Really Nice De-Conversion Story (Catholic To Atheist)

Yup. I love the way that the author works science into it. Science is crucial to combating religion.
 
Yes, it is a good story. However, it does suggest that fundamentalists are not just paranoid in their opposition to evolution. It really does lure people away from Christianity, as does anything that makes you think critically about your beliefs.
 
Tricky said:
Yes, it is a good story. However, it does suggest that fundamentalists are not just paranoid in their opposition to evolution. It really does lure people away from Christianity, as does anything that makes you think critically about your beliefs.
Click to expand...

That's true. I believe ToE really does undercut Christianity to some extent. Really, science and fundamentalist Christianity are mutually exclusive. As such, scientific knowledge rightfully scares fundies - it shatters their fictitious worldview.
 
MrFrankZito said:
That's true. I believe ToE really does undercut Christianity to some extent. Really, science and fundamentalist Christianity are mutually exclusive. As such, scientific knowledge rightfully scares fundies - it shatters their fictitious worldview.
Click to expand...

I think that certain scientific theories are mutually exclusive to fundamentalist Christianity. A fundamentalist Christian can nominate any of a number of extrapolative-based theories as being insufficient, while understanding the formation and accepting that the theory works, if only theoretically and not necessarily in objective non-observable reality.

I think most fundamentalist Christians are non consciously, or vociferously, afraid of science. The average fundamentalist probably could not articulate the specific workings of any scientific theory you'd care to nominate. It wouldn't rise to the level of fear. How could it?

-Elliot
 
elliotfc said:
I think that certain scientific theories are mutually exclusive to fundamentalist Christianity. A fundamentalist Christian
Click to expand...

I think this goes for almost any fundamentalist or ultra-orthodox approach to any of the world's major religions.

These hard-line beliefs in fairy tales cross the line between what can be granted (room for a Creator due to unknown primal conditions), and full-on woo. Worse, it often translates into belligerence...

:mad:
 
Jimbo07 said:
These hard-line beliefs in fairy tales cross the line between what can be granted (room for a Creator due to unknown primal conditions), and full-on woo. Worse, it often translates into belligerence...

:mad:
Click to expand...

Belligerence can go either way. Calling something you reject "woo" isn't the friendliest thing to do. But you're right and they're wrong of course.

So belligerence really isn't the issue.

-Elliot
 
MrFrankZito said:
Here's a really nice Catholic to Atheist de-conversion story.

http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2006/05/my-de-conversion-narrative.html
Click to expand...


Hmm a combination of a poor understanding of catholism and an useage of the argument from evil (which of course doesn't touch the various malthiest, indifferent and uncomprihendable god models). Strong athieism is not backed up by science simply because there are so many god models that are not within our current ability to test.
 
elliotfc said:
Calling something you reject "woo" isn't the friendliest thing to do.
Click to expand...

Got me. That's due more to my laziness than ill will. I used woo, but I should have been more thorough.

A vague, or fuzzy, concept of God might allow a definition so general that science cannot technically disprove that the universe had some sort of non-corporeal Creator.

OTOH, some (though not all, I suppose) fundamentalist/ultra-orthodox faithful will make specific claims which are testable. This is where the conflict with scientific theory arises.

But you're right and they're wrong of course.
Click to expand...

I am seldom right. However, certain specific claims can be shown to be wrong with a high degree of confidence.

So belligerence really isn't the issue.
Click to expand...

Instead of belligerent, would you accept bellicose? I'm certainly not willing to kill to prop up my religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
 
Jimbo07 said:
OTOH, some (though not all, I suppose) fundamentalist/ultra-orthodox faithful will make specific claims which are testable. This is where the conflict with scientific theory arises.
Click to expand...

Their caveat would, or might, be that what we consider to be given conditions were not given conditions in the past. Scientific theories regarding the unobservable and non-repeatable past are dependent on conditions that are assumed. Reasonably assumed? Sure.

Instead of belligerent, would you accept bellicose? I'm certainly not willing to kill to prop up my religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...

Not yet at least. ;)

No I was just saying, I agree that the religious fundamentalists get more vigorous in their antipathies. They think the stakes are higher, so it's understandable, not that it makes it right.

-Elliot
 
elliotfc said:
Their caveat would, or might, be that what we consider to be given conditions were not given conditions in the past.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate.

Scientific theories regarding the unobservable and non-repeatable past are dependent on conditions that are assumed. Reasonably assumed? Sure.
Click to expand...

Setting aside unworkable and demonstrably untrue claims, such as a changing speed of light, current claims (like a miracle, or angel, say) are sometimes open to de-bunking.

Not yet at least. ;)
Click to expand...

I guess... Never say 'Never,' eh? :)
 
elliotfc said:
I think that certain scientific theories are mutually exclusive to fundamentalist Christianity. A fundamentalist Christian can nominate any of a number of extrapolative-based theories as being insufficient, while understanding the formation and accepting that the theory works, if only theoretically and not necessarily in objective non-observable reality.

I think most fundamentalist Christians are non consciously, or vociferously, afraid of science. The average fundamentalist probably could not articulate the specific workings of any scientific theory you'd care to nominate. It wouldn't rise to the level of fear. How could it?

