The Moderate Pathway to Deconversion

It doesn’t take long, when you live in America, to realize there are groups of ultra-religious assholes who justify their assholishness by referencing the bible and its impossible standards for humanity, and cherry-picking it to shame or otherwise hold contempt for a group of people other than themselves.  I recognized this group (the Jerry Fallwell genre) when I was in high school in the 1990s.

Growing up attending an ELCA Lutheran church, it was pretty easy to distinguish those religious zealots from my own group, because as Christians go, mid-western, Scandinavian Lutherans are pretty moderate.  Sure, there’s the occasional lunatic, but they are the minority.

My defacto stance on the matter was that one can be a non-zealous Christian, be moral, and still end up in heaven.

I remember learning, maybe by my freshman year in college, that December 25 was almost certainly not the date Jesus Christ could have been born, according to the birth story in the bible; March or April seemed a more accurate time.  When I shared this discovery with my mom, about the Pagan rituals Christianity adopted, she half-heartedly accused me of blasphemy…in the gentle sort of way that loving, Lutheran, midwestern mothers do.  I wasn’t persecuted or commanded to go to church, but it was clear that she would rather not hear about revelations like that, and she assured me that ignorance is bliss in these matters.

Fast forward a couple years.  In a college freshman biology class, the professor pointed out the absurdity of the claim that the Earth is younger than 7000 years old.  He talked about James Hutton and Charles Lyell and that they demonstrated how the Earth must be older than their contemporaries claimed, given the slow nature of geographic formations.  At the time, I took that to mean that the Earth, and all living organisms on it, could not have been formed in 6 days.  That seemed fairly intuitive to me, anyway, and I had already assumed the Earth was quite old, but never gave the precise age of it much thought.

My Christianity was still in tact by the year 2000, but it didn’t escape my attention that the most holy times of the year (Christmas and Easter) were grossly commercialized to the benefit of corporations.  I had grown up in a Reagan-Democrat household, and I had conservative leanings at the time, probably even more conservative than my parents, who were (and still are) middle-of-the road (although the GWB administration, and its outrageous folly, pushed them to the left a bit).  So even though I saw a commercialized Christmas as sinful, or at least tacky, as a pro-freedom wannabe-capitalist, I was friendlier to the modern American corporation and its behaviors than I am today.

Somewhere along the way, I took an anthropology class, and I learned about Neanderthals, homo Erectus, homo Ergaster, Autrailapithicus, and lots of other species that predated humanity, while becoming more human over time.  At this point, the religious implications of human evolution didn’t occur to me; in fact, I’d never given evolution much thought, and the grandeur of the process, and its implications, had never crossed my mind.  No one, up to that point, had ever pointed out a paradox between original sin, salvation, creation, and the kink that evolution introduces.

In 2001, there was 9/11, which more or less solidified the “us versus them” mentality for many Americans.  Though I was a bit more progressive by this point, I took it as a reasonable proposition that extreme religious views were consistently correlated with terrorism.  I didn’t feel really attached to my religion at this point, or inclined to defend its merits juxtaposed against Islam.  For moderate midwestern Lutherans, moderation is itself a justification for its correctness.

From 2003 to 2010, the notion that science can disprove or shed light on religion’s suspicious claims became clearer to me, but I was focused on my career and family, and I was in no hurry to disprove anything.  I’m a pragmatist, and it was enough for me to slowly gather facts about the natural world and universe, and what our role is in it.  For pragmatists, formulating an opinion too quickly can be harmful and lock us into a faulty viewpoint.  Of course, the fact that I had 2 young kids during this time may have influenced the amount of time it took for me to formulate a revised opinion on the life, the universe, and everything.

Since 2010, my interest in science has greatly increased.  I started to understand cellular metabolism, and that led to an increased curiosity about the cell, and its inner workings.  I began to understand the symbiosis between the cell’s nucleus and its mitochondria, and how genes play a role in protein formation.  This tied in with my interest in evolution, and the relationships between all living species, which can be described genetically.

But the missing part of the bridge between where I was in 2010 and now is the matter of how life could have gone from such a simple state to such a complex one as we have now.  The universe certainly seems to be guided by immutable principles, and the fact that humans are lucky enough to exist now seems unlikely, given the chaos of the earlier universe.

