Jordon: Mennonite to Philosopher

Agnosticism, Atheism, Autonomy, Deconversion, High Demand Religious Group, Philosophy, Podcast, Purity Culture, Scholarship, Secular Therapy
Listen on Apple Podcasts

This week’s guest is Jordon. Jordon comes from a long family line of Mennonites, but Jordon is bookish and musical and never quite fit in.

He grew up in the church, but with two older brothers already having left the church, by 21 he was also out. He’d never had a television, went to public school, or really knew anything beyond the small bubble he was in. University changed all of that. 

“The sense of community I was getting from the friendships I was making outside of these church communities…was really kind of gratifying.” 

Over years of therapy and some world-traveling, Jordon has come to terms with his upbringing. He’s found fulfillment as a professor, discussing philosophy with students and continuing to learn and grow. 

Quotes

“My own beliefs continued to evolve away from the conservative stuff that I grew up with…” 

“[Purity Culture], it just seemed so backward to me.” 

“I had a moment where I really realized that  I didn’t enjoy going to church. I didn’t like the music. I felt really out of place…I realized I’d been pushing myself to go…”

“I remember having a really profound sense of the problem of evil…”

“The sense of community I was getting from the friendships I was making outside of these church communities…was really kind of gratifying.” 

“It wasn’t just that people didn’t go to college, it was actively discouraged.” 

“I grew up without TV, so what do you do with yourself? You read.”

“I couldn’t really go anywhere without running into people that I’d grown up with. It just felt like, ‘I can’t escape from this place…I need to get away from it.’”

“I wanted to believe. I actually really wanted to believe. I didn’t want to let go of it, but it was gone. There wasn’t anything bringing it back.”

“I was alienated from the community I grew up in. Never fit in there. Never belonged there…later, I felt alienated from the [mainstream] society that I was in.” 

“[Buddhism] just didn’t click for me; it just didn’t work. Those traditions seemed to have the same issues as the tradition I grew up with, just in different ways.” 

“I tried reading a couple of the Christian mystics. I just found it—to be honest—just kind of repulsive…the self-effacing language.” 

Interact

Join the Deconversion Anonymous Facebook group!

Graceful Atheist Podcast Merch!
https://www.teepublic.com/user/gracefulatheistpodcast

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

Transcript

NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.

David Ames  0:11  
This is the graceful atheist podcast United studios Podcast Network. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast. My name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Please consider rating and reviewing the podcast on the Apple podcast store, rate the podcast on Spotify, and subscribe to the podcast wherever you are listening. Remember, we have a merch store on T public, you can get all of your graceful atheist and secular Grace themed items, you can find the link in the show notes. If you're in the middle of doubt, deconstruction, the dark night of the soul, you do not have to do it alone. Join our private Facebook group deconversion anonymous and become a part of the community. You can find us at facebook.com/groups/deconversion. Special thanks to Mike T for editing today's show. On today's show, my guest today is Jordan. Jordan grew up in a very insular Mennonite environments. He didn't have TV, he didn't go to public school. But when he went to university, everything changed. Today, Jordan is a PhD candidate in philosophy. He teaches about the self. Here is Jordan telling story.

Jordan, welcome to the graceful atheist podcast.

Jodon  1:44  
Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. I've been a fan of the show for a while. And I've been interested in coming on and having a conversation with you.

David Ames  1:53  
Fantastic. Thank you for reaching out. It sounds like you have Mennonite background, which we'll obviously get into here in a minute. Let's just start. Tell us about what it was like growing up for you. What religious tradition? Did you grow up it?

Jodon  2:07  
Sure, yeah. So I did grew up in the Mennonite tradition. For listeners who might not be familiar with that. It's a small religious group that originated in Europe. And basically broke away from the Catholic church over disagreements about things like baptism. So one of the central tenets of the Mennonite tradition and the Anabaptist tradition in general. So there are other groups that are associated, that might not call themselves Mennonite would be that they baptize people who are of of age, not rather than baptizing, infants, things like that. So that was one of the major things that they disagreed with, over sort of the mainstream Catholic and Protestant groups at the time. So that's kind of the origin of it. But one of the other central tenets is non violence or pacifism. So I grew up with that, as well. But in general, is a pretty insular kind of upbringing. I'm from a pretty small town in Pennsylvania, I grew up on a farm. So there's kind of like a tradition of, of agriculture, that kind of thing, or very working class kinds of kinds of jobs. So that's sort of part of the whole kind of culture. I went to a very small religious school as well. Didn't go to public school for for 12 years. Okay. Yeah. So that's the kind of general setup as it were.

David Ames  3:40  
And then the question I often like to ask is, you know, when you were growing up, was it something that you took on yourself? Or was it something you were just kind of following? In your parents in the community?

Jodon  3:50  
Yeah, so my family history goes back to Germany and Switzerland, the origins of these groups, right. And then they came over from Europe to escape religious persecution because the Catholics didn't like them the process and like them, so they came over to the to America. And so it's, it's that's the family tradition. That's the tradition I grew up in. My parents were Mennonite, my grandparents were Mennonite, my great grandparents are Mennonite going back many generations to Europe. Yeah, so very much something I grew up with. There's very much that sense of history, I think, as well, you know, that kind of awareness of it as you're growing up. That's, that's something that does get talked about a lot as well. So, yeah, in school as well as church.

David Ames  4:40  
Okay. I'm gonna ask the question just a little bit different internally. Did you have like a personal sense of faith or like, Were you just going through the motions, or was it something that you owned yourself and your youth?

Jodon  4:55  
Right? Yeah. So I think pretty Early on, I had an intuitive sense that there were issues with faith tradition I grew up in. Nonetheless, nonetheless, I still believed in God. And that was something that I took upon myself personally, from a relatively young age. So in the Mennonite tradition, at least the tradition I grew up in, which was quite a conservative variety of it, you joined the church, somewhere around the age of, you know, between the ages of maybe 11, and 15. That's kind of the typical age range. So you joined the church, that usually goes along with becoming a Christian. So you invite Jesus into your heart, and then you join the church at the same time you become a member, you have to go through a little kind of process of that. So I did not do that. And my parents church. So I wanted to find some kind of alternative, I guess to that, because at the time I did identify as a Christian, I did believe in God, but I didn't want to be part of the church that I grew up in.

David Ames  6:05  
Interesting. Do you want to expand that a bit? What were some of the issues you were seeing? And why did you make that decision? So yeah,

Jodon  6:12  
yeah, there was some precedent for, you know, me not being part of it in the sense that I did have two older siblings who had left the church, one of them had never joined the other left. After joining. I knew I wanted to go to college. So another thing to mention is that there isn't really a tradition of going to college or higher education in general, in this kind of tradition. There's no intellectual tradition really at all. People don't go to college, they go through, you know, through high school, a lot of people didn't graduate from high school, a lot of young people left, you know, around, you know, grade eight, 910, that kind of thing to that was pretty common, at least when I was growing up. Yeah, so since that was a priority for me, I felt like that sort of came into conflict with some of these, the basic ideas of religious, you know, tradition I grew up in, but also, you know, the rules I grew up with were very restrictive. You know, it was a situation where I grew up without TV, for example, ya know, TV, pretty traditional dress styles, so particularly intense for women. But for men, too, there were a lot of rules. I was allowed to wear shorts as a kid, things like that most mostly button up shirts. You couldn't go to the movies, things like that. So there was always a sense of kind of missing out on that even as a kid, you know, just not wanting to have to deal with all these rules. So I wanted to get away from that I wanted to be part of something that wasn't so restrictive.

David Ames  7:55  
You mentioned, you know, it's fairly insular, like, was school then an opportunity to expand out of that, or was that also as insular?

Jodon  8:06  
It was just as insular? Yeah. So the church community that I grew up in there were like, you know, a few associated churches that were part of kind of a organization, right. Okay. With similar belief structures, similar beliefs, and so on, there's some variance, but very little. And then those churches supported a small school that went from grades one through 12. So that's where I went to school for 12 years. So it was run by the church, all the teachers were Mennonites, from the same kind of traditions. There was religious education that was part of the curriculum, and pretty much everything we studied. So yeah, it was definitely not an opportunity to kind of get break out of that.

David Ames  8:47  
So I'm curious where the drive to go to college came from? Was that within your family then or something else?

Jodon  8:53  
So I am a first generation college student in the sense that nobody else for prior generations had gone to college, but two of my older brothers did go to college so that again, there was a little bit of a precedent there for that. There were the two siblings that I had, who also were not part of the church.

David Ames  9:10  
Okay. And then it sounds like in, you know, not just church shopping, but you begin to have some issues in your teen years. First, let's start with kind of moving away from Mennonite Church. What happens next after that?

Jodon  9:25  
Yeah, well, so initially, I actually went to a different Mennonite Church. So around the age of 17, I stopped going to my parents church. And I went to a different Mennonite Church. So it was still Mennonite, but it was it was a much more kind of mainstream kind of Protestant church. So the church I grew up in, you know, it was just like sort of acapella singing, you know, hymns, that kind of thing. This church, people didn't have the traditional dress styles, music at a worship band, that kind of thing. So we would have just looked kind of like more of like a mainstream Protestant church to somebody looking on on. So I went there for a while because a cousin I had went there, and they sort of invited me to join their band because I played guitar and bass and stuff.

David Ames  10:09  
Yeah. And was that fulfilling for a while.

Jodon  10:13  
In the short term, it was nice to get away from the really restrictive tradition I grew up in. But ultimately, you know, after I spent a little bit of time there, you know, maybe a year or so I really didn't realize it really didn't fit in there. My own beliefs were continuing to evolve, it was still very conservative in certain ways. And I don't know, I just had this real pervasive sense that I didn't belong there, you know, so. Yeah, so at that point, I, I was dating a girl who went to a Presbyterian Church. So I was kind of bouncing around for a little bit, not really going anywhere consistently. And then, when she and I started seeing each other I have attended her church for a while the Presbyterian Church.

David Ames  10:57  
And I'm curious, then, was that significantly different than the more modern version of the Mennonite church? Not significantly?

Jodon  11:05  
No, there, there are a few things that were a little different, but they were relatively small differences. Yeah. At that point, it was still a pretty conservative branch of Presbyterianism. At the time, I did like the pastor, I felt like he was a nice guy who also, you know, he was highly educated. And that was sort of different, I guess, like, listening to sermons at the time. So there was a difference there. But ultimately, I experienced kind of the same thing. You know, I realized that that kind of environment. My own beliefs continued to evolve, I think, away from, you know, the kind of conservative stuff that I grew up with. And some of the conservative teachings of the Presbyterian church really didn't sit well with me.

David Ames  11:52  
Would you mind getting into the specifics? Like what Yeah, so you've you've mentioned, your beliefs were evolving, like, well, like, in what direction? What were what were some of the changing?

Jodon  11:59  
Yeah, I mean, some of that was political. So over time, I became more politically liberal. So the Mennonites, despite having, you know, like, despite adhering to things like pacifism, for example, that might sound sort of liberal in a broad sense. At least a group I grew up with, were very politically conservative. Now they don't participate in, in politics, so they don't vote, or hold political office or, or government jobs or anything like that. There's like a kind of separation between those groups and the outside world. But they did kind of espouse a kind of conservative political view. So I grew up with, you know, parents who listen to conservative talk radio, and things like that, right. So that's kind of the political atmosphere I grew up in. And over time, you know, I kind of moved away from that and realized my own political beliefs were more liberal than that. So that was part of it. But also just, you know, the, the Presbyterian Church still felt, I felt conservative ways as well, that weren't like necessarily codified. So there were a lot of people there who I guess had, you know, kind of a more conservative outlook in terms of politics, but also just in the way they kind of carried themselves or presented themselves and things like that, that didn't necessarily make me feel super comfortable. There are a lot of still kind of prohibitions around sex and sexuality that, that I wasn't super comfortable with. But that was a big part of it. That felt kind of just as conservative as the world I grew up in. To be honest, the Mennonite World did not like that either. I started to really feel like that didn't align with my own values. Yeah.

David Ames  13:46  
Would you say like, was there some purity culture? Like, for you, specifically? Are you referring to like LGBTQ support?

Jodon  13:54  
Um, I mean, some of both, really? Yeah. So definitely, the purity culture was something I was more aware of at the time. And that was the kind of thing that really affected me, because I, you know, I brought up this teaching that, you know, sex outside of marriage is wrong. And then I remember a specific instance, actually, while I was sitting in this, at this in service at this Presbyterian Church, and the minister who I had come to respect, partly because of his education and things like that started espousing this kind of view of like, you know, being against, you know, sex outside of marriage, or premarital sex and things like that. And I remember being really turned off by that, you know, it's just seems so at the time, it's seems so backwards to me. And, you know, I was again, I was just I wanted to be free of some of that stuff. I had grown up with it. And I was starting to move away from it. And so that was the thing I think that really kind of cemented it for me at the time. Yeah, and also, I just I realized I had a moment where I really realized that I didn't enjoy going to church. I didn't really like the music. I felt again, I just felt kind of out of place. This is not the place for me. And I realized that I had been kind of pushing myself to go even though I didn't like it. And I had this moment, one Sunday where I went, or I intended to go, and then I just drove by the church and drove around for a while. And I realized, I don't want to go, why am I why am I going? I don't want to do this.

David Ames  15:17  
How did you answer yourself? I mean, what did you decide? Do you just weren't going back? Or?

Jodon  15:23  
Yeah, yeah, I decided not to go back. Yeah. after that. I was like, why am I forcing myself to do something I don't want to do doesn't make any sense. Yeah, but yeah, the purity culture stuff was definitely a major, a major part of that for sure. For me at the time.

David Ames  15:44  
And would you say, at this time, did you still have a sense of faith? You know, in other words, differentiating deconstructing the church versus deconstructing God? Right. Like, which, which of those were you in which category?

Jodon  15:57  
Yeah, at that point, I was still identifying as having a personal sense of faith, you know? Yeah. So, uh, but I was kind of over the more kind of structured organize forms of, of Christianity. But I still would have identified as having some kind of faith that kind of started to really go away for me around the same time as the time I stopped going to church. So this would have been around the time I was maybe 21, early 20s. So you know, it kind of left my parents church at 17, even though it's still going to the Mennonite school. So I finished out them in high school while going to, you know, a much more liberal, quote unquote, liberal Mennonite church then went to the Presbyterian Church. And at this point, I was in college, I was still living at home with my parents. But, you know, I was taking college classes and learning a lot. I'm sure that was part of the influence, too, of just getting a sense of the outside world in a way that I kind of hadn't before. Yeah, yeah.

David Ames  17:03  
Were there any particular things? Like any specific doctrines that fell first?

Jodon  17:11  
The doctrines part, I mean, I think for me, it wasn't a doctrine so much as I remember really having a profound sense of the problem of evil, you know, at the time, that was something that really started to bother me. But even before that, you know, like, I was having real issues, making sense of the idea that, that I could pray to God and that God would influence or have power over my life in certain ways. Because then I thought, well, what's the point of me having any kind of sense of ownership over my own life? Like, how can I have any agency or ownership over my own life? How can I take pride and things I've done, or even feel guilty about things that I've done or anything like that, if I have no real control over my own life, or if some kind of external force can just kind of change things around without, you know, me having any control over it whatsoever? That just seemed really troubling. So I remember at the time, you know, I still prayed and things like that. But I remember thinking, like, I can't really pray to have this thing changed, because then I'm not living a life that I could be proud of, or have any kind of agency over something like that. So that really bothered me at the time. And then around the same time, the problem of evil kind of thinking about that really started to bother me as well. The idea that that suffering is in the world and that how can I how can I reconcile the suffering, even even the own things that I experienced with the good are benevolent, all powerful God?

David Ames  18:46  
Just as a side note, I think, you know, apologetics is very focused on answering that question. And to my mind, the fact that it is a question that we identify it as the problem of evil is the problem, right? You can make as many rationalizations and justifications for that, but almost everyone has to grapple with that issue and come to some conclusion about it.

Jodon  19:13  
Yeah, and for me, the kind of standard ways of responding to that issue that I read about or that I started to investigate just weren't satisfying to me. Right? Yeah, the idea that you know, free will or something like that as one way out of it. Just didn't quite convinced me or compelled me.

David Ames  19:39  
So, you know, it sounds like you're having very serious questions and learning a lot in college exposed to maybe the wider world bit, you know, walk me through like the next steps. What happens after that?

Jodon  19:52  
Yeah, so one other thing I should mention too, around this time, is that you know, I think a lot People find a sense of community in, in faith communities or traditions that they grew up in or that they're involved in, right. And that was just really lacking for me, I just didn't feel like I fit in or had a sense of community in these places, I would try to integrate myself into them, but it just never really took for me. And some of that was just cultural difference, like the things I was interested in or like talking about, or whatever, just didn't fit or align with the traditions I was kind of around at the time. So. And then in a church, you know, again, there's no intellectual tradition, right? People weren't, you know, reading or debating some of these kinds of questions that maybe I was kind of starting to think about, I started become really interested in literature or music, philosophy around this time. So I was interested in all that kind of stuff, right. And I started to kind of form a group of friends in my early 20s, that were interested in that stuff, I was playing in bands and kind of getting more involved in the little local music scene, actually, that popped up at the time. So I was really kind of, I think, getting more of a sense of community from that. And I just didn't have a sense of identification with their sense of community from these churches that I was attending, you know, at the time. So yeah, even the kind of music that was, you know, being played at church, I just didn't, I didn't like any of it. Really, I, you know, I participate in the praise and worship band, it was nice to have, you know, an outlet to like, play music with other people at the time. But, you know, I felt, I felt like the music was kind of corny, and it just didn't really do a lot for me. But I'd also grown up with just like these really rigid hymns. And those felt like really traditional, and they didn't, they didn't appeal to me either. So just like no kind of outlet there, that really worked for me. So there's a lot of things at the time that just weren't working. But the sense of community I was getting from some of the friendships I was making, outside of these church communities, and then also like a sense of community from the music scene. And, and also, like, sense of intellectual fulfillment that I was really discovering in college was really kind of gratifying. I was going to like a public, you know, you know, public, nonsectarian university, you know, that was nearby. So I wasn't like, part of a religious institution at that point for at my education. Yeah.

David Ames  22:14  
Everything that the church fears is people going on to get an education in a secular environment. And yeah, but there's a reason why they fear it right.

Jodon  22:23  
There is and so that was, that was something that really impressed itself upon me growing up. It wasn't even just that people didn't go to college, but it was actively discouraged. Right? So even my father was, like, you know, don't like don't go, you know, like, he basically really didn't want me to go, and he couldn't sort of out now prohibit me from doing it. Because, you know, it was my own person, some sense, but he, he was totally opposed to it. I heard other people, you know, ministers and things like that in in sermon saying, like, you know, we really discourage this kind of thing, right? Because probably for the reasons that, you know, for the kind of influence that those things did have, or for me, in some sense, yeah,

David Ames  23:04  
yeah. Yeah. For what it's worth, I had, my pastor warned me before I went to Bible College of all places. So yeah, this runs pretty deep, this anti education bent, I think, within the church.

Jodon  23:19  
Yeah. And for me, I think I was a natural student, you know, it was something that I just had like a really strong kind of inclination towards, I was always really good at school, as I was interested in learning. And that was pretty, pretty different from most of the kids I grew up with going into this little Mennonites school, because again, the tradition was kind of in the opposite direction, a lot of people left school at grade eight grade 10. Or if they did finish, you know, there's just a culture of kind of like thinking that education was, you know, not valuable. And so I grew up around that. So I think like, that further kind of separated me in that sense, because I was good at school and interested in it, kind of like reading things on my own, that separated me and also gave me a kind of outlet, I think, at some point, just that kind of intellectual fulfillment for me. So that was a huge, huge outlet. And I think just kind of way out of this whole kind of a restrictive world I grew up in.

David Ames  24:24  
Yeah, and you talked about just reading on your own, you know, that you're actually exposed to the world a bit by just reading to seeing that, that not, not everyone lives in this restrictive way. And that alone can be a really dangerous thing.

Jodon  24:39  
Yeah. So that's the thing. I spent so much time at the library as a kid again, I grew up without TV. So like, what do you do with yourself? Well, you read? Yeah, yeah, so I just I read compulsively just I read all the time when I was a kid and like kind of going into my teenage years into my 20s or just reading all the time.

David Ames  24:57  
Anything stand out from that like either fiction or nonfiction that really had an impact on you?

Jodon  25:02  
Yeah, it's interesting question. I mean, there's stuff that I read later that definitely had a direct influence. But I mean, when I was younger, I was just, I was just reading anything really that, you know, like, I remember like, kind of exploring kind of maybe like late teens, early 20s, when I was first going to college as well like reading things like, you know, classic novels or classic literature on the road, you know, or Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, stuff like that, you know? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. So those were connections to a world that was outside of much, much larger than the world that I grew up in. And I was really interested in literature. So I started studying literature College. At the time, yeah.

David Ames  25:52  
I feel like we're right on the edge here of the story. Is there a moment where you decide like, I don't believe I don't want to assume maybe, maybe you still do? Like, what? Where are you at now? And how did you get to where you're at now?

Jodon  26:05  
Yeah, I'm an atheist now. I think there was a period. So after I stopped attending the Presbyterian Church, there was a period where a brief period where I still had a kind of sense of faith. And then that pretty quickly faded. And then I was in this kind of state where I would call myself an agnostic for a long time. Yeah. So there was a moment when I was traveling, I was I was a little bit lost in my early 20s. So I had actually taken a break from college at the time, this was around the time of the 2008 economic crash, it wasn't a great time to like, have left college to be honest. But I had trouble finding work and stuff. But I managed to find a job scrape some money together. And I was doing some backpacking. So I was traveling around in New Zealand. I didn't realize it fully at the time, but it was really my attempt to sort of get away from the past. Get away from my upbringing, because it's such a pervasive thing. I mean, I grew up in a small town in Pennsylvania, I couldn't really go anywhere that, you know, without running into people that, you know, I'd grown up with, it just felt like the sense of like, I can't escape from this place, you know, I need to escape from this place. I can't sort of get away from it when I'm here. Right. So I, I went to New Zealand, which was pretty much as far away as I could get. Yeah, it's pretty fun. But yeah, I remember, you know, going to a church there just going in and participating in communion, the service there, and I'd already kind of, you know, at the time was Experimenting a bit with, you know, with alcohol and sometimes drugs. And I felt pretty far removed from it in that moment. And I realized, I think in that moment when I was in that church that I no longer had any real belief. Right? Yeah. So that was kind of a real breakthrough moment for me. So I kind of came back from that. I realized that I was an agnostic, and I had this conversation with a friend at the time who, who said something along those lines, like I sensed that now you're an agnostic or something like that. And I think I might have denied it at the time that I realized after that conversation is like, okay, yeah, I think I am agnostic. Now, I don't really, you know, I don't really feel any sense of the presence of God. Like I used to feel. I felt really bad about that for a long time. I continued to try to pray and I wanted to believe, you know, I actually really wanted to believe I didn't want to let go of it, but it was gone. And there wasn't any bringing it back.

David Ames  28:54  
Yeah, yeah. I think that is really common Jordan, that that, you know, wanting to want to believe. And, and, and just, it's just not there. It's, you know, like you say, it's just gone. So, so were you feeling guilty then? Or what? What was that experience life as you've kind of acknowledged your agnosticism?

Jodon  29:15  
Yeah, I felt guilty and also pretty depressed. I felt pretty lost at the time. So I grew up in this very rigid world with a lot of rules. And I kind of reacted to some of those rules by wanting to get as far away from them as I could. And some of that was like, you know, I grew up in a culture that you know, we're any kind of self indulgence or any kind of pleasure was kind of forbidden in a lot of ways right? So I kind of swung the other way for a little bit and again, like I was kind of experimenting with with alcohol which I didn't have any experience with or things like that or or smoking weed things like that, that I didn't grow up with that were totally foreign to me and

David Ames  29:53  
sure, pretty also common to just especially like if you know, you grew up in a repress it environment where you're not able to be yourself make adult choices, that kind of thing, then then you get out. And it's pretty natural to just swing the other way for a bit and experiment with all kinds of things.

Jodon  30:12  
Yes, I was experimenting with a lot of stuff. Eventually, I was pretty depressed, but struggling with some of those mental health kinds of things at the time. But one of the things that really made a huge difference for me at the time was just going to therapy. So that was another thing that hadn't really grown up with, but there's some family history for me with some mental health stuff, particularly depression and things like that anxiety. So I was kind of aware of it a little bit. At the time, I relocated myself and moved to Pittsburgh, and basically ended up finding a way to start therapy. So I did a lot of therapy between the ages of like 23, and maybe like, 27, something like that. 28. So sort of like my early to mid to late, late 20s. There, I did a lot of therapy. So that really kind of helped me. I don't know, fine, fine, a little bit more of a balance kind of accepts the kind of unusual upbringing that I'd had. I think, in retrospect, I felt pretty alienated a lot of ways from mainstream American culture, just because my background was so different from other people's, that I just felt like there wasn't a lot that I had in common with, with other people that I might meet. And it wasn't even something that I was totally conscious of, I think I think it was like a deeper kind of deeper sense of just kind of alienation. So I was alienated kind of from the community I grew up in, never, never fit in there never belong there, really. And then a little bit later, I felt sort of alienated from the society that I was in. But therapy kind of helped me resolve some of those feelings. Yeah.

David Ames  31:53  
And then I'm curious, was the therapists that you worked with? Were they willing to kind of point the finger at that the religious experience at all? Or was it just the insular nature of the community that they would?

Jodon  32:07  
I think it was both. Yeah, I definitely had to work through aspects of both of those things. And to be honest, the for the religious community I grew up in there was no separation between those two things. Right. It was insular and insular because of the religious commitments of the people in the community. And because of the religious commitments in the community, it was insular, right? So it kind of went went both ways. So one of the central tenets was just like this idea of separation from the world, right? So the idea being that we need to be separated both in our appearance and our behavior, and literally separate like, by having our own schools and things like that, right. It was only when I became a little bit older, and I encountered people who'd grown up, you know, in, like, the Orthodox tradition, or things like that Orthodox Judaism and things like that, that I realized, oh, there are other communities that are just as restrictive and in some ways, just as insular as the one I grew up in, in different but related ways, you know, that I started to realize that I wasn't alone, right. And even even with this kind of experience, but yeah, it was, it was definitely some of both of those things, for sure. The both the insularity and the religious stuff.

David Ames  33:17  
Yeah, and I think you've rightly have pointed out that this is maybe a another level of a bubble. Right. So not just the typical evangelical experience of, of being within the Christian bubble, but also, like you say, physically, the community is separate physically, you have these, you know, different appearance different, a different changes. And I think that's a good comparison to the Orthodox Jewish tradition as well, were very, very, very separate. And, and that's going to have an effect on a kid, and obviously, come out as you grow up and recognize the impact that's had on your life.

Jodon  33:58  
Right? Yeah. And maybe another point of reference for people who might not be familiar with this kind of tradition would be the Amish. Right? I think most people are familiar with the Amish communities. So I mentioned that just because, you know, the community I grew up in wasn't as restrictive or as insular as the Amish, most Amish communities, but it was several degrees, you know, removed from that, in some sense. So people had cars and things like that, you know, but, you know, the traditional dress, the, you know, the abstaining from things like, you know, like, watching TV or things like that, right. And I was growing up kind of in the late 90s, early 2000s. So there's no internet, right? Or it's very limited. It's not like it is now where, you know, like, just having access to the internet would sort of allow you a portal to the world, you know, in a lot of ways. So not having a TV meant just sort of being cut off from popular culture almost wholesale right?

David Ames  35:05  
Okay, so, you know, therapy sounds like that really helped. I want to hear the story of going from agnostic to you call yourself a self an atheist now. So what was that transition? Like?

Jodon  35:15  
Yeah, interesting thing is that took place over quite a number of years. And it happened in stages. And this is one of the things that really impressed itself upon me just like hearing other people's stories in this podcast or other podcasts, you know, how common that is. But I did go through a brief period where I was probably about 25, or 26, when I tried to find a way to come back to certain aspects of Christianity, I was kind of seeking in a way for something to replace the religious belief that I'd had, I think I still felt guilty about it, I still miss certain aspects of it. For a while, I was reading a lot about Buddhist traditions, I even went to, you know, Zendo, a couple of times, like, Zen Buddhist meeting. And I just, it just didn't, it didn't click for me, it didn't work. Those traditions seem to have the same issues as the tradition I grew up in just in different ways. I started reading some of the Christian mystics. So that was one way I tried to kind of like find a way back into Christianity, I thought, Well, okay, maybe I can reject all these aspects of, you know, the, you know, the, the more structured belief system, but maybe I can find some kind of very personal way of connecting with some idea of the Divine, you know, and so I tried, I tried reading a couple of the Christian mystics, and I just found it, to be honest, kind of repulsive, I remember at the time, just being totally turned off by a lot of the self effacing language that really bothered me this idea of like, Oh, I'm so terrible, I'm so horrible, you know, like, I'm like this depraved, you know, like, sinful, you know, being and only God can kind of pull me out of that, I just found that I found that just a huge turnoff in these in these mistakes that I was sort of reading. So that was, I think that was that was when I was like, Okay, I don't think that there is any way I can kind of pull anything out of this. It's just, it's just too far removed from things I believe. At the time, I also remember that I started listening to a series of lectures by Dale Martin, who is in the religious studies department, or at least used to be in the religious studies, studies department at Yale University. There are this open yo courses online. And I started listening to a series of his lectures on the history of the New Testament. And it was the first time that I'd ever really considered the historicity of the Bible as a document. And just realizing the ways in which it was constructed. I just realized, oh, yeah, of course, this is totally constructed by human beings. Like, I probably believed that before, in some vague sense, but hadn't really kind of worked through it in a systematic way. And once I started listening to his lectures, I was like, okay, yeah, I, at this point, that's completely out the window for me in terms of like, being able to, like, affirm any of these beliefs as being, you know, from God or something like that, right. So that was a major influence on me at the time. And at this point, I'm around 2425 years old, I'm going to therapy, I returned to college, I'm studying philosophy. Now. I'd started out doing an English degree and then kind of switched over to philosophy. So I'm learning how to think systematically and critically about all kinds of things.

David Ames  38:58  
I want to touch back on the historicity issue within the Mennonite tradition, was the Bible focused on important was there a sense of authority? inerrancy, those kinds of things within that tradition?

Jodon  39:13  
Oh, yeah, very much. So yeah, so the Bible was seemed to be the divinely inspired inerrant Word of God. There, the group I grew up in was pretty rigid about only using particular translations. So they pretty much just use the King James Version. That was the version that they felt was most I guess, authoritative or close to adhere most closely to their own beliefs. I know one thing that a lot of people were pretty concerned about and this was like a nother major tenant was in the in the King James Version. You know, the wording suggests something like women should wear a covering over their hair. So that was a major, major belief that was part of that tradition. At the time that I grew up with, and so like, for example, that kind of belief, they felt like the King James Version of the Bible most clearly articulated. And in more modern translations, there's more ambiguity around what that meant, and so on. Right? Yeah.

David Ames  40:19  
Interesting. I think you've expressed something that I felt as well, where you just kind of make the assumption like you've been taught, this is authoritative, it's trustworthy, what it has to say you can rely on and then when you actually go to investigate yourself, you find that it's basically a house of cards, right? And for people who have grown up in a tradition that, especially to have the doctrine of inerrancy, that can just be devastating. That's the beginning of the end for most people.

Jodon  40:52  
Yeah. And I had some sense, I think, even before, like I was saying, Before, I kind of started investigating in a more systematic way that there were aspects of the Bible that weren't, you know, that were more literary or seemed to come together in ways that were influenced by people. But I hadn't really thought about how far down that went, I guess, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So investigating that a little bit more just out of interest sake, you know, really helped me get a get a sense of, of, of why the Bible no longer works for me and all these other aspects of Christianity, why they weren't something that that was going to work for me. I think at that point, I would have, you know, I started out kind of being an agnostic with who was sort of undecided. I mean, I guess the term agnostic can mean a lot of things, right? Does it mean that you that you reject certainty in God, but that you still believe? Or does it mean that you reject certainty and in the existence of God, but you don't believe you know, that kind of thing. So I think I started out as an agnostic, who felt like, a lot of doubts there that I couldn't kind of resolve. And because of that, I couldn't affirm a belief in God. But then I kind of moved along the spectrum of agnosticism. And then for a while, I was sort of probably would have said, well, I have some theistic, you know, inclinations or something like that, like, I still think maybe there's, yeah, maybe there's some kind of like, divine author of the universe, but it's totally just has nothing to do with Christianity or something like that, right. So there was a period of time where I would have probably said something like that like, almost like a deistic kind of thing, like God created the world and just kind of let things work like clockwork. But eventually, I reached a point where I felt more comfortable with the idea of atheism. And I can't point to a specific moment for that. But I think like some of these points along the way, are clearly pushing me in that direction. Yeah.

David Ames  42:53  
I am what we say all the time. Here's, you know, it's not one thing, it's 1000 things, right, it's, you discover about yourself, I no longer believe, and then you can, in hindsight, look at some of the things that pushed you that direction. But yeah, it's not something that necessarily happens all at once.

Jodon  43:19  
For sure, and I think a big part of it, too, was getting over the guilt that I felt. And it's complicated, right? I mean, some of the guilt was associated with just me not being able to be a Christian anymore. But some of it was also went further back, you know, I you know, I have four siblings. So three of us are not members of the church to our so there's a lot of pressure on me as the youngest of five kids, you know, to my older brothers that kind of already left the church, there was a lot of pressure on me to join the church to be part of it, because I was the youngest of five, I was almost like a kind of tiebreaker, I think, in a way, you know, you know, it's sort of like, well, if he's, if he's part of the church, then at least most of our kids are in the church. Right, that

David Ames  44:07  
successful parenting, successful parenting. Yeah,

Jodon  44:10  
so there's a lot of there's a lot of pressure there. And I think that, just knowing on some level that I was probably disappointment in a lot of ways to my parents. Because of that, I probably felt a lot of guilt about that, I think. And my relationship with my parents wasn't very good for a lot of those years. It's much better now. I'm a little bit older. I'm in my 30s. But, you know, I think probably for me, and for them just kind of coming to terms and being able to accept each other for who they are. Right? was a big, big part of that journey in that process as well.

David Ames  44:45  
I want to talk a little bit about now, you know, it sounds like education, therapy, travel, reading, all those things were really positive impacts on your life. What is fulfilling to you now, what are the things that you look to You for some of that existential need that we all human humans have.

Jodon  45:05  
Yeah, well, the funny thing is I did end up becoming an academic. So I'm a PhD student now, after I finished my bachelor's degree in philosophy, I sort of worked in restaurants for a while and kind of bounced around between doing different things. But eventually, I went on to graduate school, enrolled in a master's program, and philosophy did that. And then went on to go into a Ph. D. program. And that's what I'm doing now. I'm currently working on my dissertation. So there's always been, I think, for me, like a real sense of fulfillment in learning. And I think even just going back to like, you know, when I was a kid, like, I can remember sitting in church service, you know, in like the sweltering like Pennsylvania summer, you know, humidity and a button up shirt, just sweating and listening to the sermon and just kind of questioning some of those things. Like, wait, this doesn't sound right, this doesn't fit together. Right. So I think that kind of philosophical kind of attitude that I had, even from the time I was probably 1012 1314 years old, just kind of carried through for me, and I'm still, that's still a big part of who I am, and, and how I live my life now. So that's something that I find fulfilling, I still find, you know, a sense of community. I think friendships are extremely important. And maybe that sounds sort of obvious, in some sense. But I think it's an easy thing to overlook. Especially if you're in academia, sometimes you can get sort of caught up in the individual pursuit of learning or things like that. But yeah, friendship, connection with other people community, even through music, again, things like that. I think those things are still important to me. Yeah.

David Ames  46:55  
And I think friendship is one of those things, as you become an adult, you have to be more and more intentional about, yes, you know, actually giving time to your friendships, that is not as easy when you've got lots of other obligations.

Jodon  47:07  
Yeah, and that's definitely true. And it is the case that if you don't have kind of like a prefabricated community for you, right, you have to kind of go out and create it for yourself. And part of that is finding the kinds of friendships that you do kind of connect with and things like that. So for me, that was a thing I had to learn early on, as well, because it was like, Well, I don't feel super comfortable, or like finding like a place for myself in these like church communities, I'm kind of bouncing around between. So I'm going to have to find, you know, a sense of community somewhere else, or friendships outside of that, you know, and I think that's a big part of what allowed me to, to leave, right. Something else dimension too, is that these communities do retain most of the people that, you know, grow up in them right. Now, my family is pretty unusual in the sense that the majority, my siblings are not part of the church. But that's, that's very unusual. Most families retain all their kids and our faith. Yeah.

David Ames  48:18  
Jordan, as we, as we wrap up, main question that pops up for me is, you kind of buried the lead. The, you know, your PhD candidate in philosophy sounds like that's been a major part of your academic career. Yeah, a lot of philosophy is literally about the question of the existence of gods. I'm curious if you maybe trace your experience of that when you first began your Bachelor's to where you are now and how you feel about those philosophical arguments.

Jodon  48:44  
Yeah. So my particular area of of expertise, the thing I work on is not necessarily directly related to that. So I work on Yeah, I work on questions. I work on French and German philosophy. I work on questions concerned with self awareness, self, self knowledge, self consciousness, and how that relates to human rationality. In a broad sense, that's what I work on. Now, those questions aren't totally removed from questions about the existence of God, because those are questions about knowledge about pistol Knology. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So in that sense, they there there are connections. But I've always been interested in some of these questions that directly relate to like belief in the existence of God and so on. Right. So, yeah, I mean, those things. I don't spend time systematically studying them in the way that I did. But there was certainly a time you know, in my early 20s, especially when I was kind of like, going through my bachelor's degree in particular, and kind of after that, that I was kind of like, going through more of like, the philosophy of religion stuff and thinking systematically about some of that stuff. You know, I also teach because, you know, part of my program is that I I work as a teaching assistant for the university that I attend. And I teach I teach introductory courses in philosophy. And so some of the introductory courses, you know, we talk about proofs for the existence of God and things like that. So that is something where like, I go through those with undergraduate students on a regular basis.

David Ames  50:19  
And what's that experience for you personally?

Jodon  50:21  
Yeah, it's really interesting for me personally, because not only am I kind of working through it myself, every time with the students, but it's also interesting to kind of see how students will respond to it with their own beliefs, right. So I mean, my job as a philosopher is not to teach people what to think it's to teach them how to think, right, you know, and I want them to like, systematically examine their own beliefs, and think about them, you know, critically, right, no matter what they are. And if they if those are, you know, religious commitments or whatever, that's fine, as long as they're thinking about them critically. That's what's important to me as a teacher. But just kind of seeing how students respond to it. And I learned I learned stuff from undergrad students, right. Like, they will bring up interesting points about some of these arguments even now. Right? After all my years of education, I still hear like, interesting, it's still interesting to me to like, talk through some of these arguments and things like that now. Yeah. Yeah. So it's not as though I'm I ever, you know, it's not as though those questions are open for me in the same way they were when I was younger, but at the same time, I have to kind of come back to the arguments with an open mind in a way think about what are the strengths and weaknesses of these kinds of arguments?

David Ames  51:43  
Well, we may need to have you come back, and you can school us on the self? And, you know, that's a pretty deep topic in itself. I'm sure. Jordan, any any any topic that you were hoping to get to that we haven't hit yet?

Jodon  51:57  
Um, well, one, one of the things i i I wanted to mention, just because one of the reasons I wanted to come on the program is that, you know, I think it's important for people who might be growing up, or be part of these kinds of more restrictive groups, so Mennonites, Amish, you know, Orthodox, Jewish groups, things like that, perhaps conservative, conservative Islam, things like that, that are very restrictive, and conservative, you know, it can be very alienating to be to be in in those groups and feel like you want to leave and that there's kind of no clear way out, so on. But you know, I just want to emphasize that, you know, like, one of the things I learned through my experience with therapy, actually, is that even people who didn't share, like the kinds of restrictive background that I had, that there are pieces of other people's experiences that you can find that you can kind of share right in common. And I think that that's a way of finding, you know, some kind of common aspects of your experience that really helps you feel less alone if you're in that kind of situation.

David Ames  53:15  
Yeah, I can't agree more. I say all the time, some of the magic about the show is the diversity of experiences, the diversity of faith traditions, the diversity of the way people have dealt with that. And, you know, who knows who's going to react to your story, Jordan, you know, in a way that they don't to mine or the next person's you know, but you've learned from hearing other people's stories. And I think that's super powerful. Yeah. So Jordan, thank you so much for being on the podcast and sharing your story with us.

Jodon  53:42  
Yeah, it's been my pleasure. Really appreciate your

David Ames  53:50  
final thoughts on the episode? Jordan story reminds me again, of how difficult it is for precocious kids growing up in a very insular environment. And Jordan's environment was even more small and limited than many of the evangelicals who are the typical listener of this podcast, no television, no public schools. And he escapes two books. I love that I absolutely love that. And it is a testament to how education or in I mean, this in the loosest sense of the term, the reading of other experiences is a way to escape the limitations of where you grew up or the bubble that you grew up in. I feel for Jordan, I could hear the guilt that he feels for being one of the three children who left you know he wants to support his parents, but obviously he needed to move on with his own life and experience his own autonomy. As I joked with him at the end, he kind of buried the lede. He is a PhD candidate now and in some very deep heady stuff about the self, the existence of the self. That is absolutely amazing. We'd love to have Jordan back on to dig into that in further detail. But I enjoyed talking to him about how he now teaches entry level philosophy, which again, is often about the existence or the non existence of God. And he has to put himself in that position of more agnostic to teach that and I think that is wonderful and amazing. I want to thank Jordan for being on the podcast for telling his story, for living his own life, I really appreciate that. Thank you so much, Jordan, for being on the show. The second Degrace Thought of the Week is about independent thought. I think one of my character flaws is that I have to figure things out on my own, it's very difficult for me to learn from someone else. And what I'm saying here is that I'm kind of pathologically independent. My wife jokes with me, my family has joked with me over over the years, I have to feel it, touch it, see it, to believe it to know that it is true. This is a particularly bad trait within the Christian bubble, because I was always asking myself questions. And recognizing some questions. I couldn't touch like if I actually found the answers to those that I wouldn't like what I found. And so I avoided those questions. But Jordans story reminds me that you can be within a community. And, again, I think belief is very much tied to community and the sense of not wanting to leave your community is terrifying when you realize you no longer hold the same beliefs. But be brave, be willing to have independent thought you don't have to take it as far as me you can learn from others. But when you recognize that your thinking no longer fits within the insular community that you grew up in, be willing to move on to experience the world. The world is so much bigger. There's so much more diversity and more things to experience, and you will grow as a human being. As you do that. Next week, our Arline interviews Mandy, you will not want to miss that conversation. Until then, my name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Join me and be graceful. The beat is called waves by MCI beats. If you want to get in touch with me to be a guest on the show. Email me at graceful atheist@gmail.com for blog posts, quotes, recommendations and full episode transcripts head over to graceful atheists.com. This graceful atheist podcast part of the atheists United studios Podcast Network

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Daniel: Psychology of Apologetics

Atheism, Critique of Apologetics, Deconstruction, Deconversion, doubt, High Demand Religious Group, Mental Health, Philosophy, Podcast, Scholarship
Listen on Apple Podcasts

You’re going to want to grab a cozy drink and pull up your favorite note-taking app because this episode is jam-packed!

Former guest, Daniel shared his deconversion story here, and now he returns with a lesson on the psychology of modern—and often, predatory—apologetics. He knows his stuff, so prepare to learn a few things. 

“The target audience of apologetics is actually believers, and the purpose of apologetics is to reduce cognitive dissonance.” 

Links

Daniel’s first episode https://gracefulatheist.com/2022/10/09/daniel-office-of-the-skeptic/

Quotes

“I was interested in the reasonable and logical end of faith, and as long as I identified as an evangelical Christian, I wanted to convince people it was true by use of reason and logic. I bought in 100% that the purpose of apologetics was to convince non-believers to become believers.”

“Intelligence and belief have absolutely nothing to do with one another. There are many fantastically brilliant geniuses out there who also hold to theistic beliefs.” 

“Holding an opinion requires very little effort [from your brain], but actually changing an opinion requires your brain to engage in difficult, sophisticated, and expensive processes.” 

“Our brains naturally tend toward rationalization over rationality. It’s a struggle to do otherwise.” 

“The dark side of psychology, as a field, is where people will take their awareness of these biases and use them to impact [others’] behavior in a negative way—casinos, gambling in general, a lot of games…they all use tricks of human psychology to get us to spend more time and money…”

“Predatory apologetics…exploit our tendency to have these cognitive biases in order to give more weight to the kind of evidence they present.”

“Another dangerous effect of belonging to an in-group…is when our personal beliefs or our personal experience of reality is at odds with the expected beliefs of the group. We may change our beliefs to match those of the in-group without even noticing.” 

“We have a strong tendency to equate the beliefs of a group with the group itself and to react strongly to protect that belief system…”

“Lee Strobel and The Case for Christ…that was the book that, I think, started my deconstruction because I read it and just had this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, like, Is this supposed to be a strong case for Christ??’” 

“The target audience of apologetics is actually believers, and the purpose of apologetics is to reduce cognitive dissonance.” 

“The appeal to authority that modern apologists rely on is an encouragement to the listeners, to the readers to outsource their doxastic labor, which is a fancy way of saying: They want you to outsource the working-through of your arguments for your beliefs to determine if they’re sound.” 

“[Apologists]…are not the only ones trying to reduce cognitive dissonance…Liberal or progressive believers do this by altering their beliefs to more closely conform with their experience of reality, to be more palatable, to be less of a source of dissonance.”

“…why I call it ‘predatory apologetics’: It sacrifices the honest doubter on the altar of rationalization so that the uncritical believer can feel more secure in their faith and continue contributing to the evangelical machine.” 

“[Apologists] are humans, too, and they’re not holding onto their beliefs because they’re trying to be bad people…They’re just as human as you and I, and I think what’s driving them to defend their faith so strongly is an existential feeling and experience that we all have deep down…”

“As meaning-making machines, we can’t give the same assurances as the apologists, but we can encourage people to look at the world as it truly is—frail and precious—but it’s ours, this time that we have.” 

Interact

Graceful Atheist Podcast Merch!
https://www.teepublic.com/user/gracefulatheistpodcast

Join the Deconversion Anonymous Facebook group!

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Podchaser - Graceful Atheist Podcast

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

Transcript

NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.

David Ames  0:11  
This is the graceful atheist podcast United studios podcast. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast. My name is David, and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Thank you to all of our supporters. If you too would like to have an ad free experience of the podcast, please become a patron at patreon.com/graceful atheist. If you're in the middle of doubt, deconstruction, the dark night of the soul, you do not have to do it alone. Join our private Facebook group deconversion anonymous and become a part of the community. You can find us at facebook.com/groups/deconversion We now have merch thanks to Arlene for setting up the merchandise shop. If you want a t shirt or mug, a note pad that has graceful atheist podcast or secular Grace themed quotes on it. Go check out the shop links will be in the show notes. A quick note that there will be no episode next week. Don't panic. We will be back on July 30. Special thanks to Mike T for editing today's show. On today's show. My returning guest today is Daniel. Daniel has a background in mental health addiction, the social sciences psychology and specifically around Applied Psychology. And today he wanted to talk about the psychology of apologetics. And we go deep here this was a lot of fun to talk with Daniel about our experience apologetics during our faith during the deconstruction phase and afterwards. I'll reiterate what we say multiple times throughout the episode. This is not to make fun of anyone to talk about someone's intelligence in any way. We were both convinced by apologetics back in our faith. But it is to recognize that in many ways apologetics can be manipulative. And the apologists tend to blame the victim when someone has honest doubt. Daniel is just an incredible guest to discuss this conversation. Here is Daniel sharing his expertise and knowledge. Daniel, welcome back to the graceful atheist podcast.

Daniel  2:32  
Thanks, David. It's good to be here again.

David Ames  2:34  
Daniel, what's more, I'd really like you to talk about your expertise, like what is the area that you are most educated in and the work that you do?

Daniel  2:43  
Sure thing, I've worked in the mental health and addictions field for about a decade and a half. Prior to that I was in Christian ministry youth ministry for about seven years. I have a I have a Bible college degree in social sciences. I have a Master's of Science in Psychology. And my focus in my both career and education has been in the area of Applied Psychology. essentially making sure that information data research can be translated into formats that can be used by frontline workers, social workers, counselors, people in the medical profession. That's been my that's been my professional practice and my, my passion. Sometimes I call it shortening the research to practice pipeline. So most of my most of my last decade and a half has been reading and consuming research and evidence based practices and trying to figure out how to make them viable for mental health professionals.

David Ames  3:48  
Awesome. Awesome. We know that we had your interview a handful of months ago, quite a few months ago at this point. And then you were also on our four year anniversary podcast. But I really have always appreciated your voice off Mike Daniel and I are becoming friends. I think I've just really appreciated your perspective on things. Today we're going to be talking about apologetics and specifically the psychology of apologetics. And I feel like this is the Venn diagram of what you and I do a bit. Maybe just, you know, introduce the topic for us and then we'll get rolling.

Daniel  4:26  
Sure thing. So I want to throw a disclaimer right up here at the front. I am not a philosopher. I have no formal training in philosophy. I took a couple of philosophy courses back in the day and everything else has been kind of self taught and I flatter myself saying maybe I might be the equivalent of a first semester first year philosophy student I don't even know all the terms. I kind of limp along at my best I might I might be reading week you know first year philosophy student Yeah, but yes I tend not to approach this stuff from the film, philosophy, end of things. I'm much more interested in people and how they work. But a lot of my interest in apologetics actually goes back to when I was an evangelical Christian. And as an evangelical Christian. Before I started deconstructing this many years before I started deconstructing, I read a book that a lot of people have read since the 17th century, which is called Paradise Lost. Have you ever read it? Yeah. A long time ago, but yes, I have. Yeah. Yeah, there is a lot of good things to be said about paradise loss, which is written by John Milton in 1667, a British author, it's an epic poem, it's 10 chapters, it is really one of the great pieces of English literature from that era. And, you know, when you look at the history of Europe, and, and how the Dark Ages was primarily named to the Dark Ages, because there wasn't a lot of good literature being written at the time. This is really like, as you're emerging from it, you get stuff like Paradise Lost, and it's just, it's gorgeous. It's gorgeous writing. And I still love it. But there is a passage at the beginning. In the very first pages of Paradise Lost, John Melton is writing a prayer. And his prayer is about his book, the stuff he's about to write, you know, essentially asking God to make it good and true and noble, and all this other stuff. And there's just one line where he says, What is dark Illume? What is low res and support that to the height of this great argument, I may assert eternal Providence justify the ways of God to men. And I read that just at the tail end of high school, I think, and I was so fascinated by that one statement justify the ways of God, to men, I was interested in the reasonable and logical end of faith. And as long as I identified as an evangelical Christian, I want to convince people it was true, by use of reason and logic, I bought in 100%, that the purpose of apologetics was to convince non believers to become believers. And I wanted to do this by justifying the ways of God demand by explaining, you know, God and showing the reason and the logic for God to people. I also want to acknowledge though, that I was also wanting assurance that it was true. Deep down, a lot of us did. And for a long time, the basic arguments convinced me, mostly because I was never really exposed to significant voices on the other side. So when I started deconstructing until 2010, and examine the aggregates for myself, I was dismayed by how poor they were relying on assumptions and unproven premises and bad logic. And even worse in my experience, and the experience of many others, when people express concerns of the quality of those arguments in favor of Christianity, they're often made into targets of abuse, they're told they're holding on to sin. They want to find excuses not to believe, or they're otherwise choosing to find these arguments unconvincing, they're told it's not a, this isn't a logic problem. This is a heart problem. And that really bothered me. And as I started leaving Christianity behind, passing that point, somewhere in that process between belief and unbelief, I became really curious about this process of apologetics and the industry of apologetics and how it was impacting the people who who were being targeted by it. So that's kind of what led to me digging into this a little bit. And, and well, I think we should probably start by defining apologetics I use the word like 18 times already.

David Ames  8:52  
Just before we do that, I just want to say as well, that, you know, in my story, listeners have heard me say multiple times, apologetics definitely played a role in my deconversion as well. And similar to you, you know, all through Bible college, and then the years after, when I would come across something that I didn't really love the explanation for. I thought, well, clearly there's there's someone smarter than me somewhere else who must know this. And I just never took the time to go track that down. Yeah. And as the the deconstruction was leading towards deconversion, and I was trying to track these things down, I was astonished just like you that, Oh, these are bad arguments. And I have said many times that I was, at the time, convinced of the conclusions by faith, but recognizing how poor the arguments were, how problematic they were, and be deeply uncomfortable about.

Daniel  9:51  
Oh, yeah, that is an incredibly common experience and what you're, what you're describing that sort of underlying belief of well, some He knows the real reasons for this. So I just need to trust that they know these apologists who are very convincing. That's actually by design in the apologetics industry. And I can I can, I'm gonna touch on that a little bit later.

David Ames  10:13  
Okay. Yeah, go ahead. And let's give the definition then. Sure thing.

Daniel  10:17  
So apologetics is a word with Greek origins, it means to speak in defense. In Greek days, it was a legal term you'd have at describing somebody who was speaking in defense of somebody at a trial. It's the practice of systematic argumentation, or to justify a set of religious beliefs. That's the modern definition. It's pretty common in Christianity, it's less common in Islam and Judaism, although it does exist, and it's even less common in other religions.

David Ames  10:54  
I was astonished the first time I listened to a Muslim apologist because of the similarities and differences. If you go on YouTube, and you actually search for Muslim or Islamic apologists, it's worth your time. And the reason is, it's lots of similar arguments for theism for wildly different conclusions, right. And I think that any Christian who is struggling with doubt and whether or not they should trust apologetics should go look at Islamic apologetics and make a comparison. So it may be rare, but it does exist. And I think it's super valuable just to see what that looks like.

Daniel  11:38  
That is a fantastic suggestion. And I think if you can try to compare it, or even watch Islam versus Christian debates, because you'll see the Islamic apologists bringing forward arguments that Christian apologists have also brought forward and the Christian apologists will be declared Well, that's clearly bananas like, you know, and and yet it's a different standards are applied all over the place. It's yeah, you're right. It's a it's a real treat to watch. I want to be a little bit cautious to and in how we talk about apologetics because we're talking about a this specific kind of apologetics. It's a widespread popular one. But we aren't talking about an individual's personal reasons for believing we're not attacking spirituality in general here, or even, you know, the, like systematic theology in general. We're talking about the specific phenomenon of modern apologetics, which I think we can probably zero in on or the next few minutes. And a really good overview of this was in a recent episode of the counter apologetics Podcast. I'm not sure if you listen to that one with Emerson green. Emerson, he challenged atheists to spend all their time defeating the weakest most easily dismantled arguments for theism and then acting like they won something. The online atheist community including several popular YouTubers and reactors can poke holes in evangelicalism and classical theism, and refute those positions with relatively minimal effort. The new atheist movement spends a great deal of time and energy on refuting them and beating them into the ground, and then acting as though this battle against religion has been won. You can look at any of Sam Harris's or Christopher Hitchens debates for examples. But what Emerson pointed out was that refuting the most easily dismantle versions of an argument doesn't really bring you any closer to determining if it's true or not. He also pointed out that if atheists can't tell the difference between going to use his words here, morons like Frank Turek Lee Strobel Ken Ham, or the Answers in Genesis group, and an analytical philosopher who comes from a theist perspective, like David Bentley, Hart, then we have no business even being involved in the conversation on a philosophical level to begin with. What I love about some of the those podcasts that Emerson and David are on, is that the people who are engaging at that level in the analytical philosophy level, from the theist and the atheist camps resemble each other far more than they do the people at the more ground level YouTube Debate, you kind of have some experience. There's a lot more respect between them. There's a lot more curiosity in the engagement. And they don't really engaging in the bad faith tactics that we're talking about today. And I do you know, there's a lot of apologists right now who are quite, quite popular and are the sort of the, the ideals in this modern apologetics or predatory apologetics world we're talking about, I think one of the most popular or at least the most record Nyeste would be William Lane Craig. And he's written so many books and on so many YouTube Debates and so many debates at university. And for those listeners, there's this look on David's face right now that I can only describe as like, just resignation. Yeah, I've been there. But say what you want about William Lane Craig, at least he fully admits that the facts were to show Christianity would false was not changed his mind, which he's admitted on multiple occasions. He admits that his faith isn't based on reason. He's, it's based on a personal attachment and experience with what he believes to be the Spirit of God. And then his reasons and facts are a secondary factor. He's come right out and said, I think we should listen to him.

David Ames  15:42  
I think one of my frustrations with apologetics is that, I believe, and obviously, this is conjecture, but I believe that that is true for everyone. For all apologists. And yeah. And my belief is that if you, you know you had a month to just spend time with that person and talk like human beings for an entire month, that at the end of that month, you would probably be able to get that person to say, Yeah, I believe it on faith, which is today ism, which is rejected. And so they're unwilling to say that out loud very often. So I do appreciate that Craig has said that out loud on camera on tape a number of times. And I wish more apologists would say that. I wish

Daniel  16:27  
more atheists would believe him. Yeah, yeah.

One last caveat, before we really dive in, I also want to point out that intelligence and belief have absolutely nothing to do with each other. There are many, like fantastically brilliant, like geniuses out there who also hold to theistic beliefs. David Bentley, Hart is a great example. He's such an amazing writer and, and analytical philosopher, and he dunks on Calvinists constantly, which I find personally amusing. But he's such a brilliant guy. And just because that he and I find the arguments to be different levels of convincing doesn't mean that I'm smarter than he is. You also look at someone like Francis Collins, who runs the Human Genome Project. Yeah, who is a theist is a Christian, and is far smarter than I'm ever going to be. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. And I just want to make sure that that's clear. We're not I know, you and I've talked about this beforehand. We're not here to like poopoo on people who believe in in spiritual things as being somehow less intelligent than us. It's just not true. The data doesn't support it.

David Ames  17:51  
I agree. And the obvious way to see that is that for someone who does D convert, they have the exact same intelligence before and after that fact. I did not gain intelligence points. Yeah, after D converting, oh,

Daniel  18:06  
same here, I gained some, again, some anger that I had to work through. I think a lot of us do. But I didn't get I didn't get one IQ point smarter. And also, I am not free of ongoing delusions. They just didn't know what they are yet. Right. So Jeff, louder is the president of the secular web. And he had an interesting comment about apologetics. He said an apologetic may also be defined in terms of its aggressiveness. A soft apologetic is merely an attempt to defend the rationality of accepting a worldview. A hard apologetic is much more ambitious attempt to demonstrate the irrationality of rejecting that worldview. And modern apologetics is definitively hard it is. You look at anything from William Lane Craig or the rest of the bunch. You see that they're trying to demonstrate that it's completely irrational to reject what they're saying that it's foolish to reject what they're saying. They'll often speak very disparagingly of counter arguments. Like they'll say naturalism has been shot full of holes. Nobody can accept it on a reasonable level, and then just got to move on. I think we need to understand that their brand of apologetics, we're we're having a conversation about rationality versus rationalization. So rationality is a forward process that gathers evidence ways it outputs a conclusion we seek to obtain more accuracy for our beliefs, by changing those beliefs to conform more closely with reality. For rationalization, it's a backwards process, you have a conclusion, and you are moving into selected evidence. First, you write down the bottom line, which is known and fixed, like the resurrection of Jesus, that then the purpose of your processing is to find out which arguments you should write down on the lines above it. So we're seeking to fix our brains more securely. Lies.

David Ames  20:01  
Yeah. First of all, that's very human. Right we do we do that all the time in non religious contexts. Yeah. But that is this the core of the problem with apologetics is that they're beginning with the conclusion and then finding rationalizations for it. Yeah. And trying to point that out is is generally not received. Well, yeah.

Daniel  20:23  
And the reason why we do this, it's not because of laziness. It's not because of the like, they're just bad people. It's not because of money. For something, it's probably because of money. But it's because of how our brains work and how we've evolved to work and to process information. And this is where, you know, my area of interest comes in. You know, I'm not about to debate William Lane, Craig on philosophy, he's quite a good debater. But I am really interested in how William Lane Craig's Brainworks, which is the same as yours in mind. In the field of evolutionary psychology, which is seeing evolution through a psychological lens and think psychology through an evolutionary lens, researchers will study how our brains have adapted over many generations to become the cutting machines that they are, we're really fascinating creatures with exquisite minds that process information faster than we could ever believe, just like a computer, to those, those processes are occurring in the background, outside of our conscious awareness. One of my favorite things I learned about the brain is that it's often referred to as a cognitive miser. This means that the brain tends to conserve mental resources, by urging us to think, give attention to detail and solve problems in ways that require the least amount of calories possible, the least amount of effort, possible. Efficiency, that's what that's what the brain cares about. And sometimes that's that that's important. And that's good. And it's if when timeliness is more important than accuracy, this works just fine. Holding an opinion requires very little effort, but actually changing your opinion, requires your brains to gain gin, difficult, sophisticated and expensive processes. So expensive for our mental resources. And you know, calories is the most basic mental resource there is. You want to hear something really interesting. Before chess tournaments, a lot of people will eat a lot of carbs, because they know they're, they're going to be burning a lot of mental energy, they'll carb load just like they do before a marathon, which I think is fascinating.

David Ames  22:40  
And it's the difference, you know, again, viscerally you can feel this, like the difference between sitting down to watch your favorite Netflix show versus, you know, calculus, trying to calculate a complex equation, right like that takes effort and work. And it's similar to what you're describing here that when we are accurately evaluating our beliefs to reality, that takes mental energy and can be exhausting.

Daniel  23:05  
Oh, yeah. And I think anybody who's gone through any level of higher education knows, like the crash you experienced or reading along paper. It's it's not just almost said, it's not just all in your head, but it is on your head, your brain, your brain is just tired. And because our brains don't want to engage in those expensive processes unless it's absolutely necessary, we rely on heuristics. These are mental shortcuts that we use to arrive at judgments, bypassing the process of critical thinking. The result of using heuristics is a strong reluctance to change our minds. We don't naturally gravitate towards information that challenges our perspectives, makes us uncomfortable or requires us to grow we do naturally gravitate towards information that confirms our perspectives, and allows us to stay the same even with an information may go against the best data we have available. In other words, our brains naturally tend towards rationalization over rationality, it is a struggle to do otherwise. And you and I have had this conversation before. This is also referred to as our brains developing cognitive biases.

I got a few examples of cognitive biases that people are probably aware of there's confirmation bias. That's our tendency to favor information that supports what we already believe and discount information that disproves it does confirmation bias where we spend more time and energy denigrating contrary arguments, then we do supportive arguments, even when those supportive arguments are bad. And I you know, I think it would example what that Sean McDowell has. He's an apology Justin he's got a YouTube channel and I've someone to put together it might have been the YouTuber Paulo Jia. I think a side by side of, you know, Shawn, accepting an argument when it's constructed in his favor and then denigrating it when it's you know, for for Islam or something the same exact argument. There's anchoring bias, which is our tendency to give the first piece of information we hear in a subject the most weight. So for example, once we've heard an interesting theory on a subject, it might be more difficult for us to accept alternate theories, if those alternates are better supported by the evidence. You can see the entire flat Earth community for an example that

David Ames  25:41  
and the danger of misinformation and disinformation that like, oh, yeah, first.

Daniel  25:46  
And that leads nicely into another bias, which is the misinformation effect. It's our tendency to alter our own memories based on new information. Often in situations where memories of an important life event will change after he watched the news, so many people experiences after 911 they remember that they'd seen the second plane hit on live television when reality they only saw it later on the news. Yeah, you know, yeah. And then one that's actually quite important for artists Russian today as the authority bias, it's our tendency to be more influenced by the opinion of an authority figure, unrelated to the actual content of their argument. So cognitive biases help us to be more confident on our beliefs, and may also minimize experiences of cognitive dissonance, which is an unpleasant psychological state, resulting from an inconsistency between two or more components. In our belief system. Cognitive Dissonance is an incredibly common experience for many people who are deconstructing, and it's come up multiple times on your podcast from multiple people. And we're, I think we're gonna circle back to it in a bit. But I want to say about these biases, the dark side of psychology as a field is where people will take their awareness of these biases, and use them to impact our behavior in a negative way. Casinos, gambling, in general, a lot of a lot of games that have random elements that you are required to pay for. They all use tricks of human psychology to get us to spend more time and money on them. Yeah. And predatory apologetics actually uses these biases as well. They exploit our tendency to have these cognitive biases in order to give more weight to the kind of evidence that they present, often to the use of logical fallacies. So one example would be the argument of authority logical fallacy. It appeals to our authority bias, you know, so they construct their arguments in such a way to appeal to these cognitive biases and to, you know, to sort of short circuit our ability to use our reason to examine them.

David Ames  28:04  
Yeah, a couple of things. One, the other thing that I think both of us would agree is we don't want to teach people about these biases, so that they can go out and say, to the believers in their lives, look, you have this cognitive bias, it's much more to recognize these biases in ourselves, as you were going through the list. I was like, Yeah, and I, I don't even mean just prior to deconversion, even today, when I am reading, doesn't have to be religious, but something you know, something politically that I disagree with, or what have you, I'm looking in a very critical way at that. And, and when I'm reading something that I agree with, I'm not, and I, and the more I can recognize that about myself, you know, hopefully, the better I can be at not fooling myself not continuing to fool myself in any particular area. But the point is that just because you've gone through deconstruction, deconversion doesn't mean you're over these biases, that those biases are part of being human. And we should have a great deal of empathy for, let's say, the people in our lives, who are still believers, whose cognitive biases may be obvious to us, because those happen to be the ones we've overcome in some way or another, or that topic is one that we have overcome in some way.

Daniel  29:20  
I agree. And you mentioned reading the news recently. I actually, I did something. I think it's called eating the onion. Where you read a headline from a satirical website, and you assume it's true. Yeah. And I can't read what the headline was, but remember reading it, it was about some religious thing. And I read and I thought, well, of course, yeah. Then I I circled back later i i saw that it was sort of satirical website and had been all made up and it was about some church doing some, I think some Easter pageant that went awry, or I can't remember exactly was a few weeks ago. And I circled back to it and read and just thought, Oh, it's a god dammit. That was a satire website. Yeah. Yeah, I did it myself. We're not immune to cognitive biases. We all do them. And our brains are consistently pushing us to rely on heuristics and to not spend energy if we don't have to. That's why we have the scientific method. Yes.

David Ames  30:17  
Sorry, I want to circle back really quickly. We're recording right now in earlyish April. And on April 1, the internet is unreadable. And I tried not to look at it on April 1, for that exact reason, because those headlines stick in your head. And humans also have a thing called Source blindness that we forget and where we learn something. And and you can I recognize in myself that I will hold on to those untrue things, things I know are untrue. Forget their source three months from now and still think that they're true in some way. And so I try to avoid the internet for days after after April 1.

Daniel  31:00  
Very good advice. Yeah.

David Ames  31:11  
One of the ways that I've been trying to not summarize, but to generalize, an idea is that I feel that beliefs are tied to the communities that we're members of. Now, this is obvious when you have gone to, you know, maybe one church ever in your life, and you go and you visit a new church, and even though they're Christian, you immediately begin to see differences. But this expands out even from that, like the fact that we are Americans, right? In theory, we believe in freedom of speech, and the Constitution and things like that. So we are members of this community. And we have a set of beliefs that that come with that, that can have positive elements, and it can have negative elements. And I think that we implicitly learn as humans that in order to be a part of this community, I have to accept these sets of beliefs.

Daniel  32:06  
Yeah, I think you're, I think you're touching on something really interesting, which is an often overlooked part of discussions about things like apologetics like cognitive biases, people bring that up in the apologetics context all the time. But it's much more rare that they bring up the the social or the in group aspects of belief, and how it relates to apologetics. This is especially especially good timing. For me, as you know, I like I mentioned I'm interested in evolutionary psychology, but I also just finished reading Sapiens, which is a book that's really popular on our on our Facebook group. It's by Yuval Noah Harare, and I love that book. It's it's very interesting about human history and how we how we evolved as social creatures. I think what's especially interesting is, for most of our 200,000 year history, as a as a sub species, Homo sapiens lived in bands of about 150 people or less. So cooperation, altruism, and protection are all powerful benefits of belonging to a strongly bonded social group. You know, like 10, people can protect each other at night around a campfire much easier than two people can write. So natural selection has always favored those who are more naturally inclined to band together and form strong bonds. Having a strong in group allows you to protect yourself from other groups that might want to come take your resources or whatever. So there's two terms that are really important, I think, for understanding this part of the discussion. It's in group and out group. An in group is a social groups that we psychologically identify with, this could include race, religion, gender, political party, or even a sports fandom. Or like a Doctor Who fandom Yes, we usually belong to several different in groups, even several at the same time. And we kind of switch mental identities as we are focusing from one to the other. And one or the other will become the primary Association in different contexts. So when you're in church, you're in group is the is the religion when you're at a you know, at a comic book convention, you're in group is the the geek community and so on. And outgroup is the opposite. It's a group that we don't identify with or we don't belong to it's it's them, you know, there's us and them. When we identify with an in group, it makes us feel safer, more welcome. More at home, we tend to experience greater freedom of expression. We also look positively at the members of our in group, ignoring their faults, focusing on their positive features, and showing them favoritism this is what's called in group bias which has a tendency to believe and behave in certain ways, when it comes to dealing with our in group, giving them more benefit of the doubt, and bypassing our conscious thought entirely. And you can look at the many examples of, you know, clergy, abuse of children or church members on how people will just kind of not even, not without even thinking, say like, well, you know, he probably didn't do that he's a good Christian man or right or whatever, they're not sitting down and consciously examining the evidence that's just part of their in group bias, which can also produce some other negative effects, we're more likely to be suspicious or hostile towards people who aren't in our in group. This goes back to the days when you had to be because they might come in, you know, kill you at the campfire at night and steal your resources. We may also be more willing to compromise our morals making us more likely to be dishonest if it will benefit the group. Even if honesty is highly valued by the group. And this can in the apologetics field, you know, people will sometimes Reese restate or overemphasize the strength of a claim, because it's going to benefit the group, then you can see the many examples of people who have supposedly found, you know, using big air quotes here. Yeah, sounds like ancient manuscripts that confirm some detail from the Bible or, or ancient relics that confirm something. And it turns out to be a to be a fake, I think Hobby Lobby has been caught like a few times, but by that kind of scam. So another dangerous effects of belonging to an in group that that can happen is when our personal beliefs or our personal experience of reality is at odds with the expected beliefs of the end group, we may change our beliefs to match those of the in group without even noticing. And there's been countless studies on this. And it's really fascinating, as much as it is alarming. If you've ever noticed somebody like a loved one seemed to change after they join a group, or become more devoted a group, this may be what's going on. And it may not be even happening as a result of conscious decision, like I'm going to be more like these people, I'm going to believe, right, more like these people. So that's, I think, something that happened an awful lot during the pandemic. And with the advent of Q anon and things like that.

David Ames  37:25  
Yeah, and the obvious, you know, extreme example of what what we're describing here are more cults or I think that word is overloaded, but you know, high control groups that have very strict sets of beliefs to be a member of the community, and yet, and they they draw people in and then demand a very high level of conformity.

Daniel  37:47  
Yeah, I agree. And there's probably a lot of there's a lot of churches that crossed that line into kind of that that cult territory. You can even make a case for some of the European football clubs doing the same. Sure. Yeah. But I don't want to make any of your European fans upset.

David Ames  38:07  
Yeah, just here really quickly, you know, former guests, Alice Greczyn, talked about being a part of a acting group that became very culty, very, you know, a strong leader, a charismatic leader, that had basically all the markers of a cult, so it really has nothing to do with with religion, it is about high control. And that again, that conformity, that demand for conformity.

Daniel  38:30  
Yeah, yeah, let's like, let's say it again, for the people in the back, who may not have heard, this is not about you know, we're better than people who are religious or spiritual. This is about, we're trying to understand human behavior and how we work and how this type of you know, belief, conforming, or belief encouraging behavior can kind of hijack those processes. I, yeah, the last thing I want is for somebody who's on the fence to walk away from this and think, Well, if I don't de convert, I'm stupid. That's not the case at all. Yep.

David Ames  39:15  
One more slightly, not quite secular, but adjacent. Example is the 30 for 30 podcast did a whole thing on Vikram hot yoga, okay, that basically became very, very cold. Like, I found that really interesting to listen to, again, not to criticize yoga or, or even that group of people, but rather to recognize myself in how you go from being an outsider and maybe being even skeptical to becoming a member and being totally committed and defending the leader.

Daniel  39:49  
Yeah. And isn't it interesting how we don't even really make a distinction between the members of the group and the beliefs of the group. We tend to react and this is then, something that neurologists have found, we have a strong tendency to equate the beliefs of the group with the group itself and to react strongly to protect that belief system. Because we so easily divide the world into us and them, you know, and the beliefs when they're when a group is built around beliefs are tied to the safety and security of the group, we react to threats to the to the group to the group's beliefs as we would a physical threat to the group. So there's been some fMRI studies, that when a belief is directly challenged by new information, parts of the brain that typically show activity for physical threats, expressed greater activity in people who tend to be more resistant to changing their minds. When we are feeling very, when we feel like a belief is a very integral part of our group, or personal, our personal belief system, we react to a threat to that belief, as if we're being physically attacked, the brain doesn't make a distinction is the same, you know, same fight or flight reaction, same sympathetic nervous system activation, it's, it's all the same. We also had some studies, and I'm kind of bouncing around here a bit, because the research is, it's extensive, but it's by no means, you know, collated neatly for people who are interested in drawing these connections. Social psychologists from the University of Waterloo found a connection between how strong your religious beliefs are, and your willingness to associate with former members of your religion. So the stronger your religious beliefs, the more willing you are to just like reject ostracized or even dehumanize people who leaves your religion. So our natural inclination to be altruistic to one another can actually be overridden by the strength of our in group bias, which can cause real harm to those who may have left religion for legitimate reasons.

David Ames  42:10  
Yeah, you know, the extreme again, examples are the ostracizing of people the shunning the, you know, we hear this in Scientology in Jehovah's Witnesses, but this happens in evangelicalism as well, where someone who leaves is immediately persona non grata. They don't exist anymore. Yeah. And even even interacting with them is frowned upon. And, and again, this could be very, maybe not explicit. It could just be implicit and no, you know, known. And I think that's the real danger, we see in what I do, right? And the damage that that does to people to families to friendships.

Daniel  42:51  
Oh, yeah, like, I, I've been ghosted, or had long, you know, messages sent to me or, you know, other other negative experiences from people I've known for years, decades, even after I D converted. And it was, it was, it was hurtful, it was, it was painful. But I'm like, I'm a cisgendered, white male, you know, middle class, I'm okay, over here. And I have resources, and I have, you know, relationships that aren't falling apart. And, you know, talking about not being better than people who are religious, the two best human beings I know, in the world are my parents, and they are both Christians. And they are the absolute best example of what you would want a Christian to be in this world putting their time and effort and energy and money, where their, their mouths and their beliefs are. You know, there's, I've got a lot of resources. I can't imagine somebody going through this, when losing their religion means losing their entire community, their entire family, you know, I still have a good relationship with my parents, I still have a good relationship with my family. I still have, you know, most of my friends are religious in one way or another. And there are people who, from people of color or people from the LGBTQ plus community, they lose everything when they lose their in group when they lose their religious beliefs. And, you know, as painful as it was, for me, I definitely kept more people than I lost. And that is not a common experience, especially for people from more marginalized communities.

David Ames  44:37  
Yeah, I think that's definitely true for myself. I'm a bit of an introvert. So my friendships tended to be deep view and deep and I kept most of those friendships through the process. A couple of people fell off and other people I would call acquaintances are the ones who bailed out entirely, you know, so yes, I am and family have been, you know, supportive as maybe He's strong word but like, you know, not threatening or not yet antagonistic at all. So yeah, so I agree that, you know, I think I've had it very easy through this process

one of the things that I've been struck by about apologetics on this side of deconversion, is that, ostensibly, it's, as you as you set up at the beginning, a defense of the faith in a rational, evidential way, and one assumes then the target audience is the skeptic. And yet, what I find is the vast majority of the consumers of apologetics are believers already, and that skeptics tend to either know the arguments against the refutations but in fact, they are not the target audience of apologetics. Why do you think that is? And what are the implications of that?

Daniel  46:06  
So I think you've, I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of the the primary issue with this kind of apologetics is this bait and switch but the audience, like you said, they often claim that they're attempting to spread the gospel that apologetics is an evangelistic tool, right? They're defending rational claims for Christian belief. We're trying to win skeptics for Jesus when atheists for Jesus and you often will hear lots of stories about people who, you know, like Frank Turk has his he trotted out every once in a while he sees a young man at a conference and the guy says he doesn't believe in God. He says, Well, how long have you been sleeping with your girlfriend? And the guy goes pale, and everybody claps? Yeah, yeah, kind of thing. But so Lee Strobel, in the case, for Christ is sort of like the classic example. And that was the book. I think that started my deconstruction, because I read it and just had this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Like, is this supposed to be a strong case for Christ? Because I don't, I don't feel so good about it. So Robert J. Miller is a professor of religious studies and Christian thought at Juanita College in Pennsylvania. I hope I pronounced that right. He said we can determine the audience of apologetics, not by who it seems to be aimed at, but by who actually reads it. Like you said, David, and we can determine its purpose not by what the author seems to intend, but how by how it actually functions. If we proceed like this, we reach two important findings. One, the audience for an apology is insiders, to its function is to support what the audience already believes. So the target audience of apologetics is actually believers. And the purpose of apologetics is to reduce cognitive dissonance. It does this through a few a few methods we talked about like engaging cognitive biases. Another would be thought terminating cliches. So psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton coined that term. These are like brief, easily memorized phrases with the intent of shutting down questioning. So like, you know, it's this is a mystery like, you know, God's God's ways are above our ways. That's a thought terminating cliche, you say that, and it's intended to kind of stop the process of cognitive dissonance. They're definitive sounding phrases, that which trick people into believing that they're insightful, or that they actually answer a hard question, attempting to reduce the experience of cognitive dissonance without actually resolving the conflict. So the arguments that apologists use are often attempts to reduce cognitive dissonance through employing thought terminating cliches logical fallacies and other methods of engaging cognitive biases. Appeal to Authority is one of the most frequent one of the most common. And it is. You mentioned earlier, that you kind of have this belief that somebody out there knows the answers. I think I said that too, when you were interviewing me and there was a few other people I've listened to on your podcast is that the same? The appeal to authority that modern apologists rely on is an encouragement to the listeners to the readers to outsource their Doxastic labor, which is a fancy way of saying they want you to outsource the working through of your arguments for your beliefs to determine if their sound were given the arguments by apologists who urge us to trust them the arguments are sound, the opposing side is full of holes are easily disproved. And you know, look at any of the rhetoric used by William Lane Craig Frank trick, Gary Habermas and, and all the rest. And the reason why they're attempting to reduce people's cognitive dissonance is to keep them in the in the in group. Yeah, because losing P Apart from the N group is a threat. It's an existential threat. And maintaining your religious belief is so important for your belonging in the in group. Reducing your cognitive dissonance is of paramount importance for the apologist that's the apologist is attempting to do, they're attempting to reduce members of the religions cognitive dissonance by means of rationalization. But the funny thing is, they're not the only ones trying to reduce the cognitive dissonance in the religious group. But liberal or progressive Believers do this by altering their beliefs to more closely conform with their experience of reality, to be more palatable and to be less of a source of dissonance. So apologetics and progressive Christianity are actually both two sides of the same coin. Both are designed to protect the in group by keeping doubters in the in group. Religion scholar van Harvey talked with us back in 1976, about how accommodating Christian beliefs to become more humanistic, pragmatic and socially liberal was a more progressive way of keeping believers who are experiencing cognitive dissonance about their beliefs in the in group.

David Ames  51:06  
Yeah, I think it's, it's so clear to me that, like if you watch a, even a debate on YouTube with a an apologist and someone on the secular side counter apologist, or what have you, that they aren't engaging with the person they're speaking with, they are speaking to their own audience. And as long as you and I know, the statistical research about people leaving the church is dramatic. Yarn would be terrifying for those people who are still within the church. And apologetics is an attempt to stop the tide to stop the bleeding of the people who are leaving and deconstructing. And the way that even, you know, not just apologists but pastors will talk about deconstruction is another element of this. It is, you know, back to who went when did you start sleeping with your girlfriend, you know, it is a way to blame the victim to say you're deconstructing because your faith is weak. And if your faith was stronger, you wouldn't be doing this. And all of that is in a, you know, little boy with the finger in the dam and trying to stop the leaks from happening and it is futile.

Daniel  52:21  
Yeah, and now and now we come to it right now we come to the consequences of threatening the in group. What happens when a believer is not convinced by these apologetics arguments. It creates a profound sense of cognitive dissonance in us when we're trying to accurately and honestly examine the evidence, it imparts feelings of distress and anxiety because the message of this kind of predatory apologetics is very clear. The evidence is to be believed, and only pre prescribed answers are allowed. And doubting is okay. But successfully doubting is not. That was a quote from somewhere that I have not been able to find the person who said it. I believe it was a rabbi. But it was such an interesting moment for me to read that because of course, doubting is okay. You're told doubting is okay, but you got to finish your doubting on the right side of the equation.

David Ames  53:14  
Yeah, the long night of their soul is allowed as long as at the end of that your faith is strengthened and you're still apart.

Daniel  53:22  
Exactly. And you can't go into a more liberal progressive or, you know, God forbid, general generalist spirituality kind of camp because that's just as bad as apostasy. Yeah. So because apologetics claimed to be evangelistic in nature, but in reality, they're, they're an in group protecting measure, aimed at those who wish to remain in the faith, when the messages they examined critically fall apart. The blame is implied to be with the doubter, like you said, for not arriving at the correct answer. So here you see apologists big and small, rejecting the existence of non resistant non believers, somebody who wants to believe but is unconvinced? Or is open to believing but as unconvinced. They will often say that those who failed to be convinced are intellectually dishonest, trapped in sin that want to be their own god or whatever they maintain that apostasy is a failure of reason, rather than its natural conclusion. They may even maintain that atheists aren't really atheists that deep down we know God exists. And we're choosing acts of rebellion. I'm sure you've never heard that.

David Ames  54:36  
And maybe, maybe once or twice. Yeah.

Daniel  54:40  
And you can see it like there's an unfortunate amount of quotes from apologists about this, that really make it clear where they're putting the blame and if it's okay, I'm just gonna, just gonna read some of them right now to kind of illustrate what we're talking about here. So Mike Licona He was a pretty popular apologist on YouTube these days says, quote, sometimes it's moral issues. They don't want to be constrained by the traditional Jesus, who calls them to a life of holiness. One friend of mine finally acknowledged that Jesus rose from the dead, but still won't become a Christian because he said he wants to be the master of his own life. That's the exact way he put it. So in many cases, it's not all it's a heart issue, not a head issue, but a quote. Now, my sympathies go out to Michael Cohen, his imaginary friend that he's quoting here, but I don't. I don't think that's a typical experience for most people who stopped reading that they think it's factually true, but they just want to be masters of their own destiny.

David Ames  55:39  
I personally haven't met really anyone who would would fit in that category. Right? Yeah. I think there are definitely people who, who migrate to a more generalist spirituality to use your term. I think that happens, people who maybe say, God exists still, but certainly not people who call themselves atheists. Like, I don't know any atheists. So anybody who self identifies as an atheist and says, God exists, I just hate him that I have never seen ever not once.

Daniel  56:08  
Yeah, I, I would invite any listeners who know these people that Michael Okona or whoever else are talking about, by all means, David would love to interview you. If you know Jesus exists, and you just don't want to follow him. Call in the but not actually.

So William Lane Craig says it a few times. Here, I'll just quote him that two separate places, he says, quote, I firmly believe and I think that bizarro testimonies of those who have lost their faith and apostatized bears out that moral and spiritual lapses are the principal cause for failure to persevere, rather than intellectual doubts, but intellectual doubts become a convenient and self flattering excuse for spiritual failure, because we thereby portray ourselves as such intelligent persons, rather than as moral and spiritual failures.

David Ames  57:12  
I'm sorry, I'm laughing. I'm laughing here. But let me let me, let me respond actually, to that. So I do think that that is the prevailing view of apologists and pastors. I just happen to interview Bart Ehrman. That's the podcast episode is out as as you and I are speaking. And one of the things that we talked about is that the the seeds of leaving Christianity are within Christianity, and specifically for me, it was that desire for truth. I cared about truth, a deeply, deeply cared about truth. Yeah. And Bart pointed out that evangelicals believe in truth as well and evangelize. The reason that apologetics exist is evangelicals believe that there's a method to find that truth that this that apologetics that rational approach to Christianity leads someone to truth. For me that search for truth, lead, outside of it was the recognition of the weakness of those apologetic arguments and, and lead outside of that, I'll add to that really quickly, just to say, humility, and honesty, self honesty, in particular, were the other two that really comes to mind of the things that are part of what it means to be a Jesus follower that ultimately helped lead somebody out. And all of this to say that people leave Christianity, right, you know, having interviewed 150 plus people at this point, for many different reasons for moral reasons. There are people who were hurt by the church that does exist. But there's a significant contingent of people who leave for intellectual reasons. And I definitely put myself in that category. And so it's just funny to hear how much they reject that because, again, they are absolutely convinced by their own apologetic arguments.

Daniel  59:00  
Yeah. And let me just say two things. First, it's deeply unfair of you to interview me the day after Bart Ehrman came out. I listened to that, and I was just sitting here like, I gotta I gotta follow this. Well, here we go. The second is that I, I agree with you. And I don't read these quotes to try to like stir up anger towards these apologists. But we're just to illustrate, you can hear it baked into every every comment this is this is aimed at protecting the end group. It's aimed at punishing those who leave it's aimed at punishing those who arrive at that place of honest doubt. You know, and and for those who well, like you and I, we both D converted due to intellectual reasons. That is something that they just simply can't contend with. That it doesn't fit into the into the system, and also for people and I'll get back to the quotes here in a second but for people who do Leave fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity and still maintain some, you know, like a belief in God, either a deist God or a belief in you know, God is the collective humanity or like all these things that like are perfectly reasonable ways to exit Christianity and arrive at a more generalist spiritual belief or some people go into Wicca like that's fine too, like all these things that are just not the fundamentalist kind of perspective. They they get this too they get punished by this too is not just those of us who don't believe you know anything supernatural anymore. And you see, you brought up Bart Ehrman. I think it's so interesting that he says he's not actually trying to convince people to stop being Christians. He is trying to convince people to stop being fundamentalists. Yes, you know, and be like, so many of the people in my life are either Christians or spiritual in some way, and are still just, you know, in my life, and we're, we're in relationship and we love each other, and we hang out and we are, you know, we're in a mutually respectful relationship. It bothers me that they are also targets of this stuff.

David Ames  1:01:15  
Absolutely. And you mentioned earlier to just becoming more progressive and your Christianity is also punished as well. So yeah, and and just one more thing about Bart, the thing that I was struck by is how much he values, the New Testament, the the text of the New Testament for itself. So absolutely, he's I think, I think he does have the goal of making people less fundamental fundamentalist.

Daniel  1:01:40  
Oh, he's a, he's a really interesting guy. I would very much like to be a fly on the wall in one of his lectures. Yeah. So I'll just throw out a couple other quotes that I think illustrate the illustrate the in-group Protecting bias here. So William Lane, Craig again, says, quote, when a person refuses to come to Christ is never just because of a lack of evidence, or because of intellectual difficulties. At route, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. Unbelief is that route of spiritual, non intellectual problem, unquote. And then a little bit later, I think, in the same book, he says, no one in the final analysis, fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments. He fails to become a Christian, because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. Yeah. So yeah, you can kind of see who's being who's being out grouped here. Catch it. Yeah. Who, who's being othered, who's one of them, suddenly, the person who doesn't find this argument convincing? It can't be because of an intellectual reason. It's got to be, you know, a spiritual failing. Bill Bright from Campus Crusade for Christ kind of doubles down on this in a really interesting way. He says, I personally, have never heard a single individual who has honestly consider the evidence, deny that Jesus Christ is the is the Son of God and the Savior of men. The evidence confirming the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is overwhelmingly conclusive to any honest, objective seeker after truth. However, not all, not even the majority of those to whom I've spoken have accepted Him as their Savior and Lord, this is not because they were unable to believe they were simply finally willing to believe, unquote. And my, so you and I read this and you're chuckling and I, I kind of had a smile on my face when I was typing this out and thinking, you know, okay, all right, thanks, Bill. But my heart goes out to all the people who are honestly trying to find a reason to stay believing in God. Yeah. And read this. And just feel that rejection, that pain as the as the the reason for their struggles are placed on their own head. You can't ever let the category Let the curtain be drawn back. And you see, the Wizard of Oz is just a dude. Right? It's got to always be putting the blame on the person who's struggling. And I, having been in that position, and no longer there. I have an incredible amount of sympathy for those who are sitting in that seat and either move on to become, you know, progressive Christians, or just spiritual or agnostics or atheists. It is it is patently unfair, and completely false. But more than that, it is. It is completely connectable to these psychological processes to the, to the social grouping that we do to our evolutionary cycle. ology it all. You know, it all makes sense why they're behaving this way and why they're, they're saying these things. They're saying these things because they need them to be true. They need it to be true, that it's not an intellectual issue, because they're relying on their audience's cognitive biases to accept these arguments as valid. And they know that by doing so, it may trigger cognitive dissonance. And so they need to preempt that in their narrative. But this narrative imparts feelings of distress and anxiety, to the honest doubter. And this is what makes modern apologetics predatory and why I call it predatory apologetics. It sacrifices, the honest doubter on the altar of rationalization, so that the uncritical believer can feel more secure in their faith and continue contributing to the evangelical machine. Hmm.

David Ames  1:05:55  
Wow. I feel like we need to just stop there. That was a Mic drop. But yeah, I do have just a little bit of a little bit of wrap up that I wanted to do. But that was that's amazing.

Daniel  1:06:16  
I also, you know, as much as we're, you know, dunking on William Lane, Craig. And I don't even bother getting any quotes from Frank trek because because why bother? As much as we're, you know, calling these people out and saying, hey, they're victimizing people, and they're doing so in a way to protect their in group and the sanctity of their in group and all this stuff. I think it's important to still humanize those people, to still humanize them in their experiences. And I, you know, there's been the occasional time where I've watched some of these and I haven't watched debates in a long time, I'll occasionally watch a new video that comes up from one of these people. When I'm feeling especially like torturing myself, but I see the occasional glimmer from people like Sean McDowell have this this honesty that they're trying to hold up. And it just reminds me that these are, these are humans too. And they're not holding on to their beliefs, because they're trying to be bad people. They're not, you know, because a lot of people who believe the same things as they do, aren't going around harming people with these predatory methods and aren't. You know, like I said, the best people I know in the whole world are Christians. And, and I've got lots of friends who are believers in one thing or another. So when it comes to the William Lane Craig's, and the, you know, Sean McDowell, wills, and, and so on. They're just as human as you and I, and I think that deep down, what's driving them to defend their, their faith so strongly is, is an existential, you know, feeling and experience that we all have deep down. And this is the start of a much longer conversation that we we aren't going to finish today might take offline, but the dual nature that we have, of animal and human, the only being on planet Earth that we know of, that has both a strong survival drive, and simultaneously knows that we are one day going to die and cease to exist, creates this incredible tension. And there's a whole field in social psychology that studies this called Terror management theory, which you can you can read about, and there's some fascinating books, and videos out there about it. But it all goes back to a social scientist who wrote a book in the 60s, called Ernest Becker, the book was called The Denial of Death. And he said, he referred to this tension as the worm at the core, the simultaneous existence of us as these beings who have transcended the mud and muck of, you know, where we came from. And we can build these things. And we can reason and we can have these amazing cultures and relationships and all this stuff. And at the exact same time, we're going to die and we're going to become like dirt someday. And the fear of non existence, Becker said, was the source of so much drive in our societies and in our cultures, to leave something behind to transcend death in some way. And he pointed to religions that, that focus on a revolve around an afterlife, and not all of them do, but a lot of them Yeah. As one of those ways we use to deny the reality of death. Yeah. And you can, you know, you can say that without it being a judgment on any one. It's like the apologists, William Lane, Craig and I, we are both gonna die one day, and we both have some level of existential dread about that, how he deals with and how I deal with it. Our are different but we're both dealing with it. Like you, you can't live every day with this. Like, oh my god, I'm going to be dead someday I'm going to not exist someday that like because then you you get institutionalized is what happens and many people do. And there's a whole branch of therapy called existential therapy and Irvin Yalom is a major proponent of that very excellent psychotherapist who wrote several books on it. He, he and many others like them will spend time with people working through those issues without you know, resorting to believing in an afterlife that we have no proof for trying to help people understand that yes, we are going to die and we are gonna be gone someday. And that is that was all we have. We just we just have one one life. It reminds me a bit of the RFU sauce Sandman on Netflix. I didn't know okay, well, it's it's excellent. And I recommend it to everybody. But there's one episode where the personification of death is collecting souls at the at the end of their lives. And one soul she collects is, is very young, and they they kind of say like, Hey, this isn't fair. And she said, Well, you, you get what everybody gets, you get a lifetime. Yeah, you know, and we all we all get a lifetime. And we all know that it's going to end. And some of us deal with that dread, by believing in an afterlife. And you can, you can see the some level of I'm not going to call it desperation, but some level of that existential dread. In some of the things the apologists are saying, which is why I come back continually to these are humans. They deserve our, you know, if not our respect for what they're saying and doing. They at least deserve our compassion. In his book, reasonable faith, William Lane, Craig said, if there's no God, the man and the universe are doomed, like prisoners condemned to death we await are unavoidable execution, there is no God and there's no immortality. And what is the consequence of this, it means that life itself is absurd. It means the life we have is without ultimate significance, value or purpose. That's not an apologist making argument. That is a genuine fear that a lot of people have. And I think that there's a little bit of honesty in William Lane Craig's statement here that that is, you know, that's an argument for believing in anything, that is a genuine, existential experience, that when people jump up into this, what if there's no God, what if there's no heaven, you feel that you feel that? Well, then life has no purpose. And, you know, that's a that's a real experience. So transcending your in group and out group bias is transcending your cognitive biases, this is just a deep psychological experience, that, you know, from the first moment, you realize you're gonna die as a child, you know, you see your dog get hit by a car, or you, you turn over a rabbit's body in the woods, and you see the worms eating it, and you have this knowledge of death. And that that tension begins to happen between your survival drive and the knowledge that you are going to cease to exist, we all have to deal with that in some way. So I understand where they're coming from. But as much as I can say that and as much as I understand how Craig is saying, there's no purpose, there's no meeting, like who wants to live in a universe like that? My response is, or we have to work out our purpose, that as meaning making machines, we can't give the same assurances as the apologist. But we can encourage people to look at the world as it truly is, it is frail, and precious, but its powers this time that we have.

