Do Reconverts Exist?

Posted in Religion on  | 1 minute | 49 Comments →

I’m not asking, “Has anybody ever stopped believing in God, then started again?” I’m sure those people exist. I’m thinking more along the lines of professionals and academics. Does anybody know of any prominent, vocal or outgoing believers who became prominent, vocal or outgoing atheists, then reconverted? I’m asking because I have this hypothesis that once a deconvert has blasphemed and insulted enough, potential cognitive dissonance outweighs commitment to reason. For example, John W. Loftus. Are we really to believe that somebody like Loftus is true enough to searching that he might reconvert, even after all that crap he’s talked about God and faith? Or, might all that crap-talking have permanently eroded any such chance?

If you are a deconvert, what would it take to reconvert?


49 comments

  1. cl

     says...

    So my dedicated hater, twimfanboy, has responded to this post.

    So we’ve got this fellow. Once he wasn’t a Christian, then he was (convert), then he wasn’t again (deconvert). cl’s ‘hypothesis’ is that his hypothetical deconvert’s ‘commitment to reason’ isn’t adequate to bring him back around to cl’s truth, due to what I think can fairly be called ‘unreasonable biases’.

    That’s not it, but I don’t expect twimfanboy to deliver anything earnest. After all, if twimfanboy were to, you know, legitimately engage with anything I write, that would spoil the whole show over there! By analogy, neither my hypothesis nor my question are affected by whether or not one’s initial faith in the Cubs was the result of contemplated reason. The question is whether a former Cubs fan who gets mad at the team then makes a career off publicly hating them could ever have a public reconversion. I see that sort of thing happen semi-often when the subject matter is secular, not so much when it’s religious (or political for that matter).

    In fact, I’ve got a better analogy, one that hits closer to home. Presuming twimfanboy really is Jim Crawford (I’m suspicious of the big reveal myself), well… ol’ Jim Crawford and I used to be on amiable terms. Alas, he got upset with me, and turned to the dark side of hatred and vitriol. As you can see by reading the blog, there’s no shortage of it. IOW, Jim Crawford is to me as John Loftus is to Christianity. The question then becomes, will Jim Crawford ever publicly show me any love? Or has the cognitive dissonance sealed him in an airtight mental box for the rest of his life?

    Of course, cl is speaking in general terms here, and seemingly from his ‘gut’- a euphemism for opinions gleaned from personal experience as opposed to, say, testable or measurable indicators, or what some folks might call ‘solid evidence’.

    Here twimfanboy exposes his genuine ignorance of the scientific method. As I stated in the OP, I have a hypothesis. Don’t’cha know, twimfanboy? The scientific method proceeds as follows:

    • 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
    • 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
    • 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
    • 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
    • 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

    Don’t’cha get it, fanboy?

    • 1. I have observed a lack of vocal deconverts who reconvert and renounce all the crap they talked about the faith (an aspect of the universe).
    • 2. I have invented a tentative description, called a hypothesis, suggesting that cognitive dissonance may be too formidable a barrier to overcome, and this is consistent with what I have observed.
    • 3. Using my hypothesis, I predict that the number of religious reconverts is disproportionate to non-religious reconverts.
    • 4. I am testing that predictions by asking others for their observations.

    And that’s where we’re at. I mean, the scientific method is basic stuff. You’d think that twimfanboy—rational, intelligent, intellectually superior atheist that he is—would understand the rudiments of the very epistemology he pays such lip service to. But, like many atheists with big science talk, hatred and irrationality often take center stage.

  2. I’ll just say this and be done. If and when you can ever be ‘legitimately engaged’, cl, I’ll be there with bells on. Unfortunately, none of this cuts the mustard. :)

  3. Does anybody know of any prominent, vocal or outgoing believers who became prominent, vocal or outgoing atheists, then reconverted?

    The population size is pretty low, I think — the amount of prominent believer -> prominent atheist convert is, I think, just a dozen or so. Prominent conversions happen rather infrequently.

    Are we really to believe that somebody like Loftus is true enough to searching that he might reconvert, even after all that crap he’s talked about God and faith?

    The idea that being true enough to searching will result in a reconversion is begging the question. It’s like me saying “Is Cl true enough to searching that he might become an atheist, even after all that crap he’s talked about New Atheists?”

  4. Peter, that’s not quite right, depending on what strain of Christianity one believes in. Because of the supernatural element involved, many Christians believe that he who truly seeks WILL find.

  5. cl

     says...

    twimfanboy,

    If and when you can ever be ‘legitimately engaged’, cl, I’ll be there with bells on. Unfortunately, none of this cuts the mustard.

    Ah, I see. Nice excuse. All you have to do is draw a line in that sand and say, “That doesn’t cut the mustard!” How convenient! “Oh, I’d *FULLY* engage legitimately with cl, but unfortunately, I won’t.” Classic!

    How about an open challenge? How about debating me over your claims that I’m a liar? You and I, in the combox, one on one, back and forth, yes or no, true or false, etc. Surely, a freethinking rationalist committed to evidence such as yourself has nothing to lose by investigating the evidence and answering a few questions, right? Let’s test your claims and see how much you really know about science and epistemology—not to mention technology.

    Alternatively, if that topic is too taboo for you, how about a discussion on any topic of your choice?

    Peter,

    The idea that being true enough to searching will result in a reconversion is begging the question.

    I agree. Good thing I never said or even implied as much, eh?

  6. cl

     says...

    Peter,

    It’s like me saying “Is Cl true enough to searching that he might become an atheist, even after all that crap he’s talked about New Atheists?”

