Listening To Young Atheists

[BG45]

An extremely length piece from The Atlantic, but well worth the read on their site.  I'm just posting the high points, but it's definitely worth reading the rest that provides a fleshing our and a personal tone.  Notice my use of "worth it"?  There's a reason for that.

 

They had attended church

 

Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.

 

The mission and message of their churches was vague

 

These students heard plenty of messages encouraging "social justice," community involvement, and "being good," but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." This is an incisive critique. She seems to have intuitively understood that the church does not exist simply to address social ills, but to proclaim the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ, and their relevance to the world. Since Stephanie did not see that connection, she saw little incentive to stay. We would hear this again.

 

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions

 

When our participants were asked what they found unconvincing about the Christian faith, they spoke of evolution vs. creation, sexuality, the reliability of the biblical text, Jesus as the only way, etc. Some had gone to church hoping to find answers to these questions. Others hoped to find answers to questions of personal significance, purpose, and ethics. Serious-minded, they often concluded that church services were largely shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant. As Ben, an engineering major at the University of Texas, so bluntly put it: "I really started to get bored with church."

 

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously

 

Following our 2010 debate in Billings, Montana, I asked Christopher Hitchens why he didn't try to savage me on stage the way he had so many others. His reply was immediate and emphatic: "Because you believe it." Without fail, our former church-attending students expressed similar feelings for those Christians who unashamedly embraced biblical teaching. Michael, a political science major at Dartmouth, told us that he is drawn to Christians like that, adding: "I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me."

 

As surprising as it may seem, this sentiment is not as unusual as you might think. It finds resonance in the well-publicized comments of Penn Jillette, the atheist illusionist and comedian: "I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.... How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?" Comments like these should cause every Christian to examine his conscience to see if he truly believes that Jesus is, as he claimed, "the way, the truth, and the life."

 

Ages 14-17 were decisive

 

One participant told us that she considered herself to be an atheist by the age of eight while another said that it was during his sophomore year of college that he de-converted, but these were the outliers. For most, the high school years were the time when they embraced unbelief.

 

The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one

 

With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well. This phenomenon was most powerfully exhibited in Meredith. She explained in detail how her study of anthropology had led her to atheism. When the conversation turned to her family, however, she spoke of an emotionally abusive father:

 

"It was when he died that I became an atheist," she said.

 

I could see no obvious connection between her father's death and her unbelief. Was it because she loved her abusive father -- abused children often do love their parents -- and she was angry with God for his death? "No," Meredith explained. "I was terrified by the thought that he could still be alive somewhere."

 

Rebecca, now a student at Clark University in Boston, bore similar childhood scars. When the state intervened and removed her from her home (her mother had attempted suicide), Rebecca prayed that God would let her return to her family. "He didn't answer," she said. "So I figured he must not be real." After a moment's reflection, she appended her remarks: "Either that, or maybe he is [real] and he's just trying to teach me something."

 

The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism

 

When our participants were asked to cite key influences in their conversion to atheism--people, books, seminars, etc. -- we expected to hear frequent references to the names of the "New Atheists." We did not. Not once. Instead, we heard vague references to videos they had watched on YouTube or website forums.

 

 

 

One of the other boards I go to most often, besides PM, is predominantly Atheist in its religious (or irreligious) nature and these things all ring true of what we've all said in religious discussions there, believer and non-believer alike.  

 

The superficial answers especially rang true.  As some of you know, from the time of my conversion (of which many of you played an undeniable role), one of the things I loathed about my Baptist church, aside from the politics, was the superficial nature of things.  I think that really combined with the next main point of The Atlantic piece, knowledgeable clergy.  As a Baptist I was told to shut up and believe because they said so; RCIA told me I had every right to question why something was, so that an answer could be found.  That was mind blowing for me.  "The church says so, believe it" was no longer an answer, but rather, "Here is why we believe.  Here is what lead to that document about that belief.  Here is the historical and religious context of why that came to be this way."

