Dr. Anthony Garrett

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

From: Steve Locks

To: anton@scitext.com

Sent: 30 May 2000 21:16

Subject: Asymmetry of conversion

Thank you for replying regarding your email address. As you will see, I have

a question regarding some information I found about you on the WWW. I hope

you don't mind me asking as I appreciate you are busy and this is a slightly

personal question. Nevertheless, if you find it interesting I would be

delighted to hear back from you.

Here is my question:

I recently heard of your case. I understand that you had been a member of

the Australian Skeptics and have nevertheless converted to Christianity.

To date you are the second person I know of who has such a background.

I am doing some research for my website "Leaving Christianity" at

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

The site is basically a resource of "testimonies" from people who have left

Christianity explaining why they left in their own words. Mostly it links to

sites already containing some collections of these stories. In the process

of my research I have been struck by an asymmetry between the large

number of professional Christians who deconvert (ministers, apologists,

missionaries etc.) verses the lack of their atheist counterparts, such as

members of humanist or atheist organisations, who convert to Christianity.

However, to date I have mostly just anecdotal information on this although

I have now asked a number of atheist etc. organisations, and some

Christians and Christian websites, for examples of converts to Christianity

who have a background of having been in an organisation that is critical of

Christianity.

I am particularly interested in the conversion and deconversion of informed

people from both the theist and non-theist camps who are well aware of the

arguments from their particular side, before they convert to the "other

side," rather than the lesser educated public. i.e. the conversion and

deconversion of trained theist and non-theist "apologists", as it were,

for and against Christianity.

That is why I have chosen to seek in addition to ex-ministers etc.

those, like yourself, who were previously members of an

atheist/freethought/humanist etc. organisation who then became

Christians. I'm not interested in those who have not studied the arguments

against Christianity very well before they became Christians, so I'm using

membership of an organisation as an indicator that they were probably quite

well read. I appreciate that being a member of an organisation does not

guarantee one is well read on arguments against Christianity any more than

those who are not in such organisations will necessarily not be well read.

But as a stab at research I think it is a reasonable quest for data, in

which I would expect a fair correlation despite some noise. (This is

discussed a little further at

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

I really want to know if studying material critical of Christianity prevents

people becoming Christians in the first place (and if so, how much/what

kind of material), whereas Christian ministers and theologians do change

their beliefs (I have examples at

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#profs ).

I also wish to test any hypotheses I draw from this.

So if you would like to tell me, I would be very interested in your

background, what you have read on both sides of the argument, any

material you may have previously published (even if only online) critical of

Christianity and, particularly, what it was that convinced you to become

a Christian. I am not seeking a debate and will not harangue you with

email arguments (put me in your kill-file if I do!), rather I wish to ask

people on both sides of the question for a more interesting enquiry

and hopefully honest research. I would like to enquire into your ideas

though and may discuss them on my site. However, I certainly do not

wish to be in anyway confrontational, merely examine what is going on.

You can see an example of my approach (all be it unfinished) at

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

I will of course continue correspondence if you wish,

it's entirely up to you (I also appreciate you are a busy person).

I have read the little I have found about yourself at

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s17040.htm

http://atheism.org/library/modern/anthony_garrett/esct.html

http://www.secular.org/library/modern/anthony_garrett/garrett-bio.html

I also tried to read www.csis.org.uk but the URL did not work for me. Is

this address correct?

I appreciate that as you say "I did not become a Christian because of

logical argumentation. Conversion is always more personal than that." I

agree that there is much to the conversion (and deconversion) phenomenon and

it is hardly a sterile phenomenon of mere logic! I have taken an interest in

the psychology of religion, particularly as it relates to conversion.

However, the only other ex-member of an organisation critical of

Christianity claims that his reason for becoming a Christian was through

pondering the evidence for the resurrection until he became convinced.

(He actually became a fundamentalist!) From his website though, I think

it was also largely a long exposure to some Christians he admired that

might have been part of the influence.

Like your interest in evolution, I am only an interested amateur in my

chosen Internet field (leaving Christianity).

I am in danger of rambling! Many details can be found at my site, which I

will leave you to peruse if you wish. My particular story is at

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

I think we may have some things in common. I am also a physicist (all be it

a meagre applied one and certainly not in your league!) and have always

accepted evolution as well attested, and been disturbed by the antics of

fundamentalists, both when I was a Christian and now when not.

Thank you for any help. I also will not think badly of you if you do not

wish to reply. This may be an entirely personal matter for you which you do

not desire to get into with a stranger.

Anyway, for details of what I have gathered so far on this question, see

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

Regards,

Steve

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

Leaving Christianity:

www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

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

From: Dr Anthony Garrett

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 31 May 2000 23:45

Subject: Re: Asymmetry of conversion

At 09:16 PM 5/30/00 +0100, you wrote:

>In the process

>of my research I have been struck by an asymmetry between the large

>number of professional Christians who deconvert (ministers, apologists,

>missionaries etc.) verses the lack of their atheist counterparts, such as

>members of humanist or atheist organisations, who convert to Christianity.

Surely not - Christian bookshops are full of such testimonies!

I'll gladly say more about myself. I left Australian Skeptics not because I

became a Christian but because I left Australia to return to my native

England. When I was active in skeptical organisations my activity was only

ever to defend and advocate proper science and scientific method in areas

where it was patently being abused. I continue to approve of this part of

what skeptical organisations do and I still subscribe to Skeptical

Inquirer. I never got involved with the ghostbusting side because I

regarded it then as "not my department", and nowadays I am profoundly glad

I didn't. The occult is dangerous.

I was glad that the early Skeptical Inquirers didn't mix the skepticism

with the humanism even though most contibutors were humanists - they put

that in a separate magazine called the Humanist which even as a secular

scientist I thought was trash. I regret that Skeptical Inquirer now

includes a lot of waffle about humanism, psychology and belief. (I do not

deny psychology but it's in the wrong place there!)

>I really want to know if studying material critical of Christianity prevents

>people becoming Christians in the first place

I don't believe so. I think people study such material because they are

already hostile to Christianity.

>So if you would like to tell me, I would be very interested in your

>background, what you have read on both sides of the argument, any

>material you may have previously published (even if only online) critical of

>Christianity and, particularly, what it was that convinced you to become

>a Christian.

That I only tell to people in person, and then only to certain people for

deeper reasons than study! Sorry.

>I also tried to read www.csis.org.uk but the URL did not work for me. Is

>this address correct?

Yes; keep trying!

Best wishes

Anthony Garrett

Managing Editor,

____________________________________________

| |

| SCITEXT CAMBRIDGE |

| |

| WWW: http://www.scitext.com/ |

| E-mail: editor@scitext.com |

| Fax: +44-1223-329468 |

| Phone: +44-7020-936902 |

| Mail: PO Box 57, CAMBRIDGE CB3 9PP, UK |

|____________________________________________|

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

From: Steve Locks

To: Dr Anthony Garrett

Sent: 03 June 2000 23:58

Subject: Thanks and a couple of questions

Dear Dr. Garrett,

Thank you very much for writing back. I have some more enquiries and follow

up questions based on your reply if that is okay. Sorry for the length, but

I hope you will find it interesting.

Thanks for clarifying that your area was countering pseudo-science rather

than religious claims when in Australian Skeptics. Based on this I think

that you are probably not someone with the kind of background I am looking

for. Actually, when you mentioned not being involved in "ghost-busting"

initially at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s17040.htm I

wondered if that was possibly a coy term for criticising religion. However I

take it you literally mean debunking such things as alleged hauntings etc.

which you were not involved in. It looks like religious discussion was not

even on the agenda of Australian Skeptics in the early days when you were

involved, and they were more into debunking pseudo-science, ghosts, UFO's

etc.

I wrote:

>In the process

>of my research I have been struck by an asymmetry between the large

>number of professional Christians who deconvert (ministers, apologists,

>missionaries etc.) verses the lack of their atheist counterparts, such as

>members of humanist or atheist organisations, who convert to Christianity.

You replied:

<< Surely not - Christian bookshops are full of such testimonies! >>

I want to ask more about these books, but some background first to better

clarify what I am looking for:

You also wrote:

<< I think people study such material because they are

already hostile to Christianity. >>

I acknowledge part of your point in that critical material is typical

reading for someone hostile to (or at least critical of) Christianity but

often the situation is quite otherwise. The fact is that I, and many others

whose testimonies I have, read critical material whilst we were Christians

because we were curious. It was this research that often was our "undoing."

Initially often quite painful and surprising for a Christian to discover

that they can no longer find Christianity tenable (for which we get no

sympathy from Christians). Research is, from the stories I have read, the

number one reason for "deconversion" so it certainly isn't true that the

reason for reading this material is necessarily (at least) because people

are hostile to Christianity. Indeed, most of the people I know of continue

to read critical material because they are fascinated by the subject, rather

than reading it because they are hostile. If one is surrounded by Christians

then we are quite likely to be interested in reading the full picture. I

take it you wouldn't advise people only to read pro-Christian material?

One must also bare in mind that throughout history and still today,

particularly in fundamentalist parts of the USA, it is Christians who are

very hostile to atheists rather than visa-versa. Indeed atheism is often

spoken of as "the last taboo" and many of the ex-Christians I have spoken to

are regularly condemned to hell by family members and friends as soon as

their new beliefs become known. We escape most of this in liberal Europe,

but in other parts of the world the situation is very claustrophobic for

non-Christians to put it mildly. To guess that people study such material

because they are already hostile to Christianity is to too easily demonise

other humans, so I really feel I have to stand up for my fellow infidels on

this one. The situation is certainly more complex than your portrayal.

Meanwhile, reading reviews of such critical books at Amazon also shows that

current Christians do occasionally read such material, although admittedly

not as many as non-Christians. From my research ex-Christians in particular

often have read such material before they left Christianity, as well as

continuing to read it afterwards. A perusal of some of the "testimonies" via

my site would demonstrate this. I also remember reading a book of Christian

essays which started "If you are not aware of the seriousness of the

arguments for atheism then you probably do not understand what we mean by

saying we believe in God" (or words to that effect). All said though, I

think it is generally good to read material on both sides of the fence if

one wants to be fair and to understand a position well. To discuss

creationists it helps to know what they are thinking of course, as

nauseating as their writings may be!

Speaking personally, it was rather a curiosity, a search into the heart of

questions and a search for a deeper faith that made me decide to read

material critical of Christianity, which obviously I started doing whilst I

was still a Christian. A far cry from reading it because I was hostile to

Christianity. (Now I read it because it continues to fascinate me, as you

can see on my story on my website, not because of hostility). Also whilst

still a Christian, some material (like Karen Armstrong's "Tongues of Fire")

I read because it looked interesting from the blurb on the jacket, quite

unaware of that it would challenge me.

From my discussions with Christians it appears true that as you say it is

generally critics who read critical material and, as I have found, in

general there is a lack of knowledge of arguments against Christianity.

However, most ex-Christians, at least, and some present Christians, have

read critical material when Christians out of curiosity and even in order to

refute it. I know someone who did a conservative theology course that starts

with reading Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" in order to refute it. On

university courses it is often core reading of academic historical Jesus

research that causes people to loose their faith. I have spoken to such

people myself e.g. the Vice-Principal of a major UK theological college who

left for that reason. The Principal himself also discussed with me how many

of his students (many were mature students and some current clergy doing

further study) loose their faith in the course of their studies. He himself

remained a Christian, all be it increasingly liberal. (I used to date his

daughter, hence the inside knowledge). I was also told that some found it

liberating whereas others were pretty devastated by the discovery. After

all, apart from the obvious shock of having one's whole world rewritten,

many were in their 40's or 50's and had devoted a large part of their

personal and professional lives to religion and were (apparently) bewildered

as to how to start again.

An example of another typical academic course (at Birmingham university

where ex-priest and renowned biblical scholar Michael Goulder was a

professor) is available online at

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/jesus/

What I can't find though is equivalent proportions of people in freethought

etc. societies who become Christians to balance the proportions of

ministers, missionaries, apologists, theologians and other well-churched

Christians who subsequently leave. I hope that will encourage you to dig out

some book references of such stories that you alluded to for me. Any such

resources I will add to my website under the section for counter examples,

so it will get a fair readership (currently about 30-40 per day). I don't

consider the likes of C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell to have been very aware

BTW. Certainly not of the calibre of members of the Sea of Faith, the Jesus

Seminar, Michael Goulder, Gerd Lüdemann etc. (see my site for details). I

also know that Josh McDowell is not recommended by some Christians and C.S.

Lewis' reason for believing in the divinity of Christ was very weak indeed,

disappointing for me too when I read him when a Christian. He says in

"Surprised by Joy" << When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is

the son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly

spent the journey in thought. >> On the other hand, if someone like Jeff

Lowder, James Still etc. of secular web fame or other knowledgeable infidels

converted then I, and many others I have spoken to, would like to know why

and ask them further if necessary. Are there any testimonies like this in

the books that you mentioned?

It is important that these are from people who were previously well educated

in the arguments against Christianity as this would be just what I am

looking for to have to reassess my ideas. I have been in many Christian

bookshops in my time and am aware of conversions of course, and have read

and heard many Christian testimonies but virtually none from people who have

left an organisation critical of Christianity because they became

Christians. I have examples of books and testimonies of ex-ministers etc.

via my site, but I can't find much on the opposite. I also know of others

who have been asking for this information for years (e.g. the ex-minister

Farrell Till who you may know of).

I hope you can see by this discussion the magnitude of what I am after. I

don't know whether you have seen the material you refer to or rather assume

it is there or mistakenly thought I mean conversion stories from those

uneducated or semi-educated in arguments against Christianity. Nevertheless

after years of looking in Christian bookshops, church bookstalls, religious

sections in general bookshops and libraries and enquiring on Internet

discussion groups and Christian forums I have found little in terms of such

stories that it seems you are suggesting are abundant. So if you really do

know of this information I would like details.

<< That I only tell to people in person, and then only to certain people for

deeper reasons than study! Sorry. >>

Fair enough, although I am trying to study in the deepest sense, I am not a

sterile academic about this. Also I have opened up on my website for all to

see. It is of course a personal thing though.

>I also tried to read www.csis.org.uk but the URL did not work for me. Is

>this address correct?

<< Yes; keep trying! >>

Thanks, I'll try again.

One other thing that troubles me, you said:

<< I regret that Skeptical Inquirer now includes a lot of waffle about

humanism, psychology and belief. (I do not deny psychology but it's in the

wrong place there!) >>

Do you mean to say that you think discussion of psychology and belief is

out of place in Skeptical Inquirer (e.g. a bunch of amateurs discussing

something they know little about, (although surely they can discuss

anything!)) or do you think psychology does not influence religious

(particularly various Christian) behaviours and beliefs? If the latter than

I think that would be difficult to justify and quite odd coming from a

science populariser battling against another area where religious beliefs

take primacy over scientific method. Such a view that psychology is out of

place in religion is quite at odds with main stream psychology, as well as

much classic writing on the subject by (Christian) psychologists such as

William James, Ninian Smart and Robert Thouless. James' "The Varieties of

Religious Experience" is very famous. Smart ("The Religious Experience of

Mankind") was a professor of theology and lecturer in history and philosophy

of religion. Thouless gave his book ("The Psychology of Religion") as a

lecture series to ordination candidates at Cambridge. The largest psychology

of religion website that I have found is by an academic psychologist who is

also a Christian http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/index.htm

So if you are under the impression that psychology of religion is

incompatible with being a Christian, it obviously is not necessarily so

(unless one is a fundamentalist!)

A few keyword searches on medline (the academic medical Internet resource

that indexes millions of medical and allied journals and abstracts etc.

available via many portals) for "psychology of religion", "religious

conversion" etc. results in hundreds of references to articles in psychology

and psychiatry journals etc. If you do have studious reasons for denying

religious psychology then I hope you could make a good scientific case for

this just as I know you would criticise a creationist for not scientifically

justifying ideas that are in conflict with evolution. It would be deeply

ironic if in one area of science you championed the scientific method and in

another you made faith statements. However, if your views on psychology are

just private then that is another matter, but if you make them publicly,

contradicting the research easily available through peer reviewed academic

journals and standard textbooks, then I would think that would be an

embarrassment.

Speaking personally once again, I was surprised to discover when reading

such material just how much my religion did have a psychology. It is very

humbling to find one is personally so very only human. I was shocked to

discover how people who had never met me (including long dead writers) could

know so much about my inner life and secret thoughts.

That's it. Thank you again for responding. If you do know of any book titles

containing conversion stories of educated ex-members of societies critical

of Christianity or their equivalents who later became Christians I would be

interested in reading them. (I'm not trying to be "challenging" or

sarcastic, I really would like to know of such books and I'll send the book

information on to Till and others who I know have an interest in this

question).

Thanks again,

Regards,

Steve

www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

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

From: Dr Anthony Garrett

To: Steve Locks

Sent: 05 June 2000 17:49

Subject: Re: Thanks and a couple of questions

At 11:58 PM 6/3/00 +0100, you wrote:

>>In the process

>>of my research I have been struck by an asymmetry between the large

>>number of professional Christians who deconvert (ministers, apologists,

>>missionaries etc.) verses the lack of their atheist counterparts, such as

>>members of humanist or atheist organisations, who convert to Christianity.

>

><< Surely not - Christian bookshops are full of such testimonies! >>

>

>I want to ask more about these books

I didn't mean academic philosophers of religion and such converting to

Christianity. I remember Jung noted that was rare. I mean simply that most

conversion testimonies of Westerners, found in Western Christian bookshops,

are to Christianity from atheism, not from Islam for example. There are

many such testimonies.

><< I think people study such material because they are

>already hostile to Christianity. >>

>

>I acknowledge part of your point in that critical material is typical

>reading for someone hostile to (or at least critical of) Christianity but

>often the situation is quite otherwise. The fact is that I, and many others

>whose testimonies I have, read critical material whilst we were Christians

>because we were curious. It was this research that often was our "undoing."

>Initially often quite painful and surprising for a Christian to discover

>that they can no longer find Christianity tenable (for which we get no

>sympathy from Christians). Research is, from the stories I have read, the

>number one reason for "deconversion"

It probably would be, among people who write up their deconversions. But

that is a biased sample: most people don't bother to write. People who do

write are those who are likely to "do research". I still maintain a prior

hostility to Christianity is involved.

>One must also bare in mind that throughout history and still today,

>particularly in fundamentalist parts of the USA, it is Christians who are

>very hostile to atheists rather than visa-versa. Indeed atheism is often

>spoken of as "the last taboo" and many of the ex-Christians I have spoken to

>are regularly condemned to hell by family members and friends as soon as

>their new beliefs become known. We escape most of this in liberal Europe,

>but in other parts of the world the situation is very claustrophobic for

>non-Christians to put it mildly. To guess that people study such material

>because they are already hostile to Christianity is to too easily demonise

>other humans, so I really feel I have to stand up for my fellow infidels on

>this one. The situation is certainly more complex than your portrayal.

Of course there is more to it than I could sum up in a couple of sentences.

But I disagree with much of this. It is true that, where Christians have

held secular power, eg the mediaeval church of Rome, they have often

disgracefully abused that power. A milder version is the lack of love of

Christians for atheists in bible belt USA. But the proportion of atheists

there in serious danger of their lives because of their beliefs is utterly

negligible. Compare that with Christians in Muslim countries today.

No Christian can condemn anyone to hell; it is God who will do that. But it

is not so simple as many Christians think, for there will be Christians in

hell too: many parables can only be interpreted as warnings of hell *to

believers*.

>Meanwhile, reading reviews of such critical books at Amazon also shows that

>current Christians do occasionally read such material, although admittedly

>not as many as non-Christians. From my research ex-Christians in particular

>often have read such material before they left Christianity, as well as

>continuing to read it afterwards. A perusal of some of the "testimonies" via

>my site would demonstrate this. I also remember reading a book of Christian

>essays which started "If you are not aware of the seriousness of the

>arguments for atheism then you probably do not understand what we mean by

>saying we believe in God"

I don't see why most Christians should take valuable time to educate

themselves on such arguments. Only those few who find themselves called to

act as missionaries to academics and other professional thinkers to do

this. The biblical pattern of conversion does not involve academic argument.