    That’s not a correct analogy, but you get the basic idea it seems. In the context of myself (since that’s where you took it), I’m asking: if I became a prominent outspoken atheist who talked crap (and I mean insulted, cussed at, demanded, belittled, etc.) about religious believers (not a specific strain but all of them, cf. Loftus), might pride and cognitive dissonance weigh heavier than reason? Might the Loftus types hit a “point of no return” so to speak, where the cognitive dissonance of re-affirming that which they’ve made a career bashing becomes so strong it cannot be overcome by evidence or reason?

    I think it’s an interesting question.

  7. cl, I have tried to legitimately engage you on several occasions. Unfortunately, you’ve always failed the test, as you have with so many, many others. So, thanks anyway. I’ve been to that dry well one too many times.

    As for my charges against you, why rehash in a chatbox what I’ve already outlined so thoroughly at my site, using mostly YOUR OWN WORDS? You just want a chance to soapbox, doing some Gish galloping along the way. Your silly little dis regarding my ‘technology’ expertise is a dead giveaway, dude. Really, get some new material. If you like, I’ll admit right here that I’m rather the cyber-klutz. There, do you feel better now? Is your self-image secure? All you’re demonstrating here is that for you, it’s all about the ‘winning’, never about the substance.

  8. cl

     says...

    twimfanboy,

    So, thanks anyway. I’ve been to that dry well one too many times.

    Got it. IOW, “I’ll be there with bells on” really meant, “the last thing I’ll do is show up with bells on.” Thanks for clarifying that you weren’t really sincere.

    As for my charges against you, why rehash in a chatbox what I’ve already outlined so thoroughly at my site, using mostly YOUR OWN WORDS?

    Because I wish to challenge the faulty, disingenuous *CONCLUSIONS* you drew from my words.

    You just want a chance to soapbox, doing some Gish galloping along the way.

    I don’t, actually. If you haven’t noticed, today is the first real acknowledgement (as in, dedicated posts or comments beyond passing references) I’ve given to you or your blog in quite some time. You threw out a gauntlet, I called you on it because I suspected it was insincere although I was really hoping it wasn’t, and here we are.

    All you’re demonstrating here is that for you, it’s all about the ‘winning’, never about the substance.

    See what you want to see. If it was about “winning” I would never concede error nor apologize for hurting people’s feelings.

    Your silly little dis regarding my ‘technology’ expertise is a dead giveaway, dude. Really, get some new material. If you like, I’ll admit right here that I’m rather the cyber-klutz. There, do you feel better now? Is your self-image secure?

    No, I don’t feel better. I feel worse because you completely missed the point of that remark, and insist on seeing personal malice where none exists. It wasn’t a juvenile dis. This isn’t about bolstering my self-image, “dude.” This is about questioning whether a conclusion flows from the premises. Questioning whether your evidence is solid, or whether confirmation bias might be pulling you by a stick. You charged me with “blatant lying” in this regard, and that’s no small matter in my book. That is a personal attack against my character. You are declaring that you have knowledge of my motives, and that I am a liar. To sustain that claim in any court of law, you would need, ahem, that *SOLID EVIDENCE* you pay such lipservice to. Conflating different IP addresses with proxies is not solid evidence. It’s solid ignorance, of technology. I’m not saying you’re a cyber-klutz because I think you’re a big meanie and I just want to strike back. I’m saying the fact that you’re a cyber-klutz should provide warrant for skepticism over your klutzy conclusion.

    You see yet?

  9. Well then, let me expand my statement “If and when you can ever be ‘legitimately engaged…’ to ‘If and when you show some EVIDENCE that you can be legitimately engaged, rather than simply challenge me to take the thousandth ride on the cl merry-go-round to nowhere, promising that it’ll really be different this time.’ Until then, I’ll stick to ‘harsh rebuttal and/or mockery’ to get my point across. :)

  10. cl

     says...

    Isn’t a legitimate question evidence of intent to legitimately engage? Or will you deny that, too?

  11. In your case? Absolutely not. It’s merely the opening salvo in what, as history teaches us, a bullshit throwing frenzy. When I see some legitimate growth I’ll enter into an actual discussion with you, cl. Not until.

    That’ll be it for me in your threads for awhile. Same old shit. But I’ll be lurking, and posting. Somebody’s gotta say it, after all. :)

  12. cl

     says...

    Ah, yes… I see. So convenient. All you have to do is keep saying my replies aren’t legitimate, thus absolving you from meeting the burden of proof. Classic denial.

    My prediction? You’ll never tackle that question honestly. You’ll just forge ahead and keep hating, because that’s what haters do. They hate, without concern for facts or logic.

    Interestingly, you’ve lent support to my hypothesis. You have made an internet “career” out of hating and maligning me. Therefore, answering the question I just asked would likely entail severe cognitive dissonance on your part. The subtext would read something like, “Uh oh, I’ve been talking major crap about this other human being, yet, I really don’t know what I’m talking about, I can’t possibly admit this person I’ve slandered to high hell might actually have a point, so, I’ll just keep evading.”

    Yeah, you’re right. Coming clean *DOES* require balls. Break the cycle, twimfanboy.

  13. twimfanboy: Peter, that’s not quite right, depending on what strain of Christianity one believes in. Because of the supernatural element involved, many Christians believe that he who truly seeks WILL find.

    I don’t think Cl believes that. Do you, Cl?

    ~

    Peter: The idea that being true enough to searching will result in a reconversion is begging the question.

    Cl: I agree. Good thing I never said or even implied as much, eh?

    Eh, indeed. I’m just wondering why the failure to reconvert is an indication of not being true enough in searching.

    ~

    Might the Loftus types hit a “point of no return” so to speak, where the cognitive dissonance of re-affirming that which they’ve made a career bashing becomes so strong it cannot be overcome by evidence or reason?

