Reasons to Believe

By orDover

Recently this was brought up in the comment section on de-conversion.com

You know what I think would be great? Just as there is the famous post on de-conversion.com about the reasons some of us left faith, there should be a post about the reasons that made/make it difficult for us to leave faith. A post about what hinders/hindered us in walking away. Surely for all of us there are not only things because of which we think about leaving faith but also things despite of which we leave faith

I’m going to attempt to answer this question, but I’m afraid that my answers will all be of the emotional variety rather than the rational sort.

  1. I was taught the existence of God was a solid fact – I had never heard anyone say, “Maybe God isn’t real” until I said it myself. I learned that God was real just as I learned that stars were balls of burning gas millions of billions of miles away. Both things I considered factual, and both things I could never truly verify on my own. I was taught that God was a certainty, and it was very difficult to unlearn that bit of misinformation.
  2. Turning away from God was like turning away from my family - My family are all very religious. God played a central role in all of our lives and our relations with each other. If they learn of my deconversion they will be hurt and sad, and I will be automatically excluded. I wanted to remain a Christian so that I could listen to the Nativity story being read aloud on Christmas eve and not feel guilty, different, misplaced, or like a disappointment.
  3. I didn’t want to admit that my family’s religion was wrong - Tangential to point 2, it was very difficult to admit that, in my opinion, my family had devoted their lives to a fairy tale. I hold them in high regard as intelligent people, and it’s hard to know now that they consider something I find blatantly false completely and undeniably true. It’s hard to know that these otherwise smart people irrationally reject scientific principles like evolution, that they are comforted and convinced by shallow apologetic arguments, and that they accept lies told from authoritative pastors and authors instead of examining claims on their own.
  4. I didn’t want to be considered evil – Bottom line to most Christians: atheists are evil people who prefer to worship themselves rather than God, sever their own self-interests rather than serve God, and who want to sin without consequences. I don’t want anyone thinking of me that way–especially my friends and family.
  5. I didn’t want to put so much stake in the limited knowledge of humans - Turning away from Christianity, for me, was equivalent to turning toward science, yet I was always taught that relying on humans’ puny intellects was a great folly. I realize now though that while limited and imperfect, science is a much better tool for learning about the universe than the religious give it credit for.
  6. I wanted to believe that a kind and loving God was in control of my life – It’s really easy to sleep at night when you think the most powerful being imaginable is looking after you, has a plan for you life, and wants you to be successful. It’s wonderful to think that everything happens for a reason, and it will all turn out okay in the end
  7. I thought I needed God – I thought that I needed God in order to be a good person and in order to cope with the emotional turmoil of daily life. I thought that the only way I could bare a burden was to “lay it at the cross.”

That’s all for now. I was actually planning on turning a few of these into longer posts, which I may or may not do in the next few days. I might add to this list later, as I think about this issue more.

10 Responses to “Reasons to Believe”

  1. john t. Says:

    Ordover

    Hey. I think one of the challenges I have with people who have Deconverted is that I cant fully where they are at. I never had religion in my life and was never forced to believe in something greater than myself. So its hard to feel what most of you have felt. Now with that said, I do believe in a creator of sorts. I just dont quanitfy it. Its based more on intuition than actual tangible Logic.

  2. yogamama7 Says:

    Great post, orDover. Reasons number 2 and 3 were the ones that made it the hardest for me. For a few years, I pretty much knew that I didn’t believe in god anymore (at least one who takes an active interest in our world), but the family ties and the ostracism I knew I would face made me want to stick around–unfortunately, I was right to fear those things and still face those consequences of leaving the faith. It hasn’t been easy, but it was imperative for my sanity! Thanks for sharing your list.

  3. Rafi Says:

    Hi orDover, it’s such a deep contemplation. And I’d like to point out a misconception here about “science is a much better tool for learning about the universe than the religious give it credit for.” At a glance it might be true if we look at science above of our Faith. What is science? Science is nothing more than about observing created things. In short, science is a gift from God so that we could explore our world. So science should be always below from our Faith which is beyond what we could observe. Thru Faith we are driven to develop science, not the other around. Before a scientist could achieve something, he must have faith in his heart to achieve whatever he wanted to. Thus this the natural faith that we have as a remnant thru which God had given in our heart. Thanks!

  4. ordover Says:

    “Science is nothing more than about observing created things. In short, science is a gift from God so that we could explore our world.”

    In my opinion, after years of contemplation, considering all the evidence that is available to me, science reveals a world without design, and without a creator.

    “Before a scientist could achieve something, he must have faith in his heart to achieve whatever he wanted to.”

    Every single atheist and agnostic scientist disproves that statement.

  5. Rafi Says:

    “science reveals a world without design, and without a creator.”

    World without design would be a vain world as probably you have a skeptic point of view. As we shall see from every corner of our life, everything in this world has its rule (design). A day consist 24 hours with moon filling the black sky over night and sun over the day. This simple rule is for the benefit of mankind and other living creatures. I’m sure we are agree about this.

    If a world happened without design then the world would be totally devastated by now. Another thing is, from science we know that some of the resources in this planet are running out which means even this planet has its own limit. How could it be possible if one has its limit but doesn’t have design? A being if its entity is self existing, logically would be never run out of its limit – finite.

  6. bluelyon Says:

    This simple rule is for the benefit of mankind and other living creatures. I’m sure we are agree about this.

    We are not. We evolved from a world that contained 24 hours, not the other way around.

    This is just the standard “Watchmaker” analogy, or argument from design.

    The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

    1. The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
    2. As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.
    In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design.

    In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined.

    Arguments that emphasize the appearance of purpose (as in Voltaire, see below), often appeal to biological phenomena. It seems natural to say that the purpose of an eye is to enable an organism to gather information about its environment, the purpose of legs is to enable an organism to move about in its environment, and so on. Even for non-biological phenomena, scientific explanations in terms of purpose were accepted well into the 19th century. Natural phenomena were explained in terms of how they were designed for the benefit of humanity. It was held for instance, that the highest mountains on earth are located in the hottest climates by design — so that the mountains might condense the rain and provide cool breezes where mankind needed them the most.

  7. ordover Says:

    “If a world happened without design then the world would be totally devastated by now.”

    Kind of like the way that 99% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct? That’s a lot of devastation.

    “Another thing is, from science we know that some of the resources in this planet are running out which means even this planet has its own limit. How could it be possible if one has its limit but doesn’t have design? A being if its entity is self existing, logically would be never run out of its limit – finite.”

    Why would a creator design a world without enough resources to sustain the creatures he placed on it?

    It’s a false premise logical fallacy to say that if something is self-existing that it must be infinite. There is no way to test or prove that statement.

  8. Rafi Says:

    If something is self-existing, no design, or in particular the planet that without life as scientifically the earth happened with non-life material, how could it be possible from non-life arise life as did human, animal and plant life come from? Can science prove that anyway? There must be some sort of super natural existence to answer which is beyond science. Also, evolution causes by nature are an inadequate explanation to prove as such.

  9. bluelyon Says:

    If something is self-existing, no design, or in particular the planet that without life as scientifically the earth happened with non-life material, how could it be possible from non-life arise life as did human, animal and plant life come from?

    Rafi – You are completely misunderstanding the process of evolution.

    Logical Fallacy: “5. Argument from Personal Incredulity I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve. ”

    7. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the “God of the Gapsâ” strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.

    Can science prove that anyway?

    Why yes, it can. Life did arise from “non-life” as you call it. All of life is in some ways just a continuing series of chemical reactions (to completely oversimplify it), continually building, discarding, building, discarding…

    There must be some sort of super natural existence to answer which is beyond science.

    Logical Fallacy:

    9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.

    Also, evolution causes by nature are an inadequate explanation to prove as such.

    Logical Fallacy:

    2. Ad ignorantiam: The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.

  10. What are the best arguments, and what are the strawmen? « de-conversion Says:

    [...] September 9, 2008 My on-going experiment to engage ruthlessly with those who wish to argue effectively for Christianity has been underway for what seems like an eternity (no pun intended), but in many ways I’m no closer to finding the killer argument (unsurprising really). I keep thinking to myself that when I was a Christian if I had come up against this or that argument it would have resulted in a paradigm shift in thinking – but I’m really not sure that there was ever an argument out there that could penetrate the barriers to change. [...]

Leave a Reply