Part 2

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr Anthony Garrett

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 07 June 2000 18:28

Subject: Re: Thanks and a couple of questions

At 01:07 AM 6/7/00 +0100, you wrote:

>I think we have established that you were not well read on atheistic

themes before your conversion to Christianity and are unable to give me

examples of those who were.

No: I *did* look into some arguments against theism (not Christianity

specifically) when I was an atheist, but found them so poor in quality that

I lost interest and just got on with life as an atheist. (Rather as today I

find arguments for Christianity to be inconclusive and get on with

Christian life; on both sides, it is a matter of faith.) It struck me at

the time that an argument not settled in over 2000 years was unlikely to be

settled in the timescale of my reading.

Derek Prince was an academic philosopher and a non-Christian who became a

prominent Christian writer. He briefly mentions his change in some of his

books I have read, but whether he goes into it in fuller detail I don't know.

>My initial reason for writing is therefore over, but although I originally

wrote that I would not hassle you with debate I am willing to continue

discussing your points if you wish. However to reduce the volume, and as

much is already available via my site, I will leave most to URLs. This is

also because I wish to post our exchange on my website and enable readers

to follow resources further.

Yes, feel free to post my side up there.

>The main thing I would like to say, is that I and my fellow ex-Christians

are well aware of what it is like to convert to Christianity and have the

feelings you talk of. Your latest response seems somewhat unfair,

especially as I previously alluded to this and it is so obvious from my site.

Forgive me if I don't follow the links to the many sites you list; I am

willing to spend time replying to emails that are sent to me, but I can't

devote time to material that is neither of much interest to me nor is

personal to me. I don't have a duty to read what other people want me to!

>After my previous email I do not know how you can maintain that << a prior

hostility to Christianity is involved >> in reading critical material when

I explained that so many of us read this prior to deconversion

OK, I was referring to non-Christians who read such material. Christians

who read it and lose their faith should not be castigated for weak faith by

other Christians; I agree with your earlier comment that that is

disgraceful. (Continuing love is the correct response.) But they should

discuss this material with their church elders, who might be able to give

them wisdom on the issues.

>Please don't think that just because other human beings (yes, we are just

like you)

I have never been sarcastic about you and I ask you not to be sarcastic

about me. I am free to say what I like about what people believe, but that

is not the same as personal sarcasm.

> are not currently Christians that we do not have the numinous feelings

that Christians do, or understand what it is like to become a Christian.

The full range from ex-ministers, missionaries, monks, nuns, theologians,

apologists to countless ordinary ex-Christian from the pew have left

Christianity from a wide range of denominations and backgrounds. Do you

really believe this to be "biased sample" who have not already thought and

experienced a universe of religious life?

Not at all, and I didn't say so either. You don't need to be capable of

writing a book to have a deep and rich spiritual life. But those who are so

capable are assuredly not representative of the general population.

>Even so, I now think that abandonment of reason for faith is dangerous and

also makes Christianity a position of enormous special pleading.

I am certainly not for abandoning reason, but it *builds* on faith, as my

earlier argument aimed to show. Christianity is certainly a position of

special pleading; what is wrong with that? Why should what is common to

most religions - ie a lowest common denominator - be the ultimate truth?

That too is a statement of faith.

>It is impossible to ignore the magnitude of such questions when they

really hit. One cannot stay detached and not think about these questions.

I have thought about them, but I find that beyond a certain point the

debate just goes round and round and meanwhile life must go on.

>Regarding your comments beginning << Every argument proceeds by reason

from premisses to conclusion. >> What are we to make of this? Is it then

impossible to falsify religious claims? Do you not do this yourself when

arguing against creationism? Do you not think we can falsify claims for the

flood or for the bizarre claims of countless religions and cults? Are they

really all just "a matter of faith" with no work for reason to do? Are we

really so at sea and all on an equal faith footing?

I argued that everyone believes in some things that they cannot prove, ie

faith; and that reason is how to navigate from there. Both are involved,

and one person's faith might be falsifiable from another's only by

protracted application of reason, which is not easy and so very worthwhile

debate goes on. Of course as a scientist I believe that reason is important

and valid. But physics, for example, ASSUMES that the laws of physics are

the same everywhere.