    He might, yes. It sounds plausible.

  14. cl

     says...

    Peter,

    Do you, Cl?

    Generally speaking, yes, I believe that he who genuinely seeks will find.

    I’m just wondering why the failure to reconvert is an indication of not being true enough in searching.

    I didn’t say it was.

  15. I believe that he who genuinely seeks will find.

    Well, shit. I better start genuinely seeking then…

    I find it implausible that of the millions, if not billions, of people who died not accepting Jesus as their personal lord and savior… that there was not one genuine seeker in the bunch. Maybe that’s not what you mean to say, so I’ll stop here…

  16. cl

     says...

    I find it implausible…

    Logic cares not for your incredulity.

    Maybe that’s not what you mean to say, so I’ll stop here…

    Yeah, that’s probably a good idea.

  17. I mean, hey, you can justify almost anything if you look in the right places and avoid looking in other areas. Confirmation bias and what not. Not suggesting that’s what you do, but selective thinking is easy to fall victim to, that’s for sure.

    To weigh in on the subject: I’d say yes, but they probably live the rest of their lives in the closet. Publicly denouncing what they once so fervently defended would probably cause fans to view the figure as incredible, especially for figures that are known ex-theists. I mean, how much can you trust as a person that’s apparently always changing his mind?

    OTOH, what would it take for people like Lee Strobel to go back to atheism? What exactly would have to happen to make a theist become an atheist?

  18. cl, do you think that all those who genuinely seek will find? Do you think there has ever been an atheist who did genuinely seek and did not find? Actually, let’s open this up beyond the corridors of atheism. How about Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims? Surely intelligent folks within each belief system have contemplated whether they were correct or not, and perhaps considered if Christianity was the superior belief system.

  19. cl

     says...

    ThinkingEmotions,

    Do you think there has ever been an atheist who did genuinely seek and did not find? … How about Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims?

    I don’t know. It’s hard to talk about hypothetical people, and we haven’t even began to discuss what it means to genuinely seek.

    Surely intelligent folks within each belief system have contemplated whether they were correct or not, and perhaps considered if Christianity was the superior belief system.

    Surely.

  20. cl

     says...

    ThinkingEmotions,

    Not suggesting that’s what you do, but selective thinking is easy to fall victim to, that’s for sure.

    No need to distance yourself from a claim that I think selectively. We all do. We’re humans with cognitive biases, incomplete knowledge, strong passions and wild imaginations.

    I’d say yes, but they probably live the rest of their lives in the closet.

    That makes sense. That would seemingly be a way to obey reason without confronting the cognitive dissonance.

    I mean, how much can you trust as a person that’s apparently always changing his mind?

    I don’t think changing one’s mind often, per se, constitutes grounds for mistrust. I’d be more interested in the reasons behind the changes.

  21. I don’t think changing one’s mind often, per se, constitutes grounds for mistrust. I’d be more interested in the reasons behind the changes.

    I don’t either, but people fall in love with figures like Harris and Loftus for security and stability. They provide fuel for their faithlessness. In a way, those guys are atheist pastors. They don’t look up to them for objectivity or reasoned argument, IMO.

    No need to distance yourself from a claim that I think selectively. We all do. We’re humans with cognitive biases, incomplete knowledge, strong passions and wild imaginations.

    Of course you do. I do as well. Glad to hear the sentiment that we’re only human out of you. It’s the truest thing in the world. I just meant all that WRT to this particular subject of reconverts and what not.

    I don’t know. It’s hard to talk about hypothetical people, and we haven’t even began to discuss what it means to genuinely seek.

    I see your point. Agreed.

  22. cl

     says...

    …people fall in love with figures like Harris and Loftus for security and stability. They provide fuel for their faithlessness. In a way, those guys are atheist pastors. They don’t look up to them for objectivity or reasoned argument, IMO.

    Well said, that’s been generally true IME as well. The human heart abhors a vacuum.

  23. This is an interesting question on different levels.

    Why do you ask about the tenacity of apostates? Can the apostate be distinguished from other atheists in this matter?

    Why do you ask this of apostates from theism specifically? Do you observe a greater willingness among apostates from atheism to become atheists again?

  24. cl

     says...

    Why do you ask about the tenacity of apostates?

    I didn’t.

    Can the apostate be distinguished from other atheists in this matter?

    What do you mean by, “in this matter?” The question needs unpacking.

    Why do you ask this of apostates from theism specifically?

    Because Loftus was the first person that came to mind.

    Do you observe a greater willingness among apostates from atheism to become atheists again?

    No, but unfortunately you’re framing the question in terms of the general. I’m asking about a specific type of deconvert: prominent, vocal, outgoing, crap-talking.

  25. cl

     says...

    I’ve been thinking, re Peter Hurford at #15… Peter seems to want to imply that he’s a genuine seeker, but I’m skeptical. Would a genuine seeker use cherrypicked Scriptures to call God names? Would a genuine seeker declare themselves a strong atheist then go about mocking and insulting God? I don’t see how those things are compatible with genuine seeking. To me, humility is an earmark of genuine seeking.

  26. You know, Cl, you keep quoting only the worst Dawkins, Harris, and PZ offer, and never the best. You always cherrypick quotes that show them in such a negative light. I bet a real true shiny genuine seeker(TM) would show humility in presenting the arguments of New Atheists.

    Obviously I’m going to cherrypick only the bad scriptures if I’m writing an essay about how there are bad scriptures in the Bible. Did you want me to write the essay “Ok Kids, Here are Heart Warming Scriptures And Some Scriptures About Genocide… You Decide?” now, am I? I’m going to call it like I see it, just as you do.