These conclusions led me to call myself a Deist for quite a while – my thoughts were that God doesn’t appear to intervene in the universe, and the bible’s major claims are almost certainly untrue, and written by primitive liars and schizophrenics, but it seemed fairly likely that there must have been a creator of this big machine.  In hindsight, this view might have been closer to Spinoza’s pantheism than it is to Deism, but I’m not (nor was I) concerned about semantics like that.  Pragmatism is (or ought to be) more concerned with practices and outcomes.

It wasn’t until a couple years ago that I realized I was committing a logical fallacy:  God of the gaps, where God is used as justification for incomplete knowledge.  Somewhere between then and now, I realized what a dishonest proposition it is to commit this error, and that I was as guilty as my ancestors of rationalizing my ignorance, and pointing to God as a solution for something.  Up until about 400 years ago, it would have been very tempting to blame disease or poor harvests or natural disasters on our human failings and lack of reverence to God.  Of course, that’s crazy.  Those things aren’t caused by God; rather, they’re caused by now well-understood natural phenomena.

The problem with God of the gaps, and indeed the rationale for God, is that it makes God arbitrary.  God could easily be replaced with all-knowing unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, and the argument would be just as sound, and have an equal amount of evidence.  This arbitrary nature seems to highlight the fact that God, in terms of how we’ve defined him, is a device to hedge our ignorance.

Another problem I saw with God of the gaps is that it gives people license to practice blind certainty.  Being convinced of something can be a dangerous proposition, especially when you don’t have proof for it.  Investigation, and willingness to say “I don’t know” is a more honest position.  We don’t know a lot of things, and blind certainty stops us in our tracks, and that is altogether bad for humans.  There is a lot left to discover, and saying “God did it” is neither honest nor wise, and it neglects the burden of proof we bear when making a claim that something exists.  It also pretends to know something that we just don’t, no matter how much we’d like it.

There are a lot of ancillary examples of what added to my skepticism, such as examples in the bible or more existential questions, like the problem of evil.  But Christianity’s appeal began to wane for me somewhere between 2003 and 2006.  It just wasn’t sound enough for me, because I have high standards for what I accept as evidence, and I was aware of the special pleading fallacy before that.  Of course, it took me a while to form an articulate thought around this concept, but I think that anyone who has to take responsibility for themselves in this world understands that failure to have high standards for evidence results in really bad outcomes, and gullibility is a liability.

Advertisements

Author: Tim...Stepping Out

Tim Stepping Out

16 thoughts on “The Moderate Pathway to Deconversion”

  1. Tim,
    I think the term you used “assholishness” is rather “assholiness.” Just sayin’.

    And welcome to the struggle. It is hard to solve problems we do not understand. If we were trying to combat Climate Change or disease with rituals, for example, our success rate could be predicted as being zero. Many people might recover from their diseases, but it would not be because of our rituals. We know this now, but that did not prevent the European Catholic Church from forbidding monks the practice of medicine and requiring them to use prayer instead, then.

    Ignorance is not bliss, it is just ignorance, and it can kill you. Approach a tiger, saying “Here kitty; here, kitty” and you’ll see what I mean.

    Your struggle could have been prevented by the simple act of not indoctrinating our children. But all religions require the faithful to indoctrinate their children. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

    Like

  2. First, let me say that your piece is aptly titled. What you describe is a well-traveled highway leading multitudes of people away from the church. In my opinion, this is the church’s fault. The church in America, for the most part, has done a pathetic job of teaching the Bible.

    Take your own story, which was my story as well. I’m sure you were taught little more than “bible stories” and a bunch of clichés. When you had questions, there was no one around who was capable of giving you real answers. That led us both to the sad conclusion that there were no answers, or rather that the answers available contradicted the faith we had been taught.

    You’ve been left with the incorrect notion that Christianity is Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson and a blind certainty in a literal interpretation of Genesis. What you’ve missed is an appreciation for what a remarkable document the Bible really is.

    Most of us are taught the Bible on a very shallow basis. For some, that is enough. For others who have deeper questions, there are two alternatives. They can either discard the Bible, or they can dig deeper into it. Those who dig will find that the answers do exist.