>For example, is not the fact that there is no extra-biblical evidence for

Herod's slaughter of the innocents good evidence that it did not happen?

There was claimed to be no extrabiblical evidence for the Exodus either,

but now there is - see the David Rohl book I mentioned. So the position can

change.

>You wrote << "Psychology of religion" is not a term I use >>

>Once again, does this mean that in your view there is something wrong with

there being such a discipline as "psychology of religion"? How can this be

justified in the light of the scientific research I pointed to previously?

No; it means precisely what it says! I went on to use terms that I thought

you might view as related, in order to advance our dialogue using language

I am at ease with.

>The "prophesies of Daniel" are currently being dissected on

news:alt.bible.errancy by ex-minister Farrell Till. It doesn't look like

the Christians are winning the argument. Indeed they do very poorly on such

discussion boards with some of them eventually leaving the inerrancy

position. Others deconvert on these boards occasionally. I am unaware of

anyone being converted to Christianity on these boards though, despite all

the evidence, attempts at reasoning and spiritual exhortations that the

Christians engage in there .

Certainly; just as people don't deconvert because of intellectual argument,

neither do they convert.

>It saddens me that you believe in hell; I really didn't have you down for

this. I discuss hell-belief at a number of places on my site.

How could you think I was a Christian and not believe in hell? I recognise

that you find the doctrine abhorrent, but it is plainly in the bible.

>To believe that torture is divinely justified is not conducive to a

spiritual life.

If you want to see this argued against, I recommend The Road To Hell by

David Pawson.

>However, most deconversion testimonies, (which are not generally found in

bookshops, (still a taboo) but are readily available via Internet booksellers)

Why should Christian bookshops carry books *against* Christianity??

Best wishes

Anthony Garrett

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr Anthony Garrett

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 08 June 2000 18:43

Subject: Re: Ouch! Sorry..

At 01:01 AM 6/8/00 +0100, you wrote:

>First of all an apology.

Accepted gladly and with thanks!

> but by your own admission

you have read relatively little (about problems with Christianity) and do

not have the inclination for much study of it.

This is true, but remember that I am a working scientist and I hear many

objections to Christianity from secular scientists, who are professional

thinkers. I would therefore expect to have been exposed to a pretty broad

cross-section of arguments agaisnt Christianity, and all of the arguments I

have encountered I have pondered on.

> I actually found another one myself

today, can you shed any light? He is an American philosopher with interest

in the psychology of religion who converted to Christianity. His name is

William P. Alston. See

http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/wishfulfill.html and

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/evan_fales/mystical.html

Sorry, I haven't heard of him.

>I could give you URLs of people who have tried just this, but as you say,

you wouldn't read it (if what I say is not interesting, why are you replying

to me?)

Because you are taking the trouble to send emails to me specifically, and

to these I am certainly willing to reply. It is web material which neither

interests me *nor* is written for me that I am reluctant to spend time on.

> Anyway, suffice to say they often try this and it is a complete

disaster. Examples of "continuing love" from a Christian to those trying

to explain why they left are pretty hard to come by!

I believe this and regret it; likewise that death threat. This sort of

behaviour is simply antiscriptural (a perjorative adjective which I use a

lot in healthy debates with fellow Christians).

>To be fair, there are some more loving examples, but these usually

come from very liberal or radical Christians, such as John Spong

who has been very thoughtful with ex-Christians from the first-hand

reports I have heard.

If Spong is loving I am glad, but from what I have read he is very

unscriptural!

I wrote:

<< I am certainly not for abandoning reason, but it *builds* on faith, as my

earlier argument aimed to show. Christianity is certainly a position of

special pleading; what is wrong with that? Why should what is common to

most religions - i.e. a lowest common denominator - be the ultimate truth?

That too is a statement of faith. >>

You replied:

An interesting position (I am not being sarcastic!) I can appreciate that (I

think). I am not sure I follow what you are getting at in your last sentence

though. Could you elaborate?

The scientific method is to find laws of nature that are as widely

applicable as possible. Hence, in a society that is very reason-based,

there will be a tendency to take what is common to all religions as "the

laws of religion". (Platonic ideals are also underneath this reasoning.) To

secularists this shows the illegitimacy of religious claims beyond that

common core, but to Christians, who make extraordinary claims about the

identity of Jesus, it shows the limits of scientific method.

>What is wrong with special pleading is that it makes apologetics useless.

No, it makes apologetic arguments non-ultimate ones, though often

provisionally useful.

>Maybe I have "faith" in reason, to some extent, but even there I am not

sure. Rather I think reason is to be used because empirically it works. This

is discussed at length by people like John Barrow and others whom you may

have read. The laws of physics are indeed assumed to be the same everywhere.

(Actually, is this still the case in some modern speculation in cosmology?)

I don't want to get into sterile philosophy, but it really does matter here

what you mean by "it works". John Barrow is a better scientist than writer

about science; I find his popular books quite wild. And yes, it is still

assumed that the laws of physics are the same everywhere; if it is found

that matter behaves differently at point X than at point Y, physicists

simply suppose that a symbol in their equations that express the laws,

which previously they had supposed was a constant, now varies with

position. More complicated strategies exist than that, but the idea of

universally applicable laws remains.

>I would also like to repeat my question: Do you think creationist claims

can be falsified, or is it a matter of faith? Are you really not in a

stronger position than they are?

I certainly think the science they put out is rubbish. But it is a waste of

time talking science to them - it is all about how to interpret the book of

Genesis. Secular scientists who engage in debate with creationists don't

get this, and consequently are prone to blood pressure.

>You should try that on news:alt.bibble.errancy if you really have confidence

in this. They were discussing the Exodus last week. I think you will find

it is flawed.

I've just read a superb article on this in the journal "Science and

Christian Belief", pointing out that the Hebrew word for "thousand" and for

"troops" is the same without the vowels, which is how Hebrew was written

back then. Certain numerical inconsistencies in the Pentateuch then vanish.

(And why otherwise were the Hebrews frightened of Pharaoh's following army

if there were so many of them, and why were they described as the "least of

all the peoples" and too low in number to fill the promised land?) The

estimate this paper gives for the number of people in the Exodus is some

20,000 and I believe it.

>Why are you not at ease with the term "psychology of religion" ?

Because I think it often means different things to different people. And

although potentially valuable it can be taken too far, in which case it

conflicts with the extraordinary truth-claims of Christianity.

> I am in correspondence with a Christian who claims his conversion was due

to reason alone, in particular due to examining evidence for the resurrection.

I suppose there might be a very tiny minority of such Christians, but even

then I wonder whether he will say the same in five years time...

>Are there any consequences to you if these statements you make if they are

wrong? (You have definitely been mistaken about ex-Christians a number of

times).

I strive for accuracy, but don't claim to be infallible.

>Surely you know there are many Christians who do not believe in hell?

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is who the bible says he is

and accepts his authority. Such people are still free to ignore what Jesus

says but it is inconsistent to say the least, and to them I would add that

it is dangerous and foolish.

<< If you want to see this argued against, I recommend The Road To Hell by

David Pawson. >>

I have read such material, and I find it completely nauseating. It was part

of the reason I left Christianity.

Your emotional response to it should not be relevant to whether you think

it is an accurate exegesis.

You:

>However, most deconversion testimonies, (which are not generally found in

bookshops, (still a taboo) but are readily available via Internet

booksellers)

Me:

<< Why should Christian bookshops carry books *against* Christianity?? >>

You:

I didn't mean Christian bookshops! I thought that would be obvious, sorry.

I assumed you meant Christian bookshops because of your use of "taboo".

There may not be many deconversion testimonies in print, but in view of the

ready availability of anti-Christian books I expect the reason is simply

that publishers doubt they will sell.

By the way, you used the phrase "faith in Christianity", which I found odd

- the issue is faith in Jesus Christ.

Best wishes,

Anthony Garrett

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks

To: Dr Anthony Garrett

Sent: 08 June 2000 22:59

Subject: Some follow up points

Dear Dr. Garrett,

I've just received your latest email (re: ouch! Sorry...) For the time

being, I can't think of much I want to say about it. I have however some

follow up points from previous discussion that have occurred to me

since my last email. Some impinge on what you wrote.