    Give me a break. After all this good faith arguments we’ve had, you’re going to start insinuating I have bad faith? Oh wait, you didn’t insinuate that. For the sixth time or so, that’s going to be not what you really said, and I just misunderstood you again. If only I was a genuine seeker, then I would have understood you right the first time…

    I work hard to take criticism. I have noticed unjustified hyperbole in my essays, and I’ve seeked to correct that. I also work hard to be responsive to criticism that I’m acting in bad faith. Maybe I’m in a bad mood right now, but your past comment struck me the wrong way. Such a comment wasn’t tactful or logical at all.

    But I’m sorry I hurt poor God’s feelings with my mocking and insulting. If you excuse me, I’ve got some more non-genuine seeking to do. Enjoy.

  27. cl

     says...

    Eh…

    You know, Cl, you keep quoting only the worst Dawkins, Harris, and PZ offer, and never the best. You always cherrypick quotes that show them in such a negative light. I bet a real true shiny genuine seeker(TM) would show humility in presenting the arguments of New Atheists.

    Emotion and defensiveness are clouding your logic here. Once you settle down, ask yourself whether you *REALLY* believe I fail to genuinely assess the arguments espoused by New Atheists. If that were true, you wouldn’t spend the amount of time you do here. You come here precisely because you know that at the end of the day, that’s what I do. I genuinely assess the many arguments, from many angles—as does yourself—and when it comes to the arguments, I treat them with respect and humility. Do you see me rolling out strawmen like many other theists? Or, would you say I dig to the meat of the issue and consider both sides the best I can?

    All that aside, I can tell that you’re just using rhetoric in your opening paragraph there. Why? Because in the very next paragraph, you *ENDORSE* cherrypicking to “call it like one sees it.”

    Obviously I’m going to cherrypick only the bad scriptures if I’m writing an essay about how there are bad scriptures in the Bible.

    That wouldn’t be a problem at all if your meta-argument also listed the good. While I don’t think mocking God is indicative of a genuine spiritual search, there’s nothing wrong with saying, “here are some posts that I have a hard time reconciling with a loving God,” or something like that. It’s that you *ONLY* focus on the “bad” verses.

    Now, I *COULD* say, obviously I’m going to cherrypick things that contradict the virtues of freethought, equality and rationalism when I’m writing posts about how the Gnus actually trample these virtues. I could say that, and that would get me off your hook because it’s the very same canard you just appealed to—with a straight face at that.

    But guess what? I can’t say that. Why? Because, quite honestly—and I’m only going to focus on PZ for the moment—I have literally *NEVER* seen any positive things from him WRT the virtues of freethought, equality and rationalism. It’s not that I cherrypick only the “bad” quotes, it’s that IME, the man offers nothing but vitriolic, hypocritical illogic. So how can you expect me to provide non-existent material? How can you expect me to provide instances of PZ upholding the virtues of freethought, equality and rationalism when, at every turn, he not only whips out his penis and pisses all over them, but laughs like an immature teenager while doing so? Do you think PZ genuinely upholds those virtues? C’mon.

    Did you want me to write the essay “Ok Kids, Here are Heart Warming Scriptures And Some Scriptures About Genocide… You Decide?”

    Yes, actually, that’s not too far from what I would expect. I believe that a genuine seeker would contrast the pros and cons, not simply point to the cons, ignore the pros, then mock and insult God. Can you point me to your posts on the many biblical virtues that have unquestionably transformed society for the better? Don’t ask me to point you to my posts on the virtues of atheism, because remember, it’s nothing but lack of belief in God. Atheism has no virtues. It’s just a negative response. But please, feel free to ask me to point you to posts extolling the virtues of freethought, logic, science, etc., because they are littered all over this blog, especially in the older posts.

    After all this good faith arguments we’ve had, you’re going to start insinuating I have bad faith?

    Careful there. You know that I’ve taken great measures to clarify myself WRT the good faith / bad faith thing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you are one of the most good faith interlocutors I’ve ever come across. That I cite instances that seem to contradict “genuine seeking” does not cancel that out—unless of course you want to focus on the one issue I dare to question, while ignoring the countless times I’ve praised you for being a good faith interlocutor. You’re acting like “good faith / bad faith” is an either-or thing.

    But I’m sorry I hurt poor God’s feelings with my mocking and insulting.

    See what I mean? Was that a “good faith” comment? Was that genuine seeking? It seems to me you’re just being sarcastic. I’m not trying to offend you, Peter, but I’m just calling it like I see it. How is that comment compatible with “genuine seeking” of God? I’m genuinely seeking an honest answer there, no pun intended.

  28. jason

     says...

    peter,

    what i took from cl’s comment was something that i’ve also thought for a very long time – why mock a being that you believe to be nonexistent? and i’m not talking about just mocking peoples’ belief in God, though, most atheists that mock God directly would have you believe that this is all they’re doing. for me its akin to mocking xenu of scientology fame. i mean, really, what’s the point? i personally don’t believe in the tenants of scientology so if i were to spend any time mocking its supposed alien founder, it would just seem foolish to me. it seems a colossal waste of time imo.

  29. Cl: All that aside, I can tell that you’re just using rhetoric in your opening paragraph there. Why? Because in the very next paragraph, you *ENDORSE* cherrypicking to “call it like one sees it.”

    Exactly. I don’t think there’s anything rhetorically incorrect about your assessment of the New Atheists. I think it’s actually just like my critique of the Bible.

    ~

    Me: Obviously I’m going to cherrypick only the bad scriptures if I’m writing an essay about how there are bad scriptures in the Bible.