    Like

    1. Thanks for your reply. Honestly, I’ve dug into the bible more than most Christians I know, and the only way I find it true is if I suspend my moral compass and capacity for reason. I don’t believe Christians need to literally interpret Genesis, and I don’t believe evolution is incompatible with God (at least Spinoza’s god). What I do believe is that there is no logical way to get from Deism to Theism, and that it seems more likely that the bible was written as a result of primitive bronze-age fantasies, rather than divine revelation.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Forgive me, but there are a couple of problems with your statement, “…the only way I find it true is if I suspend my moral compass and capacity for reason.” First, the Bible tells us our moral compass is a dead thing. Man constantly chooses evil over good, the heart is deceitful above all things, we are dead in our sins, etc. Assuming for a moment that the Bible is true, then no one would have a moral compass capable of judging what is true. So the first thing I suggest is that you may be relying on a flawed instrument.

    Second is the idea that one must suspend their reason in order to believe the Bible. That is simply not true. My study of the Bible has been based on logic and reason. I study what the words mean. I study the context of the passages. I look for connections between different passages. I search for the best teaching available on the various parts and I give much thought to how a particular passage fits in to the overall structure and story of the Bible. All of that is an exercise in logic and reason. I don’t stop there. I also consider how the Bible relates to secular science, history and philosophy. I have tested the Bible in every way and found it reliable. That should not be if indeed it was written by “primitive liars and schizophrenics”, should it?

    Like

    1. There’s a logical fallacy in the statement “Assuming for a moment that the Bible is true, then no one would have a moral compass capable of judging what is true”. It’s called begging the question.

      I’m interested in your statement “I have tested the Bible in every way and found it reliable.”. The following are just the tip of a very large iceberg. I could go on and on about immorality in the bible either espoused or committed by God. I refuse to accept any argument that the author or characters described in these passages is more moral than I am.

      1 Timothy 2:12 (female subjugation) – “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;she must be quiet.”

      Jeremiah 19:9 (cannabalism): “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh.”

      1 Peter 2:18 (advocating slavery)- “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh”

      1 Samuel 15:2-4 (murder, including babies) – “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys”

      Revelations 2:22 (killing innocent children who happen to be related to the wrong sinner) – “I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”

      2 Chronicles 13 (murder of 500,000) – “The Israelites fled before Judah, and God delivered them into their hands. 17 Abijah and his troops inflicted heavy losses on them, so that there were five hundred thousand casualties among Israel’s able men. 18 The Israelites were subdued on that occasion, and the people of Judah were victorious because they relied on the Lord, the God of their ancestors.”

      Exodus 12:29 (killing babies)- “At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.”

      Numbers 31(murder, rape) – “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

      Deuteronomy 22 (rape) – “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

      Liked by 1 person

  4. No, suggesting a hypothetical situation to you is not “begging the question”. Knowing that you are assuming (without proof) that you have a moral compass with which you evaluate the Bible, I merely point out that IF the Bible is true, then your moral compass on which you rely would be unreliable. IF the Bible is true, Then you do not have a reliable moral compass. There is no logical flaw in that statement.

    As to my finding scripture reliable, you seem to have overlooked the point. I approach the Bible, not based on a suspension of reason as you suggest, but with a dependence on reason. My eyes are wide open and my mind is functioning.

    As to your list of scriptures with which you hope to demonstrate the moral shortcomings of the Bible, you should be intelligent enough to recognize the danger of taking quotations out of context. Each of these passages has a place and is defensible in the overall context of the biblical narrative, which is something you should already know if you have studied the Bible as you contend.

    Listen, I’m not looking to bust your chops. There is a difference between learning about Christianity and being converted to Christianity. I’m not here to convert you, but I am here to tell you that what you believe about Christianity right now is a mere caricature and distortion of what it is and what it teaches. Do you really want to walk around believing something that is false? You’re obviously comfortable believing what you believe. You’ve obviously read and been influenced by critics of Christianity. Do you have the courage to listen to the other side of the argument, even if it means exposing some of your misconceptions?

    If you have the courage to challenge yourself and to test what you believe, then all you have to do is this. Open up your browser and type in “Reformed Theology” or “Christian Apologetics” and just start reading. What possible harm can come from learning something more?

    Like

    1. Thanks for the reply – I appreciate the civil tone…

      It doesn’t seem to me that stating our “moral compass is a dead thing” is a hypothetical thing, and it’s easily debunked by the question of whether there is any moral thing a religious person can do that an atheist cannot? Of course, the answer is no, so the position that our morality is a dead thing is literally a dead end.

      These logical dead ends were a theme for me as I investigated my own Christianity.

      My point of referencing the scriptures is that the only way you can say the things people claim about the bible is by cherry picking it. I understand the context surrounding most of those passages, as well as the context of all the awful passages I didn’t reference. And matters about the context are specifically part of my skepticism – what’s more likely: a celestial, all-powerful, supernatural deity reveals himself, and demands love and fear while simultaneously allowing pain and evil (and punishing with eternal hellfire), or is it more likely that the violent war-mongers, about whom we get crystal clear insight from the context of the bible, made all this stuff up? Given the cherry-picking we already know about, in terms of the bible (ie Constantine, council of Nicea), I come to the undeniable conclusion that the bible doesn’t meet my standard of evidence as an authority on matters to which it claims authority.

      I deconverted from Christianity because I didn’t find the foundational attributes reasonable, including the notion that Jesus Christ even existed, or that the revelations in the bible were anything other than wishful thinking, lies, or schizophrenia. That’s not to mention the problem of special pleading when invoking the supernatural to describe a world that we can only observe and understand naturally.

      Like

  5. Here’s a good illustration of what I’m talking about. “Given the cherry-picking we already know about, in terms of the bible (ie Constantine, council of Nicea),…” Here you are referencing a long-debunked, but oft-repeated myth that Constantine somehow dictated what the official Bible would look like. Or that the Council of Nicea picked the winners and the losers out of a mass of scriptural books. We know all that is not true because we have the notes and records of what actually took place. Constantine played no role other than host and the Council merely confirmed the list of books that everyone was already using as scripture. None of the non-canonical books were even in serious contention, because it was obvious then, as it is obvious now, that they did not descend from the apostles. All this is secular, historical fact.

    Yet you are referring to the myth as though it were true. That should make you uncomfortable.

    Now about the moral compass, if you read what I wrote you’ll see I stated that it is the Bible that says our moral compass is dead. All I said was that IF the Bible is true, THEN you do not have a reliable moral compass. Your comparison of the morality of a religious person versus an atheist doesn’t apply to what I said, but let me clarify that issue for you. If the Bible is true (a conditional statement for the sake of argument), then neither the “religious person” (a rather vague term) nor the atheist has a reliable moral compass (in the manner you are using that term). Any Christian that says they are more moral than a nonbeliever because of their religion (i.e., the Moral Majority of yesteryear) is seriously wrong and out of step with scripture.

    As to your “which is more likely” statement, this is an issue I had to wrestle with very early on. I could not commit myself to Christianity without knowing that it was scientifically viable. But if you get down into the nitty-gritty of quantum physics, it turns out that all it would take for God to be God would be for him to have created the physical universe in which we reside and to have retained control of it at the quantum level. And everything that secular science has discovered in the last century leaves the door wide open for that possibility. Rather than disproving God, science gives us the framework in which he could exist and work.

    Let me leave you with one more thought. The opening verses of the Bible (the great Creation story) says that the first thing God created was light. Now thousands of years later, we come up with the Big Bang theory and what does it tell us? From less than one second after the BB and lasting for several hundred thousand years, the early universe was dominated by what? By photons (otherwise known as light). So that wasn’t a bad guess for a primitive, schizophrenic goat-herder, was it?

    Like

    1. “the first thing God created was light. Now thousands of years later, we come up with the Big Bang theory and what does it tell us?”
      That is an extraordinary logical leap to make. The assertion that the first thing that was created was light is a predictable conclusion a person without scientific knowledge would make, and does not require a shred of divine inspiration. A person at the time Genesis was written would have been capable of distinguishing day from night, and would have been bound by this paradigm – Genesis was written after humans had found domestication, therefore the sun and seasons would have been quite meaningful, in terms of livelihood – Christianity is not unique in its reverence to the sun; that’s a theme we see across all sorts of cultures and religions;

      Genesis was the same book that claimed the earth was under water for a year, and that all animals on earth were on a wooden boat; it’s a weird sort of rationalization one must do in order to simultaneously claim creation was real but Noah’s ark was just a story; they occur right next to each other.

