I’ve been reading an excellent blog, The Redheaded Skeptic. The author is a woman who was raised in conservative christianity and wound up married to a christian minister, working alongside him in the church. It was not a happy marriage, though, in spite of her religion’s promises that godly behavior would lead to a wonderful and joyful home and family life. This led her to start questioning her faith in general. She eventually left her husband (for very good reasons, if you read her story, and I strongly suggest you do). This led to ostracism and judgmental pressure from her religious community. Most turned their back on her completely, which she saw as hypocrisy (correctly, I think) and became even more critical of her erstwhile faith. She has now rejected religion completely and self-identifies as an atheist.
This is a very condensed and abbreviated version of what happened to her, but I think it’s enough to support the point I want to make about it. (If you don’t think so, please read the full versions of her story at her blog before you criticize my conclusions.)
While reading her story, I couldn’t help but hear echoes of what christians would say to her or about her, how they would dismiss her decision. It’s completely predictable, because I’ve heard it many times myself. “Oh, you’re just spiteful at god because of your misfortunes. You’re not really an atheist, you’re just denying god because you’re angry at him. You’re angry at god because he won’t approve your sinful and selfish actions.” (In her case, getting out from under an abusive husband’s oppressive control.) They use the history of the break as evidence that the break is not valid. If you were brought to questioning your faith because you had a bad experience with it, then you can’t have come to the correct decision; you’re just being cranky, not sensible or thoughtful or logical.
This is so condescending and belittling that it can make almost anyone hostile and defensive in response, and that hostility is then held up as further evidence that the skeptic is just a crank, that they don’t have a real reason for being skeptical about the faith. It’s also just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter what the initial motivation is for questioning one’s faith; if you go into it honestly and fairly, you will come to the same conclusions whether you were kicked into it by bad experiences or just slowly came to realize that the dogma didn’t add up.
To draw an analogy: let’s say that you and your business partner have a fine relationship for years, and then one day you start noticing that the books are a little funny. When you ask about it, he gets nasty and accuses you of not trusting him, reminding you of your long relationship and trying to make you feel guilty for bringing it up. This makes you suspicious of him, and you start watching the books a lot more closely. Evidence of embezzling shows up immediately, and you sever the business relationship. If people reacted to this the same way that Redhead’s christian community reacted to her, they would blame you for allowing your suspicions to undermine your trust. “You were happy before you started questioning, right? And it was probably only your petty gripes against your partner that made you start nosing around in the first place, so he really wasn’t embezzling, you’re just confused.” Put this way, the argument is obvious bullshit. No matter what your motivation for looking was, the result is that the partner is exposed as a fraud. It doesn’t matter what made you look. And it also doesn’t matter that you were happier before you knew. Facts are facts, and your emotional state doesn’t change them.
I think a bad experience with religion, whether it’s just a single disappointment or a huge overload of wrongness like what happened to Redhead, is useful in forcing you to question whether your faith is true; but once you’ve started to ask those questions, the initial impetus ceases to matter. They can’t be called back. And once you start to realize that the people who still believe it are like the business partner who blithely accepts the flimsy excuses for the discrepancies in the ledger, it’s very frustrating to have people like that ganging up on you to say you are the one who’s wrong. Redhead’s blog is very personal, and you can hear the resulting defensiveness in some of the things she writes – understandable if you’ve been put through this needless wringer by people you thought were your friends. I applaud her strength, and hope that she will feel more confident in that strength as she continues down this path.
This post wouldn’t be complete without pointing out a choice bit of christian hypocrisy. If someone’s experience goes in the other direction – if a person without faith comes to Jesus because of a personal misfortune – they are glad to have him. They jump on that like fleas to a dog. They don’t say things like, “Oh, you just rejected atheism because you’re angry that there’s no god. You’re not really a believer, you’re just being spiteful.” No, they welcome the opportunity to swoop down and sell their beliefs when the target is most vulnerable. They’re ambulance chasers for Jesus. I once had someone wish me grave personal misfortune – and it was intended as an expression of love and caring, because she believed that bringing me to the depths of despair would open my heart to Jesus. Horrifying, isn’t it? I’ve never met an atheist who would wish harm on someone so that they would see that their god is imaginary.
I’m not sure if all this is another example of “lying for Jesus,” or just people who have had their critical faculties deliberately blunted by their faith. But either way, it’s just wrong and misguided. People who try to dismiss nonbelief as if it were just a temper tantrum against god are missing the point. Their faith trains them to miss that point. But their position contains the assumption that religion is normal and atheism is an emotional or intellectual pathology. Don’t buy it. As I said in the FAQ section of this blog, the proper answer to “What happened to you to turn you against religion?” is “What happened to you to turn you against schizophrenia?”
[...] However, dwasifar wrote an excellent post on the True Christian phenomenon, and I can’t resist sharing. It talks about me, yes, but that’s not why I’m telling you about it. I think he has an excellent analogy that could be useful to those of us who have to deal with “You weren’t a true Christian!” type comments. I even know of a few former fundamentalists who kept a more liberalized version of their faith could possibly benefit from this analogy. So click here for the post, Losing Her Religion! [...]
You had me agreeing until your last clause. I would have phrased it, “What happened to you to turn you against sanity?” or “…toward schizophrenia?”
Nevertheless, it is the attitude of the believers that the default state is that their god exists, and that people do or should believe in that god. From that starting point, then, all else follows: atheists stopped believing; something must have happened to cause this; it was either voluntary or involuntary; if voluntary, then believers can work with us to fix us; if involuntary, then perhaps some serious psychological problem must need addressing; and so forth. This is untenable nonsense, true, but it is how they have to think.
What concerns me more is the amount of anger that runs through the posts in this blog, and although I don’t know you I worry about you. Take this sentence: “This is so condescending and belittling that it can make almost anyone hostile and defensive in response…” Written in reaction to having your motives questioned, it seems extraordinarily belligerent for one who simply has discovered that there is no god. I think you need to shrug off the nonsense of the believers with greater ease, and more often.
You seem to have quite a stake in what they think about you, something bordering on palpable fear. This is not good. You are maintaining a connection with believers that you should sever, whether it is a lingering faith you do not recognize, or a fear of authority that you should have dismissed with contempt, or a doubt that you should have quashed, you need to find it out. Until you know the thing that keeps you chained to the good will and favorable opinion of the believers, or their god, you will not be free.
Good luck.
@Mr Fnortner
I think you’re reading way too much into this.
Regarding the schizophrenia comparison, my point is not to accuse the interlocutor of mental illness directly, but rather to make the point that I see religion as they would see mental illness.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pastor Kevin Essett, Redheaded Skeptic. Redheaded Skeptic said: Check out Jon's thoughts about hypocrisy, #religion, and me. http://bit.ly/664gbv #atheism #Christian [...]
But of course many wheezers won’t believe in “mental illness” anyway, it’s all demonic possession. :-/
“They’re ambulance chasers for Jesus.”
WAHAHAHAHAHAHA so true!
I had a spontaneous, idiopathic stroke at a young age & when religious people found out, they actually said TO MY FACE “There but for the grace of god goes I”
Do they realize how awful that saying is? God graced you, but not me? Really?
Dear Sherri: They were “religious” people, that’s for sure. However, just like real money has it’s counterfeit, they were “posing” as God’s servants.The Bible describes them as, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” Real chosen ones of God would have taken you into their hearts and prayed for you, even weeping with you. Do not lose hope. There is nothing that happens in this fallen world for no reason. God has a wonderful plan for your life, whether you are 100% whole physically or not. He will never leave nor forsake you! He does ALL things well and is always there to call upon for encouragement and wisdom. Personally, I have been through many valleys in my life and felt like giving up many times. But God IS faithful. He will bring you through them all, and make your life a complete and wonderful blessing and testimony to everyone you meet. You will look back and be amazed that He was there all the time! You will even thank Him for all the “bad” because it brought you closer to Him, and made you ALL that He intended you to be, for His glory! Do not doubt, trust Him as His child. He cared enough to die on a cross for your very own relationship with Him. He is your creator, and BEST friend! I will pray for your new life in Jesus! You will NEVER be disappointed!
@cmaglaughlin – This is familiar. Religious people who do something embarrassing are “not true members” of the religion. How conVEEEnient. I’m sure that if we follow this line of reasoning far enough, we’ll learn that if “god’s wonderful plan” for your life never materializes, it’s similarly going to be your fault for not having enough faith, or not having the right kind of faith – for “posing.” I have a better explanation of this: be happy by being delusional. If you’re still not happy, be more delusional.
One sentence really stands out: “You will even thank Him for all the ‘bad’ because it brought you closer to Him, and made you ALL that He intended you to be, for His glory!” Wow, talk about Stockholm syndrome. “Thank you for making me miserable, master! It made me a much better lickspittle servant! I’m so happy that my abasement feeds your ego!” Didn’t I write a blog entry about this?
Slow down there, Jack. Been exactly “where” you are. If you think that by making your idea of God into reality, keep it to yourself. You have made the One true God into your own delusion. Enjoy the emptiness of all your own conclusions, NOT based upon fact, but cover up. Yes, covering your own “sin” with a fig leaf,(your own conclusions and righteousness) and not what the Only I AM provided in His death, burial and resurrection. When is the last time, if ever, you picked up His Word, and read the Gospel of John. Read it and get back to me.
Oh, you “have”?
Is this a sentence? Let’s ask the judges. –BZZT!– They say no.
I understand the “keep it to yourself” part, though. You mean to say that you should be free to proselytize, but if I disagree with you, I should shut up. Is your confidence in your belief that weak, that opposing viewpoints must be silenced? I’m flattered that you consider me such a threat. It does speak volumes about the hypocrisy and arrogance of religion, though; you come here to preach, on my blog, and instruct me to shut up. What tasty irony.
Another familiar faith-head argument. People who don’t believe in the imaginary are actually the deluded ones. Here, let me save you the next step; you’re certainly getting ready to say that atheism is a religion and requires just as much faith as christianity. Sorry; wrong on both counts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want me to believe your fairy tales, you’ll have to do a lot better than “you’re deluded if you won’t believe without proof.”
Again, judges? –BZZT!– Seems like that started out with a clear goal in mind and wandered off into non-sentencehood. I think. Hard to say, really.
Please define “sin.” This should be great fun.
I’ve read it. The first problem is, it doesn’t agree with Matthew, Mark, or Luke. There are entire books documenting the internal contradictions of your bible. I’ll be interested to see what dodge you use to try to explain this away. Will it be the “bible-as-metaphor” dodge? The “we mortals can’t have a full understanding of what god was trying to say” dodge? Or maybe some of the more recent misleading claims of translation errors?
Putting that aside for the moment, I have here in my hand three volumes that detail events in the distant past, involving supernatural happenings and miracles, describing the adventures of a savior who rescued the world from falling into the eternal grip of evil, at great personal cost. This narrative is far more internally cohesive than your bible. And hey, it’s in a widely read book, right? So if I read it, and I’m inspired to believe it in my heart, then it must be true, right? So I guess I should start worshiping Frodo Baggins.
The point, “Jack,” is that your holy book means nothing in and of itself. It’s not enough to write a book that says “this book is true because this book says so.” It needs to pass rational muster; it needs to make sense. Which it doesn’t. The most farfetched Hollywood B-grade sci-fi film has more consistency. If you choose to set common sense aside and believe it anyway, well, you can if you want, but that doesn’t mean you get to insist on being taken seriously.
@Tia:
Formally speaking you’re quite right, but there’s a catch. Suppose I were to say, “It doesn’t matter what liquid you put in your car’s tank, as long as the car runs afterward”. There are some religions, or rather sub-varieties of religions, that seem to pretty well make their believers unable to treat the other person right, just as molasses will make the car stop.
My own position is that velle non discitur, willing cannot be taught; that by the time they get round to choosing a religion people are either nice or nasty or somewhere in between, and so pick a religion (or style or practice within one) that caters to their desire to be nice or nasty to other people.