I'm sorry you don't want to read my URL's, they really are relevant to

the discussion. I could just cut and paste the material but it would

take unnecessary space and is considered bad form on discussion

lists. Nevertheless, I'm writing for my website too and so the URLs

are necessary for my readers (nobody is going to wait to download

the pages if I included all the material in an email).

Your desire for doubters to seek the advice of "church elders" is special

pleading. Special pleading is a logical error which renders arguments

invalid. Imagine a Jew who had doubts about Judaism and was considering

Christianity (those who join "Jews for Jesus" are examples of just such

people http://www.freeyellow.com/members6/Torah/page23.html ). Would you

advise that they discuss their doubts with their Rabbi to help them back

into Judaism or would you prefer they went to see a Christian minister?

If I had doubts about atheism and started wondering if Christianity was true

after all, should I assuage my doubts by discussing them with Michael Martin

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/ or maybe on

news:alt.atheism.moderated or should I seek out Christians, pray and go to

church? If we followed your advice, by resorting to special pleading, then

few would convert to Christianity from a non-Christian position.

I think you will have to say at least "seek advice from both sides" (but

should a doubting Moonie seek advice from Moonie elders?) As I said though,

some people do indeed ask their fellow Christians quite extensively. We are

not guilty of a one-sided approach to doubts (again, why ever would a

Christian not seek advice from Christians?) To quote the ex-Christian

theologian Gerd Ludemann http://www.gwdg.de/~gluedem/Deception.html

".in the course of my investigation of the resurrection of Jesus, of the

heretics in early Christianity, of the unholy in Holy Scripture, of the

virgin birth and finally, of the many words and actions of Jesus which have

been put into his mouth or attributed to him only at a later stage, I have

come to the following conclusion. My previous faith, related to the biblical

message, has become impossible, because its points of reference, above all

the resurrection of Jesus, have proved invalid and because the person of

Jesus himself is insufficient as a foundation of faith once most of the New

Testament statements about him have proved to be later interpretations by

the community. Jesus deceived himself in expecting the kingdom of God.

Instead, the church came; it recklessly changed the message of Jesus and in

numerous cases turned it against the mother religion of Judaism." Before

coming to this conclusion, Ludemann explained how his investigations into

his doubts met with evasive and unsatisfactory answers from the Christians

around him. I also have similar deconversion stories from less prodigious

ex-Christians if you demand something from more "average" people. I do not

know why "representative" people are more likely to find things out than

scholars though.

For a full account of an exchange of a former Christian with his Pastor and

Christian relatives, see here and

here.

Personally I invited a church elder who was also the leader of my home group

round to discuss matters, previously sending him material I had written

explaining my doubts as they were at the time. I felt it would be too

emotional and awkward to just say it all during a face to face. I had also

discussed matters with him and others before, when my doubts were at a more

embryonic stage. Like before, he tried to convince me I was wrong, but this

last time I started to feel sorry for him, somebody I considered my friend,

for criticising his deeply held beliefs in his presence. So I let the issue

drop, just listened to his conversion story again and said no more. I have

less qualms on the Internet (people can more easily ignore me) although even

there I have left obviously reflective Christians alone e.g.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/jim_moretz.html

My advice for people thinking over any hard question is to get as wide a

pool of information/advice etc. as possible. Things may then become

clearer. It is question begging to assume that the people who really

understand Christianity are Christians. If the Sun Myung Moon is not

the Messiah, then Moonies are not the people who understand him best.

A technical note on my rude remark. I was rude, but on reflection strictly

speaking not sarcastic. I did mean that we are the same as you, in so far as

we are all humans. (If I'd just left out the word "yes," then I think my

remark would have been acceptable). This was meant to reflect on the ease in

which you accept the justice of your fellow humans in hell. The Koran is

even more full of hell-fire than the New Testament. Some Muslims will say

that non-Muslims would go to hell. They too think that is just. Krishna

said: "He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees,

wherever this man may live, in truth this man lives in me...I am from

everlasting the seed of eternal life...in its delusion the world knows me

not...all beings have their rest in me...I am the way...he who loves me

shall not perish...only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto

me...malignant men hate me...they come not to me, but they go down the path

of hell". Krishna - the Bhagavad Gita (c. 500 B.C.)

Hell-justice is special pleading and completely useless. No matter what one

believes there are always those who will say you are going to hell for it.

Indeed it is better not to be a Christian at all from this point of view, as

the justification for condemnation of those who are heretical is often far

more vehement than the hellfire reserved for those completely outside of a

religion. Some Catholics say non-Catholics will go to hell, many

fundamentalists say Catholics will, and so the list goes on. All these

Christians claim they are "true Christians" and the others are mistaken,

often being "false Christians," the ones so despised by Jesus. Nobody is

safe from being told they may (usually "will") be condemned. Indeed, it soon

becomes very difficult to know what Christianity is. Whatever ones Christian

beliefs, there are always others to be found who will claim that this is not

"true Christianity." C.S. Lewis' apparently attractive idea of a "mere

Christianity" is a fiction. Many Christians (especially the more "right

wing") will claim that there is much more that is essential. Others will

disagree.

If you go to http://www.exchristian.org and use the list stories "by why

left" tool you will find that the concept of hell is a common motivator in

making people leave Christianity. You may well be helping people leave

Christianity by preaching it. Most of the Church of England has, at least

unofficially, abandoned hell-belief.

Again, I contend that hell-belief and the enormous efforts Christians put

into justifying God's ways to man and biblical passages such as these

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html are indicative of an

abusive relationship with their god. The joy, connection and release

expressed by deconverts, such as I have collected at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html, are testimony to

this, just like an abused wife who leaves her husband, finally recognising

it for the non-relationship it is.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html#example

One final erratum. Regarding books available in Christian shops, it slipped

my mind that I have bought most of my collection of books by Don Cupitt from

SPCK. For our readers, "SPCK" is the "Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge" and Cupitt is the most famous/infamous UK ex-Christian (well,

ex-"realist" Christian, although in a recent interview in "The Philosophers

Magazine" he was finally calling himself an atheist).

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/mybooks.html#cupitt

http://www.sofn.org.uk/purity.html and http://www.sofn.org.uk/

I wrote regarding apologetics for hell:

<< I have read such material, and I find it completely nauseating. It was

part of the reason I left Christianity. >>

You replied:

<< Your emotional response to it should not be relevant to whether you think

it is an accurate exegesis. >>

It is highly relevant. If Christianity is a religion of love and it contains

extremely unloving elements then it is in trouble. Why should one call

God "good" if he is contrary to what we feel good is. Somebody could call

rape good but I don't see why we should believe that. The problem of moral

values are the same for Christians and atheists. It is we who must judge

whether the scriptural god is good. You think he is, I think the evidence is

against it.

Leviticus 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you

of your children."

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept

with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a

man."

Ezechial 9:4-6 "The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and

maidens, little children and women"

Deuteronomy 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the

sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and

everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

Deuteronomy 28:53 "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons

and daughters the Lord your God has given you."

Joshua 11:6 "The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their

horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.)

Judges 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the

edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and

every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy."

1 Samuel 15:3,7-8 "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and

utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and

woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ...

utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

Hosea 13:16 "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have

rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones

will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open."

If you believe this is good I will be very surprised. Unlike passages you

approve of, I am sure you will find a reason for saying that this does not

reflect what God is like. That seems a double standard to me. It is also

scriptural for Christians to sell all they have to the poor or else they

are lacking something according to Luke 18:22. If I really believed God so

approved of this that he told us in human form that we should do this to

obtain riches in heaven then I would do it. Would you, or is Luke 18:22

unscriptural or requiring some interpretation?

Of course Christians are notorious for arguing about what scripture really

means. I have been told countless times that various other Christians are

wrong and "this" (... insert interpretation) is what the Bible is "really"

saying in passage such and such.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/listing.html

You wrote

<< By the way, you used the phrase "faith in Christianity", which I found

odd - the issue is faith in Jesus Christ. >>

I still get the impression you really don't believe that we knew what

Christianity is purported to be in its various forms. Maybe you are

hoping that all we diverse ex-Christians were never "real Christians."

I'm sorry that my words were not technically correct for this issue but

I really am well aware of the fact that Christians have faith in Jesus

Christ. I don't think you are doing me justice.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/seek.html

That's it for now.

Regards,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html