-Elliot
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree that science opposes Christanity, but I would agree that Christianity often opposes science. It's perfectly possible to believe that that scientific findings about the age of the Earth, the universe, and the origin of the human race are all valid, and to reconcile that with a belief in a deity. It's just not possible to reconcile a very litteral interpretation of the bible, writen by ignorant nomads thousands of years ago, with the latest issue of Nature.

If many Christian organizations (The Church of Later Day Saints, Fundamentalists of all stripes, the Catholic Church) would stop deliberately lying about science, and the nature of reality, it would cause fewer members of the faith to recect it when they learn that two plus two does not equal five.
 
I don't think the opposition to science rests only with certain types of Christianity. I think there are a number of religions which find science to be a stumbling block to belief.
 
bluess said:
I don't think the opposition to science rests only with certain types of Christianity. I think there are a number of religions which find science to be a stumbling block to belief.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was pretty much referring to any fundamentalist/ultra-orthodox faith...
 
As a personal narrative of a 23 year old, it's articulate enough. Maybe it's just my age showing, or even my own biases, but it doesn't strike a whole lot of chords with me. He admits a weak teaching of religion. He doesn't see himself or his family as "belonging". I don't see the Catholic Church as anti-science. I was taught evolution in a Catholic High School and have godchildren that are learning the same. The science fairs at these schools have equalled or bettered those at secular or public schools. Most Catholics, from the Pope to the laity, don't look to the Bible for science.

I don't hang my beliefs about having a soul on how a brain functions, especially since I've had several courses in neuroanatomy. If I had to guess a science "department" for finding the soul - I'd guess physics, but I enjoy the mystery, so I'm not going out of my way to see it proven or not. I'm going to assume that humanity will use its gifts to explore the unexplainable, and will have an imperfect journey along the way to whatever lies ahead.

The scientists-are-atheists-and-agnostics section didn't really do much for me either...it struck me as groupthink, which also has its place as a criticism of religion.

Many of my beliefs have been tested over time, which has influenced where my faith is, in humanity, and in people within the context of religion. I don't expect either to be perfect, but that's me.

I'd find the story more compelling if he had elaborated more personal life experience. I don't wish misfortune for him, and I realize he has years ahead to develop the depth of his beliefs - he just comes across as more in-his-head than experienced.

I would have the same issue with a 23 year old born-again Xian.
 
Aurelian said:
As a personal narrative of a 23 year old, it's articulate enough. Maybe it's just my age showing, or even my own biases, but it doesn't strike a whole lot of chords with me. He admits a weak teaching of religion. He doesn't see himself or his family as "belonging". I don't see the Catholic Church as anti-science. I was taught evolution in a Catholic High School and have godchildren that are learning the same. The science fairs at these schools have equalled or bettered those at secular or public schools. Most Catholics, from the Pope to the laity, don't look to the Bible for science.

I don't hang my beliefs about having a soul on how a brain functions, especially since I've had several courses in neuroanatomy. If I had to guess a science "department" for finding the soul - I'd guess physics, but I enjoy the mystery, so I'm not going out of my way to see it proven or not. I'm going to assume that humanity will use its gifts to explore the unexplainable, and will have an imperfect journey along the way to whatever lies ahead.

The scientists-are-atheists-and-agnostics section didn't really do much for me either...it struck me as groupthink, which also has its place as a criticism of religion.

Many of my beliefs have been tested over time, which has influenced where my faith is, in humanity, and in people within the context of religion. I don't expect either to be perfect, but that's me.

I'd find the story more compelling if he had elaborated more personal life experience. I don't wish misfortune for him, and I realize he has years ahead to develop the depth of his beliefs - he just comes across as more in-his-head than experienced.

I would have the same issue with a 23 year old born-again Xian.
Click to expand...


I think you make some fair points, even though I agree with the author. I see the "story" as more a list of arguments, arguments I happen to find convincing. It reads a bit more like textbook than short story, but I don't particularly mind that. Anecdotes and appeals to emotionalism do little to convince me. I like hard scientific evidence and impersonal, theoretical arguments. As such, the piece appeals to me. But certainly, 23-year-old people still have a lot to learn. But the piece has a solid base, academically speaking.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Caveats. In radioactive dating, assuming constant rates of decay that are incorruptible (while not in theory, then in the practice of calculation). Making geological models based on a uniformitarian concept of layering. When calculating the expansion of the universe, assuiming fixed accelerations. There are all reasonable, yet untestable, working conditions. Were all of these rates the same one million years ago as they are today? Maybe. I don't know. Is it helpful to assume it? Sure, I guess so. Do people have to have faith in those assumptions. Yes. Or no.

Setting aside unworkable and demonstrably untrue claims, such as a changing speed of light, current claims (like a miracle, or angel, say) are sometimes open to de-bunking.
Click to expand...

You proclaim unworkable as a matter of faith. No biggie.

You procalim undemonstrable when you can't prove what the rates were a million years ago. You can't. You really, really can't.

I'm not claiming to know what the rates were at any particular point in time. I'm just saying that I can identify an assumption when I see one.

-Elliot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom