Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:21 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the Science of deconversion?
#1
the Science of deconversion?
Right, I believe that there is something to be studied here - why, for example, it's possible to deconvert some people and not others, why some, being experts in the bible or another holy book will do mental acrobatics to defend it while others will stop believing. Here are some of the factors that might play a role:

1. genetics (I could be wrong. While there is no such thing as a "god gene", the overall susceptibility between different mental systems to religion could differ among individuals)
2. Amount and quality of Indoctrination (well duh!)
3.Environment/community/access to differing viewpoints
4.Beliefs of parents (i.e. do they have the same faith, denomination, etc)
5. religious/nonreligious school
6.country/culture
7. exposure to critical thinking


What I believe should be studied, is statistically how much of these factors actually play a role. No one on these forums probably has the ability to do this, but deconversion should become a science, since we very well know that even if we have good arguments, convincing a theist that faith is not a good thing can be, um tricky...
Have you found Jesus? If so read "the god dillusion"
Reply
#2
RE: the Science of deconversion?
I completely agree with your list. But I have noticed in the past that even bright people, who think freely, refuse to let go of god... even though they denounce many parts of their faith. There is something more to it. There is a deep desire for god.
Quote:"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. "
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply
#3
RE: the Science of deconversion?
There is desire to rely on higher power. I think that was likely a survival advantage that enable our young to be more pliable and manageable by their parents and tribal elders, and made them more willing to take instructions in life lessons from their parents and tribal elders. So evolution bred that into our genes.

I suspect this desire would be reflected in some genetic based endorphin reaction when one thinks one is being looked after by a power stronger and wiser. When one reaches adulthood, look sound, and see others are no longer stronger and wiser, one might be subtly tempted to continue to receive this endorphin high by imagining a even higher and wiser, but unobservable, power that continues to look after one. To make the vision more convincing still, one even transfers many human qualities of those who really had been stronger and wiser when we were young to this new imaginary sky guardian.
Reply
#4
RE: the Science of deconversion?
Nicely put, Chuck
Quote:"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. "
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply
#5
RE: the Science of deconversion?
(October 23, 2010 at 2:10 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: I completely agree with your list. But I have noticed in the past that even bright people, who think freely, refuse to let go of god... even though they denounce many parts of their faith. There is something more to it. There is a deep desire for god.

it could probably be the early indoctrination or other things on the list.
Speaking of which, Let's fill it out!!!

1. genetics

no idea

2. Amount and quality of Indoctrination
weak - no church, religion not often discussed

3.Environment/community/access to differing viewpoints

plentiful, - grew up spending 6 years in greece, 3 years in Indonesia (a muslim country) and a year in india (hindus), had access to numerous beliefs

4.Beliefs of parents (i.e. do they have the same faith, denomination, etc)
Mother is a fluffy christian, father is an omnitheist (reads all sorts of books from the bible to the quran to the bahwad guitas - probably, like I, used to think that all of em were pieces of a jigsaw with the truth hidden somewhere inside) - this I think played a crucial role.

5. religious/nonreligious school
apart from the 3 years in indonesia non-religious

6.country/culture

Kiev, Ukraine (eastern europe)

7. exposure to critical thinking

hard to quantify but now I've seen almost all the episodes of the atheist experience, listened to James Randi's lectures so hopefully at least some Smile



Based on the above factors I'm surprised I didn't become an atheist earlier- probably cause I never actually heard any atheists speak.
Have you found Jesus? If so read "the god dillusion"
Reply
#6
RE: the Science of deconversion?
Based on your list I would be a fundy, but I'm not as my "religious views" profile field yields. I think it's the psychology of the individual, and I'm (funnily enough) been theorizing the variables of causation for religiosity. So far my hypothesis is correct from what I've observed, and if it turns out to be nearly flawless after a while then I'll probably post it.

As for me, I have an extremely religious family, history of it in my family, my environment is religious, I live in the bible belt, etc. etc. I could go on. I figured it all out and dropped it right then and there. It wasn't a big deal for me to drop it. And yes, in those days I tried so hard to keep a strong faith. My little brother dropped it as well rather contently.

Hell, MBTI may even contribute to this. All of the people that I've met (who grow up in the same nut environment) who are atheistic are also Intuitives. The ability to build connections and see the big picture means a lot. I've met intelligent people who try to rationalize their religion by twisting facts to suit theories, and they often focus on little things by obliviously postulating vague notions & ideas without evidence. Fear is also a factor, and you can tell with debating these types of cowardly people. Since the concept of hell never escapes their conscience, they will shut their eyes and plug up their ears when even just a strand of truth comes their way (like the "it's just a theory" jerkoffs, so is gravity -__-). The same goes for those who avidly believe god is working in their lives, despite the person next door who's devoutly Christian grandmother is suffering of Lou Gehrig disease.
Reply
#7
RE: the Science of deconversion?
Personally I think genetics was my saving grace. (lol) I was heavily indoctrinated and always believed. But I also always loved science, math, and logic. I studied computer science and logic in school, and NO "fluffiness" allowed Smile Religion didn't stand a chance.
Douglas Adams:
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
Reply
#8
RE: the Science of deconversion?
(October 23, 2010 at 2:10 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote: There is something more to it. There is a deep desire for god.

I agree, but for different reasons that you probably would not like.

I have actually been studying this subject for a while now and I've found some interesting things. Often some sort of "enlightenment" is mentioned, where the person in question switches to a belief in scientific certainty. More often than not this is preceded by some experience of the church's hypocrisy: a negative experience with a legalism tradition, suffering some sort of abuse from a religious figure, the church reacting superficially to a real tragedy in a person's life, general narrow-mindedness on the part of the church, failure to connect with any of the church's teachings, or any number of ways that the church really screws things up. I've read a lot of deconversion stories and it makes me want to claw my eyes out when I see how plainly wrong the church is in what it's doing/ teaching. I myself remember the days when going to church every week was the worst/ most destructive part of my life, so anyone coming from the same church tradition I used to belong to has ample reason to walk away from faith. It also doesn't help that many people (including Christians) have a view of Christianity that is based on shallow stereotypes, traditions that were invented by people much later than the Bible, and the uncritical inclusion of the ideas of other cultures into Christianity.

There are also those who are raised in a religious vacuum and simply never find a sufficient reason to believe in God. For both of these kinds of people I mentioned the tendency seems to work towards the Modernist notion that science and things that can be proven scientifically can answer life's questions. This is probably because the concepts of Modernism have largely come to define our culture. So Modernist thought's prevalence in our culture gives something for the religiously disenfranchised to rally around as what they see as the "default" position.

That's what I've seen so far. Let me know if you guys have any thoughts on this, I'm trying to understand atheists, but being a Christian I'm kind of an outsider. I really appreciate your input.
Reply
#9
RE: the Science of deconversion?
I truly think it comes down to the fact that people are incapable (generally speaking) of accepting the enormity of the universe (let alone a multiverse with dimensionally anomalies) and that they would have less than a whelks chance in a super nova.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#10
RE: the Science of deconversion?
Quote:whelks chance in a super nova

Holy Zarquan singing fish!! Apart from Ford Prefect and myself, this is the first time I've ever seen someone else use that phrase Great
[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Age of Deconversion John 6IX Breezy 138 10658 November 28, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Deconversion and some doubts Jake 232 12999 August 13, 2019 at 11:28 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Observational Science vs. Historical Science?! Duke Guilmon 8 3348 April 27, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Last Post: MJ the Skeptical
  The Process of Deconversion FallentoReason 6 2754 January 12, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Deconversion issues. Ziploc Surprise 19 6612 November 1, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Last Post: Ziploc Surprise



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)