      The other problem with this is that it took about 8 billion years between the formation of the universe and the formation of the sun; the sun’s creation was hardly the beginning of anything

      “Yet you are referring to the myth as though it were true” – what I was referring to was the matter of Arianism and Christian doctrine in general, which Christians found impossible to derive from Christian text – stamping out Arianism (a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the text) is a matter of cherry picking.

      In general, the historicity of the bible is not important in assessing the truth value of the bible, but there are plenty of references to cite to argue that Christianity is the rough equivalent of a 2000+ year game of telephone.

      “And everything that secular science has discovered in the last century leaves the door wide open for that possibility” – yet it provides no evidence for it. Quantum behavior is a natural phenomenon, and does not require a God for its explanation – even Einstein struggled with the challenge of the physical endpoint (probability issues) of quantum mechanics, and he was somewhere between a pantheist and atheist. Saying quantum behavior explains or proves God is the equivalent of saying that trees explain or prove God – these are physical phenomena that we create a framework around, and the only reason one invokes God in these matters is because they’re making that logical leap in the first place (the natural world is complicated, therefore God).

      I don’t say that a God doesn’t manage quantum phenomena, but as far as I can tell, there is no evidence for it; and even if it were true, it still doesn’t get you from pantheism to theism.

      “is seriously wrong and out of step with scripture”. What I’m saying is that the scripture is immoral, and I can demonstrate this by writing my own bible, and it would be more moral and scientifically accurate than the scripture, and I wouldn’t even need to overwhelm the day’s scientific capacity or sensibilities. In 10 sentences I can create a framework that is less violent, more universal, more life-saving, more scientifically accurate, and more moral than the bible, and it wouldn’t lock people into 1000 years of scientific stagnation, war, disease, and religiously sanctioned subjugation. This bible could be secular, thus not revealing a jealous, vengeful, and mean-spirited god, the way the Christian bible depicts.

      Boil your water before drinking or eating food with it.
      Cover your mouth when you sneeze.
      Don’t kill each other.
      Witches are not a real thing; don’t burn people you think are witches
      There is no condoning or facilitation of murdering of anyone, even if they believe things you disagree with, and even if you convinced yourself that you are holier or better than them.
      Don’t take virgins as rewards for fighting, and don’t rape anyone.
      Don’t own other people as slaves, even if they owe you money; find other opportunities for them to repay their debt.
      Minimize physical, emotional, and financial harm for everyone, and maximize their well-being; use your own frameworks for assessing harm and well-being; everyone deserves to be treated decently.
      The universe is bigger and older than you can imagine, and there are complex orchestras of behavior occurring at smaller levels than you can imagine.
      The Earth and all other observable planets revolve around the sun.

      Like

  6. Predictable? Hardly. For much of post-Renaissance period, one of the main criticisms of the Bible’s creation story was that it placed the existence of light before the existence of the objects that produced the light. Illogical and irrational it was claimed. How conveniently we forget.

    If you were referring to Arianism, why mention Constantine? As I said, he was merely the host. But that is the prevalent myth, that he somehow dictated the content of the Bible. If you are referring to Trinitarianism against Arianism, it is Arianism that cannot be sustained by reference to scripture. You have to ignore the opening of John, among other passages, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The logical force of the totality of scripture is that there are three persons in the Godhead. To support their Arianism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed the verse in John to “the word was a god”, but that is an interpretation of the underlying Greek that not even secular Greek scholars agree with.

    I disagree about the historicity of the Bible; and Erhman’s assertion that it’s like a game of telephone makes a good sound bite, but carries little weight. Reality is we have a wealth of early transcripts that allow scholars (both religious and secular) to be absolutely confident that we know exactly what the original manuscripts said in their original languages in about 97% of the text. The remaining discrepancies are, by and large, inconsequential. I think the most interesting variation that remains unsolved has to do with whether Jesus felt sorrow or anger in a particular instance. (I’m going from memory here, which is always dangerous.) That’s a fairly innocuous item in my opinion, but it illustrates the reliability of the text that’s in our hands today. At any rate, Erhman is prone to exaggeration.