 

I know I keep harping on those two points above the others, but I'd like to share an example from my own university and just how much knowledge and acting like a Christian matter.  We have a preacher in our grove who screams constantly about our damnation, misquotes the Bible, and overall is not a pleasant person.  He's the object of derision for many, believers and non-believers alike.  Our Secular Student Association holds him up as an example of what is wrong with Christianity.  You walk into class on days he's in the grove, to people grumbling about him and how stupid he is and therefore how stupid the religion he represents must be.  Now to compare, we usually have both Mennonites and Gideons on campus once a year apiece, usually in the hotter months.  The rhetoric from the students is absolutely on the opposite end of the scale for these people when you walk into a class.  All you hear is how polite they were, how hardcore those Gideons are to hand stuff out while in suits in the heat, etc.  One student once told me, "I didn't know Christians could be that nice."

 

So basically, what the Atlantic and I both seem to be getting towards, is that maybe the biggest factor in the growth of Atheism isn't Richard Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens, but rather, a superficial interpretation of Christianity, taught by those whose views are not formed to include reason and questioning.

 

To end with one more quote of the article:

That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote Michael: "Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven't seen too much of that."

 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

 

So basically, what the Atlantic and I both seem to be getting towards, is that maybe the biggest factor in the growth of Atheism isn't Richard Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens, but rather, a superficial interpretation of Christianity, taught by those whose views are not formed to include reason and questioning.

 

 

There's a GK Chesterton quote about Christianity never being properly tried that I think is appropriate.  It also seems to me that a lot of young atheism is similar to how lots of younger people like to latch onto things like Atlas Shrugged, the Virtue of Selfishness, etc.  It seems cool and edgy and different and makes sense, but then you realize that it's wanting.   

 

It seems to me that Catholicism is truly the thinking person's religion. 

[Chestertonian]

The false dichotomy between science and religion is a big part of the problem. Believe it or not, there are still lots of people out there who think that if you accept evolution, God is no longer an option. I think this is largely attributable to fundamentalism on both sides.

[Gabriela]

Is it anyone's experience that many people reject religion simply because they don't wish to be condemned for whatever sinful activities they feel like engaging in?

[Nihil Obstat]

Is it anyone's experience that many people reject religion simply because they don't wish to be condemned for whatever sinful activities they feel like engaging in?

That does match part of my experience. Though there are always other things, of course.

[BG45]

BM,  I'd not even considered the Chesterton quote, but it's so appropriate!  I know for me, that Catholicism was an intellectual difference compared to being a Baptist.

 

Chestertonian, no Chesterton quote? :(  Just kidding, I concur that many do have that idea that faith and reason can't coexist due to the false dichotomy on both sides.

 

Curiousing, I'm with Nihil, I know some who have done that too.  "I'm no wretch, I don't need saved!"

[Gabriela]

It wasn't that long. I found it interesting. When I was considering writing either my thesis or my dissertation on conversion processes, I had a strong hunch that, despite much rationalizing, the real fundamental reasons behind conversions are usually experiential (including affective). This supports that.

 

If we all lived what we say we believe...

[Kia ora]

 

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously

 

Following our 2010 debate in Billings, Montana, I asked Christopher Hitchens why he didn't try to savage me on stage the way he had so many others. His reply was immediate and emphatic: "Because you believe it." Without fail, our former church-attending students expressed similar feelings for those Christians who unashamedly embraced biblical teaching. Michael, a political science major at Dartmouth, told us that he is drawn to Christians like that, adding: "I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me."

 

As surprising as it may seem, this sentiment is not as unusual as you might think. It finds resonance in the well-publicized comments of Penn Jillette, the atheist illusionist and comedian: "I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.... How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?" Comments like these should cause every Christian to examine his conscience to see if he truly believes that Jesus is, as he claimed, "the way, the truth, and the life."

 

 

A bit of background. When I came here to Phatmass, I called myself an atheist. I no longer do that.

 

Taking the Bible seriously can mean many things. Does it mean that you have to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? If it does, then I don't take the Bible seriously. And if believing that the Bible is scientifically, historically or morally good in all its aspects was required to be a Christian, then I would never have looked at Christianity again.

