold to a philsophy that celebrates veracity?

I'm on solid ground.
Ed Darrell | 11.03.05 - 11:04 pm | #

Hi Ed:

Thanks for your comment. Here is a quote from the second comment in this thread:

"Thus we need to distinguish between actual saved Christians and kids who have grwon up in the culture of Christ and think they are saved but are in fact not.

The former will never be bamboozled by the kind of things the 'too good to be true' stories are about."

And from the third comment:

"The few who claim disillusionment from Christianity are not exposed to what Christianity is really all about to begin with. Many people claim to be Christians, but how many really do things correctly?"

It strikes me that the writers of these comments are presuming a heck of a lot about the experiences of others and about what they expect is a possible experience of a "true Christian". The observations also, it seems to me, imply not only an ability (which I doubt) and license to pass judgement on who and who is not a "true Christian". The veracity of anyone's relationship with God, in my theological opinion, is known only to God and to the believer as a gift of faith. As far as veracity of objective knowledge about the universe - or from a theological perspective, creation - why wouldn't a Christian celebrate veracity?

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 11.04.05 - 10:58 am | #

Thanks, Shaggy. Yes, Christians should celebrate veracity. That's why I find all creationism movements so troubling -- it's impossible to maintain arguments for creationism (including intelligent design) while staying on the virtuous side of the veracity line.
Ed Darrell | 11.05.05 - 1:53 pm | #

I used to believe in Father Christmas.
I don't any more.
I used to believe in the tooth fairy.
I don't any more.
I used to believe in Jesus.
I don't any more.

- and all because I started asking questions. Try it some time, its called growing up.
Dean | 12.12.05 - 10:58 am | #

Of course Darwin was very pious and was studying for the ministry when he set off in the Bible. It was the loss of his fath that allowed him to develop the critical thinking to discover Evolution through Natural Selection, (and not the other way around as many creationists seem to think:
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/o...ine/ 110518.html

In a striking passage of his autobiography he expressed his final and complete rejection of Christian dogma based solely on blind faith:

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And that is a damnable doctrine."

Did Charles Darwin recant in his last days, as some religious critics have hopefully suggested? There is not a shred of evidence that he did or that he was presented with any reason to do so. Further, it would have been wholly contrary to the deliberate, careful manner with which he approached every subject.
Dean | 12.12.05 - 12:34 pm | #

I see others were pointed here by the PT thread. I don't see why you bothered to link it--your characterization of the original text is mendacious, belied by the quoted text itself.

You said:
"And does he really expect anyone to believe that numerous students actually blamed the Discovery Institute for misleading them?"

Whereas the author actually stated:
"...at the Discovery Institute and related organizations engage in the willful propogation of false information"

You and I both know there are many such related organizations. The specific name DI is shorthand for the tactic: lie, lie, lie and lie to convert more people to Christianity.

I find this mendacity (theirs & yours) offensive as a thinking person and blasphemous that it's done in Christ's name.

And if you want to see the real "Preacher Mike", camp out on the San Diego State University's main quad (between the new library and the student services building) for about a week. You couldn't escape him back when I was an undergrad, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was still there these years later.
Stoffel | Homepage | 12.12.05 - 4:53 pm | #