David Ames  1:13:56  
I have a feeling I'm going to talk a lot about this in the secular Grace Thought of the Week, I don't want to stomp on what you just said, I do want to wrap us up and say that having interviewed so many people, number one, this problem of facing our finite human life doesn't end when you deconstruct that actually kicks into high gear then I also want to add that I've been surprised by discovering the existentialist philosophers that they are so denigrated by the church. But the whole point of Nietzsche a, saying God is dead is not to celebrate. You will recognize the grief of deconstruction. In that statement, you know, that is, what do we do when we recognize that meaning doesn't come from outside of us that meaning isn't external, and objective, but we need to discover in ourselves or created ourselves, and so there's a wealth of hope, even in the darkness of existentialist philosophy. And then to wrap As up entirely back to the idea of non resistant non believers, the vast majority of people that I interview, are kicking and screaming on the way out, they are trying desperately to find a reason to believe and to remain a believer. And apologetics does them harm rather than good. And I want to completely finalize on a quote from a previous guest, Jenna, Jenna was at a retreat, they were talking about the loss of another retreat members, family member, and they were celebrating that she was in another place. And Jenna was asking real hard questions. And she says, I realized they are not ready to answer these questions, the answers they have satisfy them, and they don't satisfy me. And I don't know what to do with that. And so to wrap on a moment of hope, if you find that the answer is no longer satisfy you, you are not alone. You are not the problem. The pat answers are the problem. And hopefully, this podcast and some of the people that we've interviewed, also have a message of hope that on the other side of belief, there is meaning and purpose and love and joy and all the things that you're told you cannot have without God. They do exist, I promise you. Well, Daniel, as always, you have brought a level of rigor and education to a conversation that can often devolve into finger pointing and name calling. I really appreciate the humility that you brought to this conversation. And you were incredibly gentle and kind to the apologists more so probably than I would be. I thank you so much for being on the podcast. Thank you for

final thoughts on the episode? That conversation with Daniel was so much fun. Daniel brings so much intelligence, expertise, knowledge, the background on psychology and the social sciences, mental health and addiction is just amazing. And he is so graceful. In talking about the apologists and recognizing again, this is not about intelligence. It's not about trying to make fun of anyone here. It is the recognition of ourselves what we used to believe, and the manipulation of the apologetic in Daniel's word, the predatory nature of apologetics. I want to call out just one funny moment. Hopefully you laughed at me at the same time. Right as we're talking about kind of blind spots and an in group thinking I refer to both of us as Americans. I'll point out here that Daniel is Canadian. He was in fact very gracious not to correct me at that point. But hopefully you laugh along with me myself at that point. Daniel, thank you for being so gracious in that moment. And thank you to all the Canadian listeners. I could quote Daniel all day long, but two quotes jumped out at me that say so much. Talking again about apologetics. He says they are saying these things because they need them to be true. And that is in reference to the way that people who are going through deconstruction are denigrated. The doubter is mocked. The apologist or the pastor is trying to hold back the floodgates and, of course they attack the doubter, they attack the deconstructionist? The second quote from Daniel is why he calls it predatory apologetics is that it it sacrifices, the honest doubter on the altar of rationalization, so that the uncritical believer can feel more sure in their faith and continue contributing to the evangelical machine. That was when I said this was a mic drop moment, he really captured the whole conversation in that one quote, If you have been that doubter, like I have, you know, how painful it is to recognize the moment that you no longer accept the answers that you are being given. And the main message of this podcast and what Daniel and I were trying to accomplish here is that you are not alone. If you are in that doubt or position, that in fact, there's very good reasons to doubt and the exact opposite of what the apologetic class and the pastoral class would be telling you. I want to thank Daniel for being on the podcast for sharing with us his expertise, his wisdom, his graciousness, Daniel, you are much appreciated in the community and for what you bring to the podcast and to the friendship with me. Thank you so much, Daniel, for being on the podcast. The secular great start of the week is about grappling with our own death. As I hinted in the conversation with Daniel about the existential dread that apologists feel, I knew I would want to talk about that, in this section on this side of deconversion, on this side of of looking at philosophy, having been waved off of postmodern philosophy, which tends to be the existentialist and coming back to it, I realized that the existentialist philosophers have the most to say to us who have deconstructed the whole point of postmodern is that the modern age had all the answers, the modern age trusted the authorities, the modern age, didn't question what those authority figures said. And postmodernism is all about the fallout once you no longer accept the answers that your authority figures are giving you. Once the truth is less clear, what do you do? And I think this speaks so much to the process of deconstruction. I lead off by talking about the existential dread about the finiteness of our lives and our eventual death. Much of the existentialist philosophy is about the absurdity of life the absurdity that we are only here for 80 some odd years. And what difference do we make in the world. And yet, the point of it all is to see the meaning that we make, Daniel said, we are meaning makers. It is perfectly natural to fear death, to fear, our finite nests, to have existential dread that is the human experience. What I think came out of our conversation today is the recognition that apologetics is a response to that the need for an afterlife is so deep, so hardwired in humanity, that we are willing to accept poor arguments for bad arguments. And less we make this out to be just an issue for religious people. I've talked a lot about the secular angst about death. That is in modern culture, much of sci fi, movies and television are about trying to get back to a lost loved one. So this it has less to do with religion and more to do with what it means to be human, and to lose someone you love. And to know that someday, you will be the one last. Each of us has to come to grips with this and grapple with it and learn to live with it. And the secular Grace concept is that we embrace our humanity we embrace its finitude and we make meaning while we are here we relish in the relationships that we have in the love that we have for one another. And we accept the meaning that we can make and the time that we have. We are taking next week off so there will be no episode next week. Do not panic. We will return on July 30 With Mary Burkhardt who has the online presence, religion in remission. She's absolutely amazing. I can't wait to hear that episode myself. Until then, my name is David. And I am trying to be the graceful atheists. Join me and be graceful. The beat is called waves by MCI beads. If you want to get in touch with me to be a guest on the show. Email me at graceful atheist@gmail.com for blog posts, quotes, recommendations and full episode transcripts head over to graceful atheists.com This graceful atheist podcast a part of the atheists United studios Podcast Network

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Christian Lomsdalen: Norwegian Humanist Association

Humanism, Nones, Philosophy, Podcast, Politics, Secular Grace
Listen on Apple Podcasts

This week’s guest is Christian Lomsdalen. Christian is the current president of the Norwegian Humanist Association and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Bergen studying the didactics (science) of religion.

Christian grew up in an ordinary Christian Norwegian family as “Christmas Christians”. He went to church for Christmas and other holidays, and that was about it. 

“I identified as a Christian…a quiet liberal Christian, probably. I guess a lot of the evangelicals in the United States probably wouldn’t have recognized me as a Christian.”

Around eighteen, Christian realized he didn’t believe in God, though he read the Bible and liked the stories. Since then, however, he has lived a humanist life. 

Christian shares many of the differences between Norway and the US, tackling religion and politics. The Norwegian Humanist Association is doing great work, and it’s a good model for other countries moving forward.

Links

Norwegian Humanist Association
https://www.human.no/

Quotes

“I read the Bible—tried to read it—and it was one of the things I read when I was bored…I had the encyclopedia, and I had the Bible, and I read them both.” 

“I identified as a Christian…a quiet liberal Christian, probably. I guess a lot of the evangelicals in the United States probably wouldn’t have recognized me as a Christian.”

“I really liked the stories; I still have favorite Bible stories…but I realized that I did not believe in the concept of God…”

“I think [deconstruction] is a nice word. I think it describes the process that I was going through…It was a slow deconstruction.” 

“My experience is that religion is not something that the state should do. It’s not a task for the state, and to give preferential treatment to one religion is principally wrong.” 

“…rituals and ceremonies are one of the glues of society; all humans do all kinds of small rituals…”

“All human traditions exist and are created in a context and evolve in a context, and that means when a secular thought system appears and evolves in a Christian context, it will have Christian values and Christian thought systems that are part of it…”

“One generation goes a lot to church and the next generation goes on some important dates during the year and the next generation [goes] even less…”

“Young families are not even ‘Christmas Christians.’ They are rather secular and that is quite a shift in thirty or forty years…

#AmazonPaidLinks

Interact

Join the Deconversion Anonymous Facebook group!

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Podchaser - Graceful Atheist Podcast

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

Transcript

NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.

David Ames  0:11  
This is the graceful atheist podcast United studios podcast. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast. My name is David, and I'm trying to be the graceful atheist. Thank you to all my Patrons for supporting the podcast. If you too would like an ad free experience of the podcast support the podcast at any level on patreon.com/graceful atheist. If you are in the middle of doubts, deconstruction, the dark night of the soul, you do not have to do it alone. Join our private Facebook group deconversion anonymous and become a part of the community. You can find us at facebook.com/groups/deconversion. Special thanks to Mike T for editing today's show. On today's show, my guest today is Christian Lomsdalen. Christian is the president of the Norwegian Humanist Association. It's one of the largest humanist associations in the world. You can find that at human dot and oh, he's also a PhD candidate for the University of Bergen. He studies the didactics or science of religion. And he's very, very focused on human rights. And what you're about to hear very interestingly, the rights of religious people within Norwegian and worldwide society. Here is Christian Lomsdalen to tell his story. Christian loves Dalton, welcome to the wrestle atheist podcast.

Christian Lomsdalen  1:49  
Thank you, David, thank you so much for having me on.

David Ames  1:52  
I appreciate you reaching out to me, I'm going to do just some highlights of your CV, but if you could fill in the details, you're the president of the Norwegian Humanist Association. You're a PhD candidate, I understand you're also a high school teacher. But tell us just briefly about yourself what you do. And we'll get into the details later.

Christian Lomsdalen  2:10  
Well, thank you, David. For my well paid the part of my life I work as a PhD candidate for the University of Bergen, which is the second largest university in Norway. Here I studied didactics of religion or science of religion, it could be used both terms for Yeah. And I do a PhD on the right to be exempted on religious, philosophical or lifestance grounds from activities that are part of the school day. So that is what I do for my professional life.

David Ames  2:47  
We need to publicize that here in the States as you can imagine, yes. Okay.

Christian Lomsdalen  2:52  
I'm trying now to write an article in English about how this right works in the Scandinavian countries. So I'm looking forward to completing data and having something to publish publish in English as well.

David Ames  3:05  
Okay. Yeah, we will be looking forward to that.

Christian Lomsdalen  3:09  
And, as you said, I'm the president of the Norwegian Humanist Association. We are the largest Humanist Association in the world, with now 135,000 members. Amazing. So that is the largest per capita and in real numbers, so okay. That is, it's something that I take a little pride in, it's

it's good to be able to be from what is rather a small country, but be a large organization in this aspect and to contribute to other people, other countries, groups, humanist groups. That is,

David Ames  3:52  
I think that's absolutely amazing. And Norway is leading the way here. So yeah, I think that's fantastic. Christian, we, you know, on the podcast here, we generally tell kind of our personal stories. So before we jump into the all the work that you do, I'd really like to hear, what was it like for you growing up? Did you have a religious tradition at all? And what was that?

Christian Lomsdalen  4:14  
I grew up in what is the kind of normal way to grow up in Norway? Or at least it was with my generation, it has been a shift for a new generation. So I will be talking maybe more about that later on. But for me, I grew up in what we call Christmas, Christian family. Yeah, our family that goes to church on in Christmas and does not do very much religion outside of that, but at the same time, I felt that that was how my religion growing up was and this is Lutheran Church, of course, for those who need to know my placement in the church map but Uh, we pray the evening prayers every day we celebrated most of the Christian holidays and so on. So to say that we were just Christmas Christians is probably a lie. But it's it's how I perceived it at a time. But when reflecting on this, I noticed that we did actually participate a lot in different Christians aspects. When I grew up, so I took, for example, the confirmation. I don't I'm not sure if that is a big tradition in the United States.

David Ames  5:37  
It is more so in the Catholic Church and some of the more liturgical churches, there might be more confirmation experience. It's less so in the evangelical world, but I think people understand the concept.

Christian Lomsdalen  5:51  
I liked the term liturgical church. Yes, yes. I'll turn my lights. Yes, yeah. Because the Norwegian state church, or former state church, we can discuss whether which one is true, okay. But in the Norwegian state church, it's quite liturgical. And the main church political party in the Norwegian state church is very liturgical. So that is good.

So, here, we have confirmations and most of the teenagers do this. So when I participated in my confirmations, I was living in Spain, but going to the Norwegian church in Spain.

David Ames  6:41  
Oh, interesting. Okay.

Christian Lomsdalen  6:43  
And well, I participated, I was identified as a Christian during this time, and being one of the more active Christians that took this confirmation, a lot of my co conference, they did not care a lot about the religious part of this, but I read the Bible tried to read it. And I, it was one of the things that I read when I was boards. I read the Bible. Interesting, okay, I had the encyclopedia, and I had the Bible, and I read them both like, through and through a couple of times, just because I was bored. Interesting. Okay. So I identified as a Christian at this time, and that was how I view the world quite liberal Christian, probably, I guess a lot of the invading evangelicals in the United States probably wouldn't recognize me as a Christian.

David Ames  7:35  
Yeah. They'd be sending you to hell, Christians.

Christian Lomsdalen  7:40  
Probably, yeah. Some of the Norwegian wellness as well.

David Ames  7:43  
Okay. But you took it relatively seriously by, you know, again, even the statement that, you know, you read through the Bible, you took that seriously, and maybe your other conference had not, that would also be very true in the United States that lots of people who sit in pews every week, I've never actually read the Bible. So it was internally, something you took on seriously? Or was it more following the the traditions?

Christian Lomsdalen  8:13  
On this part, I guess I was more active than a lot of my family. So I guess it was internalized anyways. And I think it's unfortunate that more people that grew up in a Christian background does not read the Bible, and because it's quite an interesting book to read. Yeah.

David Ames  8:33  
Absolutely.

Christian Lomsdalen  8:35  
And during the time reading it and reflecting on the some of the topics, but I realized after I called after a time that I really liked the stories, I still have favorite Bible stories, and I like a lot of the message in some ways. Still, but I realized that I did not believe in the concept of God, as portrayed. I didn't believe in the entity of this God, existence. And then I realized that I had a quite academic point of view on how to view this religion and realize that I'm not here. I'm an agnostic or atheist. Okay.

David Ames  9:20  
Um, roughly how old were you when you kind of made that recognition?

Christian Lomsdalen  9:24  
I guess I was 17. I wanted to leave the Norwegian state church when I was 15. Already, but that was a political statement, because I didn't believe in churches to be belonging to the state. Okay, so I was opposed to this. Belonging but still identifying as a Christian and then realizing that I'm not a Christian when I was 17 or 18. It was a fluid transition. Or deconstruction.

David Ames  9:56  
Yes. Yeah. The hot word is deconstruction. Sure.

Christian Lomsdalen  10:00  
I guess it's a nice word because it, I think it reflects upon the process that I was going through at the time. Slowly and gradually, but it was. Yeah. Some of your other interviews that you had this with quite rapid deconstructions sometimes, yes. This was a slow deconstruction.

David Ames  10:20  
Yeah, I like to say that we tend to identify the first thing. And the last thing, you know, what started it and what ended it, but there's 1000 points in between. And I definitely have lots of people who will say that it was decades of that process. So you're not alone in that, that for some people. It's a very slow, slow process.

So you've hinted out a few times the the relationship between the church and state in in Norway, do you want to talk a little bit more about that whether or not it is considered the state church?

Christian Lomsdalen  11:03  
Yeah, so I actually really wanted because that is interesting for me. Okay. Yeah. And the Norwegian church has been a part of the Norwegian government on order Norwegian state for almost 500 years since the year 50. And 39. or there abouts. Okay. Yeah. So they claim a very long history as being a part of the Norwegian government. And so it has been established as the state church very firmly. And the confirmation that I was talking about earlier, was a bylaw, obligatory ceremony to participate in for all youth. And it was an exam that you had to pass to become a grown up. Interesting, okay. And if you didn't pass this test, you could actually go to jail. And you were not allowed to marry or become part of the military. And a lot of so it was very tightly joined together. And the Norwegian church did was not its own legal person until quite recently, only five, six years ago.

David Ames  12:16  
Okay. Wow, that is very, that's really recent. Okay.

Christian Lomsdalen  12:19  
Yeah. So and the government was the one that hired new bishops and decided who should be the bishops and it was very tightly joined together. But we had a reform about 15 years ago, which, in in Italy, it was decided that it should be more separation between state and church, okay. And in this process, in this reform, the Norwegian government decided that this church should do the hiring themselves. I think that is a basic human rights for religious organization to decide upon their own leaders. And it was decided that it should be its own legal entity, and that it should be more disconnected from the Norwegian state. But at the same time, they have kept its own provisions in the Constitution in the Norwegian constitution. And the Norwegian constitution works differently than the American one, we actually change the text of the original Constitution with us, we does not just add amendments to it. So we change the text. Okay. But we still have this provisions in the Constitution that gives certain rights to the region's church or the church of Norway, as it's called. That is not the same for the other church churches or lifestance communities and so on and so forth. But it does say that all the rest of us also should get support financially in the same manner as the Norwegian state church. So we are also for some part included in this. Okay. But they say the politicians claim that they have separated church and states and at the same time they have their own, the Norwegian church has its own provisions in law in the Constitution that for my party says that this is a state church really still but a more disconnected state church.

David Ames  14:33  
I see. Okay. My immediate question is, Are most of the Norwegian politicians a part of the Norwegian church? Or are they open about that? Is that a thing that that they, you know, they represent or,

Christian Lomsdalen  14:47  
as you mean, compared to the American party? Yes. Where nine out of 10 is a member of a church or a believer? Yeah. No, we do. not actually know a lot of this, but because it's they do not have to report it and the Polit, the newspaper doesn't ask the politicians, are you a Christian or no. So it's not something that is considered important, and it's considered quite private. But we see that a lot of members of parliament are also members of church boards and so on. So we know that, at least some of them are there some there's some crossover, yeah, some crossover. But it's mostly tradition, we have a couple of political parties, which values the state church quite highly. And for some of them, it's because we want to control this Norwegian state church, and we want to make it progressive or something. Okay, for others, it's to defend tradition, and some use more Christian rhetoric about why they want to have this church that is the biggest one, give it its own provisions in law and so on.

David Ames  16:08  
So it sounds to me like both on the liberal end of the spectrum and on the conservative and there are politicians who might want to have that control.

Christian Lomsdalen  16:16  
Absolutely. That is a quite good reading of what I.

David Ames  16:30  
Like you, when I was a Christian, I was very concerned about separation of church and state, I felt like was important, both for the church and for the state. I'm curious, both when you were a Christian, and now as a humanist, why is it bad that the Church and State are connected to one another?

Christian Lomsdalen  16:53  
I think my arguments about this has changed from when I was a Christian. And but at the same time, it's quite similar, because my experience is that religion is not something that the state should do. It's not, it's not a task for the state and to give preferential treatment to one religion is principally wrong. And it might be good reasons why they want to have this regulation or control over the state church. And there's absolutely good reasons why someone would like to do that. But I think that is also wrong to this day church. I think this reduces the their fundamental human rights as believers as Christians, that the Norwegian government has some specific decisions, that is just for them. And this might be beneficial for them. And it might give them some possibilities that they wouldn't have and responsibilities that they wouldn't otherwise have. But at the same time, it does say that if the Norwegian Church wants to be undemocratic, because that is one of the tenants in the law, that they have to be democratic, and that they have to be nationwide. They cannot decide that they want to be a smaller organization with more limited scope, and that they want to have, for example, the bishops to be the final burden on everything. They cannot do all these like theologically based changes to their organization that all other lifestance communities, all other philosophical communities, all other religious communities can do to their organization. So I think this is a limitation on their religious rights.

David Ames  18:57  
Yes, yeah, exactly.

Christian Lomsdalen  19:00  
We try. I humor myself with this argument sometimes, because I find it kind of funny that I, as a humanist, am concerned that the Norwegian state church members do not have their full religious rights. And we can discuss the term religious rights as well.

David Ames  19:18  
Yeah, let's get into that in a second. What the parallel I want to make in the United States is I have this conversation with believers around me all the time. You know, imagine it, I don't know how it is in Norway. But in the United States, there are many, many denominations, that can be quite radically different from one another. And I'll point out if this denomination that you don't agree with if they gained political power, how would you feel if they began to say that your version of Christianity isn't valid and could enforce that with law or police or what have you, you would like that, and so that is thus the need for secularism or pluralism. And for the state to not have its fingers in religion.

Christian Lomsdalen  20:05  
And that is quite important. But at the same time the Norwegian system is built in such a way that this the church, even though it's a state church, they do not sanction what is the correct form of religion? So we wouldn't have some of this. But at the same time, the Norwegian state definition of what is our religion and what is our religious communities and who to gain support from the Norwegian state is quite Lutheran. Okay, okay. So, this means that, for example, the Vegan Society, even though they have been declared i lifestance, veganism is a lifestance. And we see the same in the United Kingdom. Okay, they cannot, they haven't been able to create the Norwegian Vegan Society, lifestance community, because they do not do lifestance activities. Interesting, all right. Because that is supposed to be ceremonies and teaching of the young and spreading the word and all of these things, and they do not do it in the proper Lutheran way. And that undoes the Norwegian state Church's way of doing things becomes the norm and recipe for all the others.

David Ames  21:38  
So back to a bit about religious rights, I imagine you're recognizing that this is kind of a human right as well, the ability for us to choose what we believe or don't believe and how we practice that religion. And if we look at history, that has been kind of a big deal.

Christian Lomsdalen  21:56  
Absolutely. And especially with the history of the United States in mind, this is a difficult subject, and it shows how important it is. Absolutely, this is a human rights issue. And when I'm saying religious rights, I'm limiting the the aspect of the human rights to just those that are related to your religion, and lifestance. And that is also a shorthand for saying that life stance and philosophical convictions also is a part of the same grouping. And I have some members of my organization that are quite annoyed with me for not always using lifestance instead of religion when I'm talking about this, because that could make it easier to remind the politicians that this is regarding all worldviews, both secular and religious.

David Ames  22:55  
The language is hard when we when we're discussing traditions and communities add, you know, things that that don't necessarily have a, let's say, theistic or supernatural element to them, but but they have. And I think we're going to, you're going to describe to us what the humanist society is, like, that have ceremonies and have a community built and a sense of being a group. And so yeah, it's hard to say is this a religion or not? And that word is just over over wrought with, with baggage.

Christian Lomsdalen  23:32  
Yes, and this is especially troublesome or telling that religious scientist or this, the scientists that do science of religion, have a lot of definitions for what their religion is and what the lifestance If they do not agree upon that. So in some regards, we could argue that secular worldview would also fit the same bill, but those I don't think those definitions is the best ones. Okay. But as the lifestance community, the Norwegian humanist associations, we work a lot with ceremonies, that is the biggest part of our daily work. My son is now going to the humanist confirmations. And he is that is because he's 15 and almost all teenagers at the age of 15 in Norway, go to these confirmations. It has changed a lot it doesn't involve a test and it's not state obligatory anymore and and you can choose a religious one or a secular one. Even a lot of them we even have a shamanistic confirmations, some places but Norwegian Humanist Association has the biggest non Christian non religious confirmation variant in Norway. So we Yeah, make the confirmations for about a third of the Norwegian youth. Okay, wow. So it's a lot of teenagers, or it's 15,000 to give it a number, so it's a very small American town.

David Ames  25:20  
But it sounds like culturally, that Norwegians want that ceremony that that is that's been a part of the process, whether it used to be religious and now a secular. Is that true?

Christian Lomsdalen  25:31  
That is absolutely true. And this is a tradition that is quite solid in the Norwegian societal framework. It's something that everyone does. And we have argued sometimes that one of the reasons that the church still has so big portion of the teenagers doing their confirmation of work is that we have provided a good alternative for those who just does not want the religious experience. And that means that it still is something that everyone does, even though the numbers of believers in the Norwegian community has gone from about 60 70% When I was born, till about a third of the population at the moment, wow. Okay. So even though the number of believers and it is especially true in the youngest parts of the population, because it's an age divide here as in the United States, even though this number of believers among these teenagers is so low, a lot of them still go to the Christian confirmation, because this is something that historically won't just do. Yes, yes. Okay. So we have these ceremonies ceremonies, and we have a naming ceremonies are welcome to the world ceremonies, we could use different names, and of course, funerals and weddings. So at the moment, I have been trained as a wedding celebrant. Okay, I'm going to be trained as a funeral celebrant this fall. Okay, but I already done my first funeral. Ah, interesting. That was a televised funeral. Really?

David Ames  27:21  
Wow. Okay. I think that's so important. Christian, I think some of my intellectual heroes in the secular world, talk about the need for ceremony and, and tradition. And to have secular versions of those. And I think that is, maybe part of the success of the humanist organization in Norway is that you are providing those, you're giving them a way to act out their life stance. And I think that's really, really critical.

Christian Lomsdalen  27:52  
And I really do like the name of your podcast, David. Thank you. The graceful atheist and for me, some part of this is part of doing this ceremonies and doing all of this like community work, that is a key part of this, because rituals and ceremonies are truly one of the glues of society. Yes. And we all humans do all kinds of small rituals, if it's the coffee in the morning that I bring to my wife every day, yeah. Or it's, every Saturday, we have pizza, and we are having the family dinner, or every summer we go to this place somewhere. And we have always been going there, all of this small rituals. And then we have the large rituals, for example, the Fourth of July in America or the 17th of May, which is the National Day in Norway, the constitutional day in Norway. And this is part of the glue of society and it's really important to have this even though one is an atheist and shouldn't really need this kind of illogical thing.

David Ames  29:12  
Yeah, and I think the the argument that that we try to make here is that these are human needs. The reason that there are religious examples and almost all cultures is that human beings need that connection with one another and tradition and ceremony and ritual, provide a way to literally physically act that out that is meaningful for human beings.

Christian Lomsdalen  29:38  
It is so fun to do this like this for ceremonies that is the the core of our ceremonies. It's so important to have a proper send off for the or goodbye to the ones that have died. And what really makes me sad is when there's no no One left to do this ceremony and to remember the life of somebody, because when one does not have a life after this one or believe in life, yeah, it's really necessary to remind ourselves of the importance of this human being that we do not have with us anymore and to remember them and all the good things they did, and all the less fortunate things they did. Yeah. So that is important to me and for our organizations. Wonderful.

David Ames  30:42  
I want to ask you a wide open question. And we can go any direction you want with this, the term humanism, I think people experience that in different ways, right? For some, it's very academic, it's maybe even anti religious. For some, it is more about, you know, connection with people. I'm curious for you personally, Christian, and then for Norwegians, what is humanism mean?

Christian Lomsdalen  31:07  
And you are quite right, it's like quite a difficult word, David to four to establish what it is because on the one hand, it is both academic term for I'm a humanist in my study in work because religious science is placed within the humanities. In that means, I'm a humanist. In Norwegian history, as well as in the European history, the humanism we talk about in history is more or less the Christian humanists, the evolvement of the Christian humanist man, this had a quite big place in Norwegian history, it was established as an important and existing framework. So in the Norwegian when the Norwegian Humanist Association was established in 1956, they chose to you use the word human ethicist, okay, are these humanist and ethical union I think is the word in best translation in American, which meant that we were that separated it from the Christian humanist term, and may established its own term that we could fill with what we needed it to be filled with, which was a secular humanism, okay. But at the same time, this has evolved a lot in the Norwegian context. So that now we more frequently uses the term humanism when we are talking about humanism as a term. And some of the strongest proponents of the Christian humanism, are quite angry with us for using their words, as a way to talk about our thing. Yes, and I feel that this is quite different things, even though they are quite similar, although their origin word the reasons for the world to be and the origins of everything is quite different in these two aspects. So on our Facebook page, the most contested posts are the one where we write humanism and write about our form of humanism. And a lot of people are writing on the Facebook pages, and commenting that this is not humanism. I'm a Christian humanist. And why use this word? I'm not a I'm not a humanist ethicist. I'm a humanist. The real thing do not monopolize our word.

David Ames  33:48  
Interesting. Interesting. So you're studying religion? So I'm curious, you know, when I talked to the equivalent of, of what you just described, maybe Christian humanists, although they probably wouldn't use that terminology in the States. But they want to say that humanism is stealing from Christianity, the moral framework, ethical framework, what have you from a, you know, studying of religion point of view, is that true? Do you think that humanism under a different name predates Christianity? What are your thoughts there?

Christian Lomsdalen  34:23  
I think that this is absolutely stealing from the from Christianity. Okay. Okay. And I have really no problem with it. Yes. Okay, but I think you make an important point, David, that you say that humanism even predated Christianity because I really do think that that is correct Christianity borrowed from traditions and thought systems that existed when Christianity was founded or appeared. Humans and at the same time, And this evolved in a context of traditions and points of view, its society that it was founded in. And at the same time, humanism as it exists in Western Europe, Northern Europe, United States has evolved from a cultural contexts. And for example, we I have been listening a lot to Tom Holland, for example, and his book dominion. And it seems like you're surprised that secularism or atheism comes from a Christian background. And this is the big finding, and all the Christian media has used very big headlines about this, this atheist historian that has discovered Christianity and its its reasons to create humanism. But this is not something new, right? All human traditions exist in a context and is created in a context and evolves in a context. And that means that when a human when a secular thought system appears, is evolved in a Christian context, it will have Christian values or thought systems, that is part of it, some of it will evolve further away, some of it will have experienced smaller evolutions, and it will be quite different. And some of it will be quite close, and quite similar. But this is not something new. This is basic cultural science.

David Ames  36:45  
Yes, yes.

Christian Lomsdalen  36:48  
So I'm not sure what the Christians that proposes this argument, because I hear it a lot as well, in the Norwegian context. I'm not sure what their goal is of this, do they want me to become a Christian just because some of my values and some of my ways to think is the same? Do they think that that will make me a Christian? And that will make me realize that I was a Christian all along? Yeah. Because I'm not really sure of the end points of what they have this argument, I'm, that makes me quite dumb fund.

David Ames  37:26  
I'm fascinated by it as well, I think, the way I have been framing things of late, and I've stolen this from multiple people, but is that everything is secular, that human beings are the source of religious traditions. And so religious traditions themselves are secular as well. And that, just as you say, this is the normal cultural evolution that takes place when people are together over time. And just that's just what happens.

Christian Lomsdalen  37:52  
You have traditions and they evolve. Exactly.

David Ames  37:56  
Exactly. Yeah. And, you know, I find like, the argument that humanism has stolen from Christianity, it's almost like, well, you know, that's, that's my ball, I get to keep that and you don't get to play with. There's almost that, you know, kind of, I don't want to say childish, but you know, a way of saying that's ours, and that's not yours in a way that just doesn't recognize the complexity of human culture.

Christian Lomsdalen  38:21  
And I think that that is a very good point. And to some degree, I think that this is a way for them to try to invalidate my, my worldview, on the basis that they had this part of this first. But at the same time, I think they should be rather proud of themselves. Because this means that their religion, their worldview, their religious worldview, have succeeded in such to such a large degree, that I as a secular person, includes this part of their worldview, as a part of my worldview, even though I don't believe in other parts of their worldview. And this is the same for the confirmation ceremonies, because a lot of Christians in Norway or some, it's less every year, are angry that we use the word conformations. Okay, because this is a Christian word they say. I would say that they stole it from the Roman Empire. So who steals from that they succeeded so much in making this tradition, an integral part of the Norwegian culture. They should be really proud that we use this word. Yeah. Yeah, it's like a point. It's more problematic than for us that we use this word really? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. But Latin words, fortunately have a lot of meanings in different ways. We use it in the way to strengthen the use not to confirm some

David Ames  40:00  
Ah, okay. Interesting Yeah.

Christian are there are some topics that I haven't asked about that you definitely wanted to bring up?

Christian Lomsdalen  40:17  
What I think is important to notice that you have seen the shift in American religious framework or the religious map, it has changed a lot during the last years. And to some degree, the American context is a few years behind on how many religious people there are, how many non religious people there are, because America is a more religious place than Europe. Yes. And in the Norwegian context, around 30% now says that they are a believing Christian, or that they believe in God. And even then a region churches members say that it's around the same. So even within the church, a lot of people are reporting that there are non believing, which has given quite interesting rhetoric from the Norwegian state church of late when they have been arguing that we do not place our members in A or B categories, and we value them as much and they want obviously want to belong to the Christianity, because while they are members, even though they do not need to be. This change in the religious landscape means that I felt that I grew up in a quite normal religious home, when I grew up, as I said in the beginning, and at the same time, I think that my children or not my children, it's hard to use the precedent of the Norwegian Humanist Association as an example, as a part of a normal Norwegian religious family. Okay, okay. But the Norwegian family normal family would not participate a lot in the church community, as of now, because, and this is a trend that I heard on their religious podcast, as well as unbelievable that some one generations goes a lot to church, and the next just goes to church, some important dates during the year, and then the next generation, even less than I think this has happened a lot in Norway. So at the moment, I would really believe that young families is not even Christian Christmas Christians. They are rather secular. And that is quite a huge shift in this 3040 years for where I have been alive. And that is quite interesting.

David Ames  42:56  
Yes, in the United States, and I don't have the statistics right off the top of my head, but the people who select none of the above nuns and O N. E. 's, are becoming the largest bloc of lifestance, let's say, people in the United States, which is quite a transformation from previous eras. So I think we're definitely looking at Europe in the UK for the secularization process that that you all have been through for some time now, almost for guidance, as we tried to figure out how what does this look like within what was formerly a very religious culture.

Christian Lomsdalen  43:34  
But what is quite interesting for an American situation is this notion that or the belief that no politician will ever get into office as an atheist or a secular person, or it will just be from some liberal districts. And this is quite strange for me as a Norwegian to hear about because we had our first more or less openly atheist Prime Minister in the 50s.

David Ames  44:04  
Wow, okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Christian Lomsdalen  44:07  