Regarding the arguments against Christianity, I have this to say. Every

argument proceeds by reason from premisses to conclusion. To believe the

conclusion you therefore have to have faith in the premisses and faith in

reason. The latter is non-controversial. But where do the premisses come

from? You might say they can themselves be derived from premisses still

further back. But that simply defers the problem: eventually you are going

to have to admit you are starting from assertions you believe but cannot

prove. In other words those assertions are your faith. Therefore everybody

has a faith of some sort, and "Are you for faith or reason" is the wrong

question.

>>From my discussions with Christians it appears true that as you say it is

>generally critics who read critical material and, as I have found, in

>general there is a lack of knowledge of arguments against Christianity.

>However, most ex-Christians, at least, and some present Christians, have

>read critical material when Christians out of curiosity and even in order to

>refute it. I know someone who did a conservative theology course that starts

>with reading Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" in order to refute it. On

>university courses it is often core reading of academic historical Jesus

>research that causes people to loose their faith. I have spoken to such

>people myself e.g. the Vice-Principal of a major UK theological college who

>left for that reason. The Principal himself also discussed with me how many

>of his students (many were mature students and some current clergy doing

>further study) loose their faith in the course of their studies. He himself

>remained a Christian, all be it increasingly liberal. (I used to date his

>daughter, hence the inside knowledge). I was also told that some found it

>liberating whereas others were pretty devastated by the discovery. After

>all, apart from the obvious shock of having one's whole world rewritten,

>many were in their 40's or 50's and had devoted a large part of their

>personal and professional lives to religion and were (apparently) bewildered

>as to how to start again.

I am not convinced about a good deal of "higher criticism" or much

archaeological dating. For arguments that a different archaeological

timescale (for which there is independent evidence) produces a close fit to

the Old Testament, see the book by David Rohl (not a Christian!) called A

Test Of Time. Regarding Higher Criticism, I think it vastly over-confident

on the basis of very little to assert that four strands can clearly be

discerned in the book of Genesis, for example. Also the dating of Daniel to

after the events he prophecies in fine detail can be vigorously argued

against. I suspect the true if unacknowledged source of that dating is

unbelief that such prophecy is possible.

> I don't

>consider the likes of C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell to have been very aware

>BTW.

I find CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" to be a superb example of logical

argument for Christianity if that's what you want to read; though of course

logical argument has its limits.

>also know that Josh McDowell is not recommended by some Christians and C.S.

>Lewis' reason for believing in the divinity of Christ was very weak indeed,

>disappointing for me too when I read him when a Christian. He says in

>"Surprised by Joy" << When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is

>the son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly

>spent the journey in thought. >>

All through your comments you are assuming that belief is a matter of

intellectual reasoning. My faith-reason comments show that cannot be so.

Lewis later learned to communicate using reason, but what happened to him

on that journey was simply not in that category.

>One other thing that troubles me, you said:

><< I regret that Skeptical Inquirer now includes a lot of waffle about

>humanism, psychology and belief. (I do not deny psychology but it's in the

>wrong place there!) >>

>

>Do you mean to say that you think discussion of psychology and belief is

>out of place in Skeptical Inquirer

Essentially yes. I would like Skeptical Inquirer to consist largely of

reactive articles by people like Randi (a hero of mine) who take the

trouble to look into claims, discover fraud, and write them up. Also some

articles on what parts of science are regularly set aside by such claims,

and why they conflict with it.

Of course psychology, done properly, is important. "Psychology of religion"

is not a term I use, but I am willing to say more about "comparative

religion" which I think is pernicious nonsense. It claims to examine

religions from a neutral standpoint, but that is not possible since

religions set themselves up to encompass everything. So that standpoint is

really the belief system (ie religion, which need not be theistic) of the

examiner. There is no spectator's gallery.

Best wishes

Anthony Garrett