    In regards to science, the classic atheistic argument was materialism, that only the material world exists (that which we can see, touch, taste, etc.). There was no evidence of anything beyond the material. You still here people expressing that today. The trouble is, science has progressed far beyond that attitude. Physics now takes the notion of a “multiverse” very seriously. As I’m sure you know, the multiverse is the idea that an almost infinite number of universes exist besides our own. The problem is, there is no evidence to support this idea. By its very nature, the multiverse cannot be discovered. It may very well exist, but we can never find “evidence” of it because “evidence” is based on our senses which are entirely material in nature and limited to our own physical universe. Evidence will not and cannot tell us whether anything, whether the multiverse or God, exists beyond our material world.

    “Minimize physical, emotional, and financial harm for everyone, and maximize their well-being; use your own frameworks for assessing harm and well-being; everyone deserves to be treated decently.” Sorry, but I can hear Nietzsche laughing.

    Like

  7. I wanted to follow up on our last posts. I was in a hurry to go somewhere and I ended with a rather sarcastic comment that I regret. Sarcasm is an element of my personality that I do not care much for. Just when I think I have it suppressed, it leaks out. Such is our fallen nature. Anyway, my apologies.

    The thing I most wanted to address is your assertion that you could “create a framework that is less violent, more universal, more life-saving…etc.” In the body of that statement, you make a number of unfounded and inaccurate assertions, too many to deal with really. I’ll just demonstrate one as an example. Let’s take the “1000 years of scientific stagnation”. By this I presume you mean what is called the Dark Ages. The problem is, the Dark Ages never existed. Read a book called How the West Won – The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity by Rodney Stark. He argues that scholars has misinterpreted the period after the fall of the Roman Empire as dark because the wealth of writing that came out of the leisure class of Rome disappeared along with that empire. The ruling class had time to write because Rome was based on a slave economy. When it collapsed, the writing disappeared, but the technological advances continued. Water power and wind power replaced slave labor and drove manufacturing and trade throughout Northern Europe. Science, technology and agriculture advanced, but there was never time for a new leisure class to develop. Everyone was too busy working to sit around and write about non-business matters.

    So we have a false narrative that the western world was dark for a thousand years, and this myth was picked up by the Renaissance writers as a blunt instrument to use against the church. It was the church and its wicked ways that had suppressed all the scientific advancement that might otherwise have taken place. As Stark demonstrates, advancement did take place and the church was an important driving force in that development, an instigator rather than a suppressor.

    When you assert that the Bible itself is immoral, I can only shake my head in wonder. How can a book whose central character teaches that we should love our enemies and that we should love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves (We feed ourselves when we are hungry, we make sure we have shelter and clothing, we nurse ourselves when we are sick and we should be just as diligent with everyone around us.), how can such a book be considered immoral? In fact, it has become the standard for defining morality. No, your objection is to where Jesus says, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength…” I understand, you don’t want to do that. That is your choice. However, it is not necessary to slander the Bible in order to make that choice, is it?

    Like

    1. David King, If you will pardon my saying – you seem to be addicted to deeply romantic rationalizations, rather than any actual ‘deep thinking’ when it comes to the Bible.

      You’re not looking to question any of your OWN assumptions. But, rather, to further entrench and secure your ‘position,’ through begs the question logical fallacies, the gross oversimplification and cherry picking your gospel verses, and apologetic rationalizations that would lend a faux air of scholarship to your understanding of the science of evolution.

      You might try actually reading On The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, for yourself (rather than relying on what you think you already know about it). Come out of your cave – and be willing to explore. Or remain locked-up in your own ignorance.

      And that’s not sarcasm, David. It’s your choice.

      Like

  8. BTW… I just read through the long conversation above. Your responses are great. DK makes some good points I agree with (the fact that the text of the Bible is more reliable than many give it credit for). But I’ve come to the same conclusion as you, and from a different starting point.

    After 29 years as a born-again Christian, I deconverted earlier this year. Then I spent most of this year looking under every rock to be sure I hadn’t made a mistake. I am a lot more confident I am right now than I ever was as a Christian. I like reality better.

    Journey on!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s