    Cl: That wouldn’t be a problem at all if your meta-argument also listed the good.

    I don’t think my meta-argument needs to list the good. I acknowledge that religion has good aspects, and the Bible has good parts in it. Maybe I should do so directly on my blog for clarity purposes to show I’m not a hater.

    But the “Moral Argument Against the Bible” as it’s often called (though it’s really just a variant of the POE, except using the Bible as the source material for the evil that God is allegedly responsible for) is not correctly defeated by pointing to good elsewhere. That would only work if your aim is to establish a “sometimes bad, sometimes good” god, which is not the one I’m trying to establish.

    And I think it’s one thing to say “Hey, you’re mistaken about this because your meta-argument doesn’t take into account the good parts of the Bible, and that is actually significant at undermining your POE-variant because…” and another one to say “Hey, your meta-argument doesn’t take into account the good parts of the Bible, therefore you clearly don’t think the Bible has any good parts, and you’re probably an insincere hater.”

    Now, I don’t think you actually said the second part, but that’s how it sounded to me at first read. I’m wondering what your motivation was behind taking the time to say “Peter says he might be looking as hard as he can, but he’s probably not” and then list rhetorical questions in a conspiracy theory fashion.

    If you had an actual problem with my meta-argument, the essay in question has a comment thread. Indeed, I think there still was an open discussion from you. I forget which one of us still needs to respond. I’ll check sometime. And my problem isn’t even that you’re arguing against this meta-argument, but that you seem to take it as a sort of personal defect of mine.

    ~

    Cl: While I don’t think mocking God is indicative of a genuine spiritual search, there’s nothing wrong with saying, “here are some posts that I have a hard time reconciling with a loving God,” or something like that. It’s that you *ONLY* focus on the “bad” verses.

    “Here are some posts that I have a hard time reconciling” sounds like the kind of thing I would say to my sunday school minister when I still wanted to keep the faith. That kind of rhetoric seems to assume that there’s some sort of answer, when I don’t think there is. (Though an answer is, I admit, not like *impossible* or anything.)

    I’m still not seeing the big deal about focusing on only the bad verses. Maybe it’s that my motivations for writing aren’t clear? I see debating religion as just a fun academic exercise; I’m not out to be an atheist activist.

    I think that yes, there are social problems that surround religion, but that’s because of fundamentalism and ignorance, not because of religion itself. “Eliminating religion” isn’t even on like the top 10 of my priorities list. Heck, I even like Jesus and want to be like him more or less, in the Aristotelian utilitarian ascetic lifestyle sense.

    ~

    Cl: Because, quite honestly—and I’m only going to focus on PZ for the moment—I have literally *NEVER* seen any positive things from him WRT the virtues of freethought, equality and rationalism. It’s not that I cherrypick only the “bad” quotes, it’s that IME, the man offers nothing but vitriolic, hypocritical illogic. So how can you expect me to provide non-existent material?

    I think that he does a good job of stirring up people who take their religion far too seriously, with regard to the completely-evidence-denying creationists (even you have to admit, that evolution skepticism aside, people like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort aren’t arguing in good faith) or the death-threat-issuing kind.

    Also, I think he’s done a good job of laying out and explaining some parts of science and feminism. Maybe I haven’t been in the same kinds of “PZ is Terrible!” places you have and seen the evidence, but I think that PZ is arguing in good faith, even if he has issues seeing the merits of philosophy (and thus can’t seriously engage in philosophical arguments).

    ~

    Me: Did you want me to write the essay “Ok Kids, Here are Heart Warming Scriptures And Some Scriptures About Genocide… You Decide?”

    Cl: Yes, actually, that’s not too far from what I would expect. I believe that a genuine seeker would contrast the pros and cons, not simply point to the cons, ignore the pros, then mock and insult God.

    I think that’s a pretty unreasonable rhetorical standard. It’s not like I’m the only person on the internet. I imagine a genuine truth seeker would get my side of the story and then see the theist side, and make their own decision.

    And if I’m wrong about what I’m writing about, or haven’t properly taken into account the other arguments, then they’d tell me. It’s not like I haven’t looked at them, but I could have made an error in considering them.

    Basically, the way I’m seeing this break down is that you’re arguing against my tone, not the substance, and I think that’s weird, especially coming from you. So even if I was mocking/insulting God directly, I don’t think that’s a problem as long as I’m correct about it.

    That being said, I’m not even clear on where I’m mocking/insulting God, as opposed to arguing against the religious idea. Maybe I have some paragraphs where I mock/insult God for rhetorical effect to demonstrate my point, but I forget where I’ve done so. So that makes this doubly weird for me.

    ~

    You know that I’ve taken great measures to clarify myself WRT the good faith / bad faith thing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you are one of the most good faith interlocutors I’ve ever come across.

    Right, I remember all of that. But you might have changed your mind on that, and I was a little unsure. Or it might be a “You’re the best atheist I’ve seen, but that’s not saying much” kind of thing. I personally know it’s easy to miscommunicate, have the other person misread, and take offense.

    But your previous comment was pretty offensive to me, the way I read good faith. If you don’t want that kind of offense to come across, I’d be pretty careful with wording. It just helps them along.

    ~

    Jason: why mock a being that you believe to be nonexistent? and i’m not talking about just mocking peoples’ belief in God, though, most atheists that mock God directly would have you believe that this is all they’re doing.

    See above with regard to this mocking thing. I really don’t see mocking God directly in atheist arguments that often. Maybe you can point to what you’re talking about?

    ~

    Jason: for me its akin to mocking xenu of scientology fame. i mean, really, what’s the point? i personally don’t believe in the tenants of scientology so if i were to spend any time mocking its supposed alien founder, it would just seem foolish to me.