 

For what it's worth, I don't consider myself a Christian, but Christianity is the religion that certainly most influences me. I do believe I'm taking the Bible seriously when I think that the Bible is a human creation that owes its message to the people who wrote it and the context in which they wrote it. If I have to either reject Jesus' message, the one I live by, to love our enemies or to reject the inerrancy of the Bible because God says in the Bible to massacre the inhabitants of a country, then I will gladly throw away the inerrancy of the Bible.

 

 

 

"I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me."

 

 

 

When I was an atheist, the worst thing anyone could have done was to try to convert me to their Christianity. I had to find my own reason to follow Christ. And Christianity, the particular denomination of someone, would have been the greatest obstacle to that.

 

I don't try to convert my friends to my beliefs because frankly, I needed Christ. I'm a messed up person. I know that. I know I'm a sinner, I know it with more certainty than anything I've ever known. But I don't know if my friends are. They seem happy and content enough, even if they are atheists or Muslims. How do I know that they're not following Christ in their own way, in their own religion or lack of such? They may not believe God exists, but does that mean God is absent from their lives? They may follow Muhammad, but does that mean they're not following Jesus?

 

I doubt that. In fact I doubt a lot of things. How do I know I'm right? And since I'm not sure, why should I convince them to follow what I myself am not sure of?

 

And it wasn't anyone else who converted me, it wasn't any of my Christian friends. It was me who converted myself. I don't even think it's possible to 'convert' people. Prosyletise, yes. Spread the Good News, sure. I can only encourage more information about Christianity (and different forms of Christianity!). But to *convert* people? I don't believe I have that power. So I don't try.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

In my priest's homily on Sunday he was saying that, in his experience, most people who fall away from the Catholic faith do so because of bad experiences growing up in the faith. Parents who do not take it seriously, or who are hypocrites, or just generally bad parents. So they associate that bad upbringing with religion. I think there is truth in that - as much truth as in the hypothesis that they are rationalizing away a simple desire to sin.

I think it is probably a bit of both. Or a lot of both.

[Chestertonian]

In my priest's homily on Sunday he was saying that, in his experience, most people who fall away from the Catholic faith do so because of bad experiences growing up in the faith. Parents who do not take it seriously, or who are hypocrites, or just generally bad parents. So they associate that bad upbringing with religion. I think there is truth in that - as much truth as in the hypothesis that they are rationalizing away a simple desire to sin.

I think it is probably a bit of both. Or a lot of both.

 

Reminds me of an interesting book I read a while back called Faith of the Fatherless: The Phsycology of Atheism by Paul Vitz. His contention is essentially the polar opposite of Freud's 'projection theory' of religion. He claims that "disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God."

 

It's obviously an extremely controversial book, but interesting nevertheless.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Chestertonian

[Nihil Obstat]

Reminds me of an interesting book I read a while back called Faith of the Fatherless: The Phsycology of Atheism by Paul Vitz. His contention is essentially the polar opposite of Freud's 'projection theory' of religion. He claims that "disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God."

 

It's obviously an extremely controversial book, but interesting nevertheless.

That would very much jive with what Father Sumich was saying.
Provides a very clear reminder that parents have a huge responsibility to their family.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I think there is truth in that - as much truth as in the hypothesis that they are rationalizing away a simple desire to sin.

I think it is probably a bit of both. Or a lot of both.

 

I've heard Dinesh D'Souza make a similar argument. In all honesty, I think it's kind of cynical. I'm bothered by the idea that people are atheists because they want to sin or people are Christians because they need a security blanket.

Edited June 12, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Chestertonian]

Atheists like Nietzsche and Hitchens were very uncomfortable with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God.

[Nihil Obstat]

I've heard Dinesh D'Souza make a similar argument. In all honesty, I think it's kind of cynical. I'm bothered by the idea that people are atheists because they want to sin or people are Christians because they need a security blanket.

Not necessarily that they want to sin, but that they want sin to be ok. I think that is a relevant difference.

People want to feel that they are making the right choices.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Not necessarily that they want to sin, but that they want sin to be ok. I think that is a relevant difference.

People want to feel that they are making the right choices.

 

Interesting. I still think it's an unfair statement. There is also the claim that belief in God is deeply rooted in a fear of death. I don't see how these arguments are different.

Edited June 12, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl