Why Do Smart People Fall For Christianity?

[falemon]

What makes us who deconvert different from those in the vast majority who don't? 

 

We had a weaker faith

 

I first realized God didn't exist (or God as the bible says) about 4 years before I totally de-converted. It was right in the middle of a service when everyone was being prayed for and then all of a sudden I just felt disconnected. I've been told by many people, particularly deep thinkers that it's an experience they have very often ... it took me a week to restore my faith, and at the time I really wanted to believe.

 

For me that the lack of genuine relationships helped a lot because I could see that even the holiest lacked the love that the bible encourages, and also that such qualities seem to be more attributed to individual personalities as what the bible speaks about cannot really be learned by instruction because that just becomes a vein impression of the quality but is never real. I also knew that empathy was not total, so a person can be incredibly empathic in one case and not another, which helped me reflect on my surroundings.

 

Well, that's all I can say for now. I'll reflect a bit more on it later unless someone says what I'm thinking (and I know someone will because there are a few people who've been doing that quite a lot, which is pretty cool ).

[centauri]

There's a tendency to seek answers that serve multiple purposes.

By accepting Christianity, one can gain acceptance with others and have an explanation for things otherwise unexplainable.

Having taken care of these two basic needs, a person can get back to their real interests.

[wanderinstar]

Very interesting thread here.

When i was at university studying Biological Sciences I remember laughing at the christians on campus trying to save our souls. I was not brought up religious and Australia is way more secular that the USA. Unfortunately at age 22, after a bout of major depression then a break-up, a new friend invited me to church. At first I only went out of curiosity as she is a smart girl so I wondered why she believed such crap. The rest of my friends and I discussed spiritual issues a lot but we mocked christianity as it seemed so silly. Sadly in my vulnerable state I fell to Christianity six months later following a powerful dream in which Jesus appeared. I believed it was real and 'felt' christian immediately. My old friends were shocked and my new friend thrilled. It was only after this that I developed an intellectual basis for my faith to defend it, but by then the blinkers were on so I did not keep an open mind. Oh how I wish I had of listened to the cries of concern from my non-christian friends who could clearly see I had been duped.

Most Christians I know were so from a young age but I have met quite a few who converted in their 20's, even 30's. It appears that most of them were going through a crisis of some sort at the time on conversion. The idea of having a loving father looking after you and a savior taking the fall for you can be very enticing when down. On the other hand there are people whose lives are going well when they convert like Margaret Court (famous tennis champion). She was world #1 when she got 'saved' and now pastors a word of faith church here in Australia. She is hard core; guess thats the desire to be a winner at work. There must be a trigger for every adult who converts but it seems they cannot be simply categorised. People are damn complex creatures.

[bornagainathiest]

A few years ago I GM'd a game system called Scion set in the Roman Empire. I designed Christianity to have a real god with an actual strategy for increasing his "market share" so to speak. The players actually took the idea and ran with it, evolving a theory that this was a religion whose deity deliberately martyred his followers and allowed them to be tortured and killed to arouse sympathy and pity among outsiders--increasing market share every time a major persecution occurred, making it impossible to stamp out the religion because it simply had so many innocent followers, making it a sort of mind-disease propagated very deliberately by a deity who didn't care a bit about his people's physical well-being, but cared quite a bit about getting more of them into the fold. BAA, your comment made me think of that game with great affection. Christianity really does a great job of propagating itself and resisting eradication, doesn't it?

 

Well thanks Akheia.

 

Mind you, I can't take any credit for the mind-virus concept.  The kudos for that goes entirely to Richard Dawkins.

 

BAA

[florduh]

I concur with what BAA said earlier - emotions play a big part. Smart people have emotions as well as intellect and emotion can often trump intellect. 

 

I doubt many people critically analyze Christianity's arguments and then make an intellectual decision to believe. The analyzing comes after you're in; it's not working as advertised, and conflicting verses and doctrines demand answers. We don't think until it's too late.

[JadedAtheist]

I think intelligence has very little reason why people convert to a religion. How many times do people turn to it to help beat an addiction? How about those that turn to it after a lot of emotional harm? How about those who are simply impressed with the warmth and kindness these religious people show to them? How about those who do so merely to make their spouse happy (happens more often than you think)?

 

I personally converted in a highly emotional time, I was asking a lot of big questions prompted by events occurring around me and I sadly looked into religion and got sucked into Christianity. It only stole a few years, but it's still a few years I can't get back, and all I had to do was google 'evidence against christianity'.

[Guest BBDreams]

Seems to me that if a group of people is able to create together an entity that is somewhat human-like, but idealized, it makes it useful as something they all can idolize, an ideal for them to model their lives after, and otherwise offload onto what is really each one's own aspirations/fears/conscience. This also happens with mascots for teams, too.

 

It's  a great way to unify a group of otherwise disparate people. Fabricate something they can all agree on.

Then go ahead and project onto this group hallucination anything you want: all good, all powerful, hates the opposite team as much as I do, etc.

 

Humans have an inborn template for a leader. This is something ancient, and it is not unlike the way other social animals (dogs, horses) naturally are lead in their packs and herds.

 

This applies to people who are intelligent, too, of course. Like so many other ancient tendencies of humans, you can let the instinct rule you or you can recognize it for what it is and then decide if it is really the best thing to do.

[bornagainathiest]

I am definitely convinced that intelligent people are and have been throughout history (2,000 years) converted to Xtianty. Some of the Xtian "saints", like Augustine, Aquinas, etc. were very smart. Of course they lived before the enlightenment, so they were at some disadvantage.

 

But a related question is: What makes us who deconvert different from those in the vast majority who don't? We can throw a lot of self complimentary reasons about. But what is at the heart of the issue? bill

 

Well, I can take a stab at that, Bill.

 

Imho, for most of human history there simply hasn't been any kind of viable alternative to a supernatural explanation of reality.   Ignorance, illiteracy and a lack of knowledge about anything beyond the next village were most people's lot.  So, I contend that the only realistic conclusion about reality that even a highly-intelligent and well-read person would reach is a supernatural one.  Even if they were smart, knowledgable and well-travelled, what would they have encountered in other cultures, except for other supernatural explanations of how and why the world exists? 

 

And let's not forget that any (European) Atheists living up until 500 years ago had the threat of excommunication, torture and execution hanging over them.  Good reasons to keep quiet about your lack of faith, I'd say!  Oh... and if you want to get an idea of what it might have been like to 'come out' as an Atheist back then, just go to Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia and express your doubts about the perfect truth of the Quran in a public place!

 

You see?  For the most of history, there simply were no viable alternatives to be had.

 

Ok, the ancient Greeks made a bit of headway into understanding how the natural universe works, but sadly, that was swept aside by the rise of Christianity and didn't re-surface until the Renaissance.  Later, with the Enlightenment, we see more and more of nature being understood and explained in natural, physical ways.  As time has gone on the pendulum has swung almost 100% in Science's favor.  Nowadays, Christianity can adequately explain next-to-nothing.  It's now forced to exploit the gaps in scientific knowledge, to reject and deny science and to tell it's followers not to seek to understand but just to have 'faith'.

 

As more and more people across the global, technological community acquire educations and learning, they also acquire the possibility of freeing themselves from the supernatural belief-systems of their home societies.  This doesn't mean that they will automatically do so - but at least there is an alternative to following in their parents superstitious footsteps.

 

Now, if I had to try and answer your question Bill, I'd say this.

 

We, the deconverted, probably aren't any different from any intelligent, well-read and well-travelled person from the past.

What IS different is the global culture we now live in.  Today we do have viable and socially-acceptable alternatives to supernaturalism.  In fact, it's a given that everything that makes our technological world society work isn't super-natural at all.  The natural works just fine, thank you very much!

 

Yes, I know this doesn't answer your question fully. 

I can't do that.  I'm simply not smart enough. I don't know what makes us de-converted folk different.  All I can do right now is articulate my ideas about how it's now possible and easier for people to find alternatives to the supernatural.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

I concur with what BAA said earlier - emotions play a big part. Smart people have emotions as well as intellect and emotion can often trump intellect. 

 

I doubt many people critically analyze Christianity's arguments and then make an intellectual decision to believe. The analyzing comes after you're in; it's not working as advertised, and conflicting verses and doctrines demand answers. We don't think until it's too late.

 

Running with the point about emotions, I can offer this testimony.

 

I cried like a babe at the Bible-study meeting that I went to as an un-believer and left as a Born-Again Christian. 

That decision involved 0% dispassionate judgement, 0% intellectual detachment and 0% measured consideration on my part. 

I just grabbed onto the hope of salvation as frantically and fiercely as a drowning man reaches out and grasps the hand of a rescuer. 

I'll never forget some of the emotion-filled cries of praise and joy from the Christians in that room.

 

"I can see the Holy Spirit hovering over you, brother!"

"Oh thank you, Lord Jesus!  Praise you, Lord Jesus!  We love you, Lord jesus!"

"Hallelujah!  The angels are rejoicing in heaven tonight!"

 

And so on...

 

The following morning I was baptized in a river, was lifted out of the water and cried again.  Even before I'd waded to the riverbank, I was babbling in a weird language and (according to my onlooking brethren) had a 'mile-wide smile' on my wet and dripping face.

.

.

.

.

 

Thinking out loud, maybe we should run a Poll on this?

 

Did you make a similar, headlong, emotional plunge into Christianity or did you do as Florduh suggests and analyze your options, making a coolly detached, intellectual decision to become a Christian?

 

Perhaps the Poll stats will tell us something useful?

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

[florduh]

Not even a moron would hear the story of a Jewish zombie who is really part of a three-part god but still a man whose mother was a virgin yada yada yada, and say, "Oh yeah! That makes sense!"

 

He might be desperate enough to embrace it anyway, though.

[RipVanWinkle]

Thanks, bornagaintheist. I agree with you, even though I'm sure I couldn't express it as well as you did. Maybe a psychologist could answer my question. Indeed, maybe one already has. Does anyone know of a mental health specialist who has published a book on the subject of why some can deconvert from a cult wherereas most can't?

[Geezer]

I was 20 years old and had no real life experience with Christianity or any other religion when I was asked “THE” question. Honestly, when I was asked THE question, “do you believe the bible is the inerrant inspired word of God?” it never even occurred to me that answering no was even an option. I think subconsciously I believed that was a given. Nobody in their right mind would say no to that question.

 

I suppose for the next thirty or so years I just accepted that the bible was the inerrant inspired words of God. In my world God, Jesus, and the bible were simply an accepted fact of life. Pretty much all the moral, religious, and even some scientific  information I was exposed to during that period was filtered through the lens of my Christian beliefs.

 

Then one day out of the blue I read something in scripture, and for the first time in my life, I immediately realized I didn’t believe what I was reading. In this case it was the story of Ananias and Sapphira. I’d read that story numerous times and even taught numerous bible lessons on it. The doubt was certainly there before I acknowledge it but this time was different.

 

I remember very vividly thinking that never happened. This story was made up and inserted into the bible but it never actually happened. That was the only logical alternative because the story and the punishment they incurred makes absolutely no sense. Why was the woman taken in adultery shown mercy and poor old Ananias and Sapphira were executed on the spot? That was the beginning of the end for me. It that story wasn’t true then what else in the bible isn’t true?

 

 

It still took quite some time for me to realize that I'd been brainwashed. Once I accepted that I'd been indoctrinated my de-conversion process moved rapidly to a conclusion. My next epiphany came when I was asked if I was a Christianity. I didn't answer immediately as I customarily would have. I thought about my answer for a few seconds and then I said, "No, I am not a Christian". I heard my words but I still almost didn't believe I was actually speaking them. I took a deep breath. The other person said, "you don't mean that." I stopped and thought about it again and then said, "Yes I do. I am not a Christian anymore."

[♦ ficino ♦]

@BAA:  I did a bit of reasoning and considering, but it was mostly to convince my 19-yr old self that what I had been told, and read in the NT, wasn't totally off the wall.  The rest of it was an emotional plunge.  I had a lot of "issues" that Christianity promised to resolve. 

[Galien]

I became involved when I was a child purely due to emotion. I wanted the whole gentle jesus meek and mild fairytale and I managed to hold onto that despite reams of evidence to the contrary until into my forties. After cult involvement, and very poor treatment by christians I was asked the question of why I believed in god, and I had no answer. I just wanted to be the best person I could be but I realised no one else gives a shit, so I stopped bothering.

 

Threeish years out of my christian bubble I realise the world is full of heartless cunts and everything is pointless, but at least I can live now without being told what to think and being made to feel like I am a sinful piece of crap 24/7.

[Mike D]

My brother in law is very intelligent.

 

He converted to Christianity later in life.

 

He's also an addict.

 

For whatever reason, he has some deep dark emotional issue that his intelligence isn't capable of resolving.  Religion is just another way of attempting to deal with it.

 

End of story.

[Yrth]

If you haven't read Michael Shermer, put his book 'Why People Believe Weird Things' on your list. I cannot remember exactly how it went, but when asked about why people did (or did not believe) one tends to think one's own beliefs are for rational, intellectual reasons; but think that others believe for emotional reasons.

 

I'm seeing a lot of that going on in this thread.

 

 

**who fucked up the quoting system  x_x

[Yrth]

Did you make a similar, headlong, emotional plunge into Christianity or did you do as Florduh suggests and analyze your options, making a coolly detached, intellectual decision to become a Christian?

 

In contrast to the coolly intellectual deconverts on this site? x_x

 

I was raised in Christianity and left it gradually over a period of about 12 years.

[Yrth]

Not even a moron would hear the story of a Jewish zombie who is really part of a three-part god but still a man whose mother was a virgin random, purposeless universe in which a mysterious 'big bang' set off events that eventually excreted human consciousness yada yada yada, and say, "Oh yeah! That makes sense!"

 

He might be desperate enough to embrace it anyway, though.

 

FTFY. It's all a matter of perspective: what you think is credible, what facts make you feel what emotions. *Raw intelligence seems irrelevant to me.

[florduh]

 

Not even a moron would hear the story of a Jewish zombie who is really part of a three-part god but still a man whose mother was a virgin random, purposeless universe in which a mysterious 'big bang' set off events that eventually excreted human consciousness yada yada yada, and say, "Oh yeah! That makes sense!"

 

He might be desperate enough to embrace it anyway, though.

 

FTFY. It's all a matter of perspective: what you think is credible, what facts make you feel what emotions. *Raw intelligence seems irrelevant to me.

 

The difference is that science starts with questions, looks for answers, and gathers evidence. New evidence changes scientific perspective. Conversely, a revealed religion starts with answers and then attempts to force reality to fit those answers.

 

I'm sure some researchers are attached to their pet theories, but science is still ruled by facts, not emotions. If the evidence points to a reasonable theory we will work on that assumption until it is eventually refined or replaced by better information. That is not the same thing as having faith in a preposterous assertion based on nothing.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Not even a moron would hear the story of a Jewish zombie who is really part of a three-part god but still a man whose mother was a virgin random, purposeless universe in which a mysterious 'big bang' set off events that eventually excreted human consciousness yada yada yada, and say, "Oh yeah! That makes sense!"

 

He might be desperate enough to embrace it anyway, though.

 

FTFY. It's all a matter of perspective: what you think is credible, what facts make you feel what emotions. *Raw intelligence seems irrelevant to me.

 

 

What Florduh said, Yrth.

 

 

 

Btw, cosmologists using their 'raw inteligence' have had their predictions about the Big Bang verified to umpteen decimal places of accuracy.

 

So, are you still confident that their science is... 'a matter of persepective'  ...as you call it?

 

BAA.

[Yrth]

The difference is that science starts with questions, looks for answers, and gathers evidence. New evidence changes scientific perspective. Conversely, a revealed religion starts with answers and then attempts to force reality to fit those answers.

 

I'm sure some researchers are attached to their pet theories, but science is still ruled by facts, not emotions. If the evidence points to a reasonable theory we will work on that assumption until it is eventually refined or replaced by better information. That is not the same thing as having faith in a preposterous assertion based on nothing.

 

You started off saying that some propositions are so outlandish that not even "a moron" would believe them without emotional motivation, but now you are contrasting science with religion. I missed the transition between discussing A) why propositions that seems outlandish to you may seem perfectly reasonable to someone else and how science and religion reach conclusions. They're similar but different discussions.

 

In any event, the only difference between a religious and scientific perspective on something is a different perspective on what evidence to credit. Religious folks don't simply put faith in preposterous assertions. Like you and I, they reach their beliefs after considering the available information. For example, there is overwhelming evidence that the moon isn't made of green cheese and no one exposed to a moon rock would be able to hold on to a contrary belief. For a religious person, the assertions are simply not preposterous. They aren't "morons" who can't tell the difference between green cheese and a rock, or emotionally driven fools capable of convincing themselves that moon rocks are really cheese, etc. They think there are good reasons for what they believe and they use the same reasoning process that we do. That's my point.

[Yrth]

Btw, cosmologists using their 'raw inteligence' have had their predictions about the Big Bang verified to umpteen decimal places of accuracy.

 

So, are you still confident that their science is... 'a matter of persepective'  ...as you call it?

 

BAA.

 

Don't get cocky until you grasp what I'm saying. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Btw, cosmologists using their 'raw inteligence' have had their predictions about the Big Bang verified to umpteen decimal places of accuracy.

 

So, are you still confident that their science is... 'a matter of persepective'  ...as you call it?

 

BAA.

 

Don't get cocky until you grasp what I'm saying. 

 

 

Not cockiness... evidence.

[Yrth]

 

 

Btw, cosmologists using their 'raw inteligence' have had their predictions about the Big Bang verified to umpteen decimal places of accuracy.

 

So, are you still confident that their science is... 'a matter of persepective'  ...as you call it?

 

BAA.

 

Don't get cocky until you grasp what I'm saying. 

 

 

Not cockiness... evidence.

 

You're not on the same wavelength, arguing against phantoms. See my response to Florduh.

[florduh]

They think there are good reasons for what they believe and they use the same reasoning process that we do. That's my point.

Yes, but the question is why they fall for Christianity in the first place. Christianity in particular is known for using an emotional hook to draw people in and cause them to suspend disbelief and rational thought. The reasoning used to defend their decision comes later after they are already in. My point, and that of others, was just that probably no non-Christian ever calmly and rationally examines the logic of the religion and concludes that it makes sense. Hell, one of the Christian's favorite lines is, "We can't understand the mind of God; it takes faith."