    The reason it’s so odd to mock Xenu is that Scientology is so clearly and obviously seen as ridiculous by the population, and so infrequently believed.

    Christianity has a much larger grasp on the population, and isn’t seen as ridiculous. For those of us who think that Christianity is ridiculous (and I do think some parts of it are), a way to demonstrate this is with rhetorical mocking.

    Colossal waste of time? I think a bit less. It’s not like the most productive thing I do — I see it as a fun academic exercise. But I think it’s important to lay down my thinking. I mean, the ramifications of any religion being true, especially one with an afterlife, is kind of huge. I need to make sure I’m right. And if I am right, Christians are wasting some of their time too.

    Make sense?

  30. (PS: The “arguing against my tone, not my substance” link was supposed to go to my essay “How to Ignore Everything I Say (About Religion)”.)

  31. Also, to make my motivations a bit more clear, I just wrote “The Good of Religion”.

  32. jason

     says...

    peter: See above with regard to this mocking thing. I really don’t see mocking God directly in atheist arguments that often. Maybe you can point to what you’re talking about?

    sure, you may not see mocking in the formal arguments but outside of the arguments in the gnu atheists’ echo chambers, you can’t not see it. p.z.’s blog is probably the worst of them. cl is not wrong about ftb – there’s very little actual free thought going on there. it would be more appropriate to rename it gtb – group thought blogs.

    peter: The reason it’s so odd to mock Xenu is that Scientology is so clearly and obviously seen as ridiculous by the population, and so infrequently believed.

    i disagree. i chose scientology as an example because it was literally the first thing that came to mind but i could have instead named a religion that i find equally implausible yet has many millions of adherents. buddhism or hinduism, for example.

    For those of us who think that Christianity is ridiculous (and I do think some parts of it are), a way to demonstrate this is with rhetorical mocking.

    i believe that to be a dishonest reply. not that i think you’re lying to me and therefore are a dishonest person – you are probably one of the most honest people i’ve read in quite some time. i think you’re lying to yourself, though. mocking, imo, always comes from the self-centered, hateful part of people and never from the selfless, charitable part. never in all my experience have i seen different. i believe that the idea that mockery as a useful rhetorical teaching device is simply a thin justification for certain people to act superior towards other people simply because it makes them feel better. its nothing but elementary school yard behavior that children learn and engage in to prop up their young budding egos and some will never grow out of using it. you may disagree, but just ask yourself when was the last time you witnessed mockery as an uninvolved third party and nodded your head in approval.

    peter: I mean, the ramifications of any religion being true, especially one with an afterlife, is kind of huge. I need to make sure I’m right.

    agreed, but it seems to me you are no longer seeking to know if you’re right and have made up your mind. what’s left to discuss? am i wrong?

    peter:And if I am right, Christians are wasting some of their time too.

    if you’re right, everybody is wasting their time.

  33. cl

     says...

    jason,

    Oh boy. I sense more defensive flareup in the very near future! Ack.

    At the same time, I understand that you’re just calling it like you see it. I must say, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the mockery thing lately—for example, referring to New Atheists as Gnus and whatnot—and although I’ve succumbed to that temptation on a few instances as of late, I’m seriously reconsidering it. Years back, before all the mockery I received from small-minded atheists, I used to completely eschew mockery. But I’m only human, and after a while that stuff starts to get to a guy, especially the lies and blatant attempts at character assassination, which certainly increases the temptation to respond in kind.

    So, jason, I want to ask you and anybody else who cares to respond: when, in your opinion, am I at my worst WRT mockery? Be brutally honest and mince no words. Is it mockery to say that people like Stephen R. Diamond and Jim Crawford are “haters?” Would you say it was mockery for Jesus to refer to the Pharisees as a “brood of vipers?” Would you consider my recent posts mentioning Harris, PZ and Dawkins as mockery? I don’t think they are, but I want to know what others think. Don’t hold back. Anybody interested in discourse needs to know how intelligent, reasonable people perceive what they’re saying. It’s the only way we can improve. I’m not going to lash out in defensiveness at you.

    Also, it might help to get a good definition: what constitutes mockery in your opinion? What motive must be present on behalf of the speaker in order to conclude that a certain statement is mockery?

    Peter,

    I wrote my response to #29 last night, but I’m sitting on it and going to reread it a few times before I post it. Waiting for emotions to cool down before responding to a sensitive topic is a great strategy. In fact, I’ll go so far as to suggest we might not be in such a mess had you gave #25 a cool-off period before replying.

  34. jason

     says...

    ok. well, i think we should start here.

    cl: Also, it might help to get a good definition: what constitutes mockery in your opinion? What motive must be present on behalf of the speaker in order to conclude that a certain statement is mockery?

    i think what we’re trying to determine is how does mockery differ from a simple statement of fact or opinion that is unflattering to the person or object it is directed at. for example if one were to say to a co-worker, “boy, you need a mint. your breath is awful.”, could this be construed as mockery or just statement of fact albeit in a rude manner? i say its the second. i think, cl, you have it pegged when you ask about the speaker’s motive. i looked it up and mockery as we’re using it here is defined as ridicule and derision. ridicule is defined as speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing. derision (or deride, really) is to treat with contempt. and contempt in turn is the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless. i agree with these definitions and so believe that in order to separate mockery from simple unflattering statements, one only need to ask: 1.) is the speaker speaking in a contemptuous tone and/or using words that convey contempt? and 2.) is the speaker/writer trying to elicit a negative laughter response from listeners/readers?

    cl: So, jason, I want to ask you and anybody else who cares to respond: when, in your opinion, am I at my worst WRT mockery?

