godsandmen
Senior Member
- Oct 20, 2017
- 158
- 24
- 58
This is not an original post. It is a repost from a now discontinued blog called "Common Sense Atheism". I'm posting it because I find it very true, and I thought I'd see what your thoughts might be.
People, generally speaking, convert to Christianity due primarily to one of the following three factors (or some combination thereof)...
1) a Christian home
2) a personal crisis (emotional, financial, physical...)
3) the influence of a friend and/or family member
I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule (aren't there always?) but it's crucial to keep in mind that exceptions don't disprove the rule (that's why we call them exceptions). Having said that, I've actually found it surprisingly difficult to think of viable exceptions to the above three scenarios (even when I'm trying to do so). Reflect on your own conversion experience for a moment...does one or more of these areas apply, as the primary factor leading to your conversion? How about the conversions of your family & friends? I'm willing to bet that nearly all of them will be a perfect fit with only, at best, the occasional exception.
Initially, I wondered if someone like William Lane Craig might serve to be an exception. After all, Craig is arguably Christianity's #1 living defense lawyer. Surely he, if anyone, must have accepted Christianity for purely rational reasons. Not so. Actually, the way Craig tells it, he was on his way to becoming a "very alienated young man", filled with "hate" and "inner anger", the kind that "eats away at your insides", "making every day miserable" etc. While in high school he ran into a girl, named Sandy, who had a happiness about her that he didn't have at that time in his life. After finding out she was a born again Christian, Craig read the New Testament and became captivated by the "ring of truth" to Jesus' teachings (yes, he actually used the phrase "ring of truth"). It sure sounds to me like the main influences, in his conversion, were personal crisis (my second point) and the influence of friends (my third point). I would encourage you to watch Craig's testimony, in his own words, right here.
Here again, you might be tempted to ask, what's my point?
Well, take note of what's missing here. If my basic theory is correct, then consideration of the evidence is not one of the primary factors which leads to (the lion's share of) Christian conversions. In other words, the majority of Christians embrace Christianity, initially, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with its truth claims.
Later on, some Christians do seek out rational reasons, to stay with Christianity, but in doing so most still don't stop to truly consider the potential implications of the fact that they initially embraced it for really bad reasons. And, of course, the longer one holds to a belief (whatever it is) the more difficult it becomes to change. Our own brains work against us, in this respect, falling victim to various sorts of bad thinking; ie, the sunk cost fallacy (the more you invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it).
Now, a Christian might be tempted to say, as a defensive measure, that the same three factors apply to de-conversions; ie. those who, like me, move away from Christianity to some manner of disbelief. They might be tempted to say this, but I genuinely think they would be mistaken. Actually, as best as I can tell, the majority of de-conversions are solo (in fact, often deeply private) experiences that are spurred on, at root, by intellectual doubts. Usually these people are moving away from how they were raised (in contrast to the first point), typically their lives are going reasonably well (in contrast to the second point), and they are more often than not turning against everything that their family & friends still believe (in contrast to the third point). Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But the more I read de-conversion stories, the more I realize that they differ markedly from conversion stories; and usually in ways that are quite similar to the ones I've just mentioned.
Of course, it would be fallacious to immediately disregard something, simply because of the manner in which it was first embraced (that doesn't necessarily mean it's false). Even still, I now see that there are "good" reasons, and there are "bad" reasons, to both accept and reject beliefs. Not all reasons were created equal, and recognizing this is key.
People, generally speaking, convert to Christianity due primarily to one of the following three factors (or some combination thereof)...
1) a Christian home
2) a personal crisis (emotional, financial, physical...)
3) the influence of a friend and/or family member
I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule (aren't there always?) but it's crucial to keep in mind that exceptions don't disprove the rule (that's why we call them exceptions). Having said that, I've actually found it surprisingly difficult to think of viable exceptions to the above three scenarios (even when I'm trying to do so). Reflect on your own conversion experience for a moment...does one or more of these areas apply, as the primary factor leading to your conversion? How about the conversions of your family & friends? I'm willing to bet that nearly all of them will be a perfect fit with only, at best, the occasional exception.
Initially, I wondered if someone like William Lane Craig might serve to be an exception. After all, Craig is arguably Christianity's #1 living defense lawyer. Surely he, if anyone, must have accepted Christianity for purely rational reasons. Not so. Actually, the way Craig tells it, he was on his way to becoming a "very alienated young man", filled with "hate" and "inner anger", the kind that "eats away at your insides", "making every day miserable" etc. While in high school he ran into a girl, named Sandy, who had a happiness about her that he didn't have at that time in his life. After finding out she was a born again Christian, Craig read the New Testament and became captivated by the "ring of truth" to Jesus' teachings (yes, he actually used the phrase "ring of truth"). It sure sounds to me like the main influences, in his conversion, were personal crisis (my second point) and the influence of friends (my third point). I would encourage you to watch Craig's testimony, in his own words, right here.
Here again, you might be tempted to ask, what's my point?
Well, take note of what's missing here. If my basic theory is correct, then consideration of the evidence is not one of the primary factors which leads to (the lion's share of) Christian conversions. In other words, the majority of Christians embrace Christianity, initially, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with its truth claims.
Later on, some Christians do seek out rational reasons, to stay with Christianity, but in doing so most still don't stop to truly consider the potential implications of the fact that they initially embraced it for really bad reasons. And, of course, the longer one holds to a belief (whatever it is) the more difficult it becomes to change. Our own brains work against us, in this respect, falling victim to various sorts of bad thinking; ie, the sunk cost fallacy (the more you invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it).
Now, a Christian might be tempted to say, as a defensive measure, that the same three factors apply to de-conversions; ie. those who, like me, move away from Christianity to some manner of disbelief. They might be tempted to say this, but I genuinely think they would be mistaken. Actually, as best as I can tell, the majority of de-conversions are solo (in fact, often deeply private) experiences that are spurred on, at root, by intellectual doubts. Usually these people are moving away from how they were raised (in contrast to the first point), typically their lives are going reasonably well (in contrast to the second point), and they are more often than not turning against everything that their family & friends still believe (in contrast to the third point). Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But the more I read de-conversion stories, the more I realize that they differ markedly from conversion stories; and usually in ways that are quite similar to the ones I've just mentioned.
Of course, it would be fallacious to immediately disregard something, simply because of the manner in which it was first embraced (that doesn't necessarily mean it's false). Even still, I now see that there are "good" reasons, and there are "bad" reasons, to both accept and reject beliefs. Not all reasons were created equal, and recognizing this is key.