    well, i’ve definitely seen you engaged in mockery at times. those times i’ve seen you really laying it on thick are usually when threads have broken down and the discussions have devolved into a trade of insults and squabbling. to the best of my recollection, however, i’ve never seen you actually throw the first punch, so to speak.

    cl: Is it mockery to say that people like Stephen R. Diamond and Jim Crawford are “haters?” Would you say it was mockery for Jesus to refer to the Pharisees as a “brood of vipers?” Would you consider my recent posts mentioning Harris, PZ and Dawkins as mockery?

    no, i would say that your first question falls under the umbrella of statements of fact or opinion that are unflattering to the person or object they are directed at. i don’t necessarily agree that they should have been called “haters” but neither do i think its a form of mockery on your part. and, no, i don’t think Jesus was mocking the pharisees. again, it doesn’t in my mind meet the definitional requirements and imo i don’t believe He was capable of holding his own creation for which He died for in contempt in any case. as for your last question, i want to say – maybe. allow me to re-read the posts in question and let me get back to you.

  35. Crude

     says...

    Does anybody know of any prominent, vocal or outgoing believers who became prominent, vocal or outgoing atheists, then reconverted?

    The closest I can recall is some CS Lewis biographer who absolutely tore apart Lewis, then apparently later became Christian again.

    As an aside, the worst of Dawkins, Harris and especially that jackass Myers is on par with their best. Really, none of them are known for being very brilliant individuals – all three, at best, are just good with rhetoric. Actually, Myers isn’t even ‘good’ at that, but he serves as alpha leader for an internet squadron of chubby rage-monkeys.

  36. cl

     says...

    Crude,

    Re the Lewis biographer, you recall his/her name by chance? I did some quick Googling but didn’t turn up any leads.

    As an aside, the worst of Dawkins, Harris and especially that jackass Myers is on par with their best. Really, none of them are known for being very brilliant individuals – all three, at best, are just good with rhetoric. Actually, Myers isn’t even ‘good’ at that, but he serves as alpha leader for an internet squadron of chubby rage-monkeys.

    Agreed.

  37. Crude

     says...

    Finally remembered. AN Wilson.

    Here you go.

    Not sure if he meets your standards.

  38. Hi cl. You wrote:

    What do you mean by, “in this matter?” The question needs unpacking.

    Never mind; you answered my overall question. It seems to me that most people, regardless of religious persuasion, just don’t go through such dramatic personal transformations very often. Inertia and all that.

  39. cl

     says...

    Hey there. I thought you were on vacation so I let the other matters settle. Yeah, Ed’s a reconvert, but the pertinent question as evidenced in the OP is, was he ever an atheist like Loftus, Dawkins, Myers, et al.? I don’t see any reason that cognitive dissonance would interfere when the person in question hasn’t left a litany of derogatory remarks about that which they deconverted from. Get the drift?

  40. Hey there. I thought you were on vacation so I let the other matters settle.

    Yep, still on vacation and all that. I hope that doesn’t mean I can’t pop in here for a bit. No worries about the other matters and their settling. Nice thingy on religious disagreement btw, hope to respond to that soon…

    ~

    Yeah, Ed’s a reconvert, but the pertinent question as evidenced in the OP is, was he ever an atheist like Loftus, Dawkins, Myers, et al.?

    Yeah, he wasn’t. I know what you mean there. Refer to what I said earlier about the small sample size and agreeing with the increased likelihood for cognitive dissonance.

  41. cl

     says...

    Yep, still on vacation and all that. I hope that doesn’t mean I can’t pop in here for a bit.

    C’mon. Why would it? Wasn’t it obvious that I was just explaining why I hadn’t posted my reply to the whole “genuine seeking” thing?

  42. Haha, don’t worry, I knew what you meant (that time).

  43. Crude

     says...

    Not sure if that went through. So, here’s a post to check.

  44. P.H.: Yep, still on vacation and all that. I hope that doesn’t mean I can’t pop in here for a bit.

    CL: C’mon. Why would it? Wasn’t it obvious that I was just explaining why I hadn’t posted my reply to the whole “genuine seeking” thing?

    Like twimfanboy said:

    All praise cl, master of disaster, a delinquent for the rest of us, a reprobate from the RIGHT side of the street, a man so bereft of an actual sense of humor that he makes me laugh hysterically every time I see his name, and that’s why we all love him so much. (http://thewarfareismentalfanboy.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/et-tu-brother-joseph-12)

  45. Cl, I’m thinking more about you and mocking, and I’m recalling two fairly concrete examples — your picture of Carrier and Loftus and your moniker for the Singularity as the fanatical “Cult of the Electric God”.

    Now, I’d like to remind you that this rhetoric is perfectly fine “calling it like you see it” in my book and somewhat well backed up (even if I disagree with you on both counts). But I just want to point out that yes, you do it too.

  46. jason

     says...

    peter,

    i’m not so sure. i think in regards to the picture in the carrier/loftus post, there’s no mean-spiritedness there. perhaps it is a sort of good natured mockery, more akin to ribbing your friends for some public embarrassment, but i do think a definite air of contempt and superiority have to be present to qualify this as the mockery that we’re talking about and i just don’t sense it here imo. as for the “cult of the electric god” references, those all seem to be in crude’s comments – unless cl coined the phrase in another post.

  47. Crude

     says...

    For the record, my “Cult of the Electric God” reference was not at all a moniker for the Singularity. If you read those posts, I am explicitly taking aim at Luke’s own views about evil God-AIs.

    As far as mockery goes, I’m generally almost entirely reactive. Admittedly, all it takes is a snide comment for me to start escalating, but when someone’s consistently polite and snark-free, even if I disagree with them, I’m not going to start anything. The only exception is with the two-faced, who may be all nice and sweet/friendly on one place, but on another, they’re nasty and talking about all their ‘friends’ behind their backs.

  48. cl

     says...

    Peter,

    It’s been a while, and this has spun off into a few different directions. Although I’ll address your “Malevolent Bully” series briefly here, I mostly want to address the “genuine seeking” thing, and why I voiced skepticism in that regard.

    I don’t think there’s anything rhetorically incorrect about your assessment of the New Atheists. I think it’s actually just like my critique of the Bible.

    It’s not. You now say you are aware of good in the Bible. I am not aware of any good arguments PZ makes for the rejection of Christianity. Literally, not one. Insults, mockery, publicity stunts and atrocious illogic are all I have ever seen from him WRT religion, and I’ve spent a non-trivial amount of time on his blog over the years.

    I don’t think my meta-argument needs to list the good.

    It most certainly does, in the same way my meta-argument needs to address the alleged bad—unless you wish to present a one-sided case. I know for a fact you’ve heard me acknowledge or post about the fact that a literal reading of some parts of Genesis is at odds with certain theories, or that there are a few apparent contradictions in the Bible.

    …another one to say “Hey, your meta-argument doesn’t take into account the good parts of the Bible, therefore you clearly don’t think the Bible has any good parts, and you’re probably an insincere hater.”

    Don’t twist my words. I said I don’t think mockery and insults against God are indicative of genuine seeking. That != insincere hater. Positing such is fallacious; other options exist.

    I’m still not seeing the big deal about focusing on only the bad verses.

    It’s not just the cherrypicking but the whole attitude of smug overconfidence that came with it. WRT Numbers 31, you make stuff up like, “God orders women to be raped.” That is seriously something I would expect from Richard Dawkins, and you go for the smart-ass card to top it all off: “I guess ‘Do not rape’ isn’t in the Commandments…” (Durp! Durp!) In what can only be called the sloppiest amateur exegesis ever, you cite Isaiah 13—a prophecy concerning the judgment at the second Coming—as a command to “torture babies” in the here-and-now. It’s pure distortion, not logic or reason, just rhetoric and emotion-pulling hyperbole. These egregious errors are only consistent with either gross neglect of your scholarly duties, or a lack of genuine seeking. I’ve wanted to hand you your ass over these for a really long time and just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

    Basically, the way I’m seeing this break down is that you’re arguing against my tone, not the substance, and I think that’s weird, especially coming from you.

    In full context, I’m arguing primarily against the lack of substance, as you got a sample of above, *AND* suggesting that your tone and retorts are not consistent with the humility of genuine seeking. In the recent flareup, I only addressed the tone and juvenile retorts, but you can rest assured I’m arguing primarily against your lack of substance.

    Maybe I have some paragraphs where I mock/insult God for rhetorical effect to demonstrate my point, but I forget where I’ve done so. So that makes this doubly weird for me.

    You forgot the title, “God is a malevolent bully?” You forgot the aforementioned parts about “God ordering rape and torture of babies?” You forgot your retort at the end of #26 in this thread? C’mon.

    I personally know it’s easy to miscommunicate, have the other person misread, and take offense.

    I do, too. It’s happened to us before, and I think it happens easier on the internet where we lack the gratuities of visual cues, inflection, posture, etc.

    Or it might be a “You’re the best atheist I’ve seen, but that’s not saying much” kind of thing.

    I am sincere. It’s that easy. I can’t help but wonder the extent to which other haters have influenced your doubt to my sincerity. If I say you’re a great interlocutor, it isn’t a backhanded insult—and part of what I’m concerned about here is your backhanded insults against God. At every turn, the subtext reads, “God is a real jerk.” Why? Because God’s meting of justice doesn’t match yours? Because you arbitrarily declare that the God of the Bible must be a Cosmic Coddler who refuses to allow any pain to anybody anywhere?

    But your previous comment was pretty offensive to me, the way I read good faith. If you don’t want that kind of offense to come across, I’d be pretty careful with wording.

    I was careful. I was very careful. How about this… instead of asking me to be careful when I was, if a comment ever causes you to get so unnerved again, why don’t *YOU* step back, cool down, and ask yourself, “Might there be any merit whatsoever to this criticism?” It seems pretty clear to me that you simply read #25, took offense, then dug immediately into your keyboard and rifled off #26. Ironically, you cherrypicked again by forgetting all about every positive thing and compliment I’ve ever paid you, instead focusing on the single instance where I say I’m skeptical that a piece you wrote reflected genuine seeking. Now, if I had actually used words like “hater” to describe you, I’d sympathize with your outburst much more—but I didn’t. I thought about what I wanted to say, I took your potential feelings into consideration, and I said I didn’t see how mockery, cherrypicking and insult are indicative of genuinely seeking God.

    Oh, one last thing that reinforces my skepticism. Twice, you say you see discussing religion as “a fun academic exercise,” and as I was perusing your blog today I found a remark about “being bored” arguing (a)theism. Yet, elsewhere, you’ve admitted that I’ve defeated a number of your arguments. What? That doesn’t count? You get to just ignore those refutations and declare your atheism strong as ever? That doesn’t fly with me. It suggests either an ability to assess the situation clearly, or a lack of earnestness that doesn’t strike me as consistent with genuine seeking. I’m not sure which is the cause.

    None of this is fun for me. It’s heart-wrenching, soul-draining, high-intensity and high-risk work. I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t honestly believe it was a duty, and I damn sure wouldn’t be doing this if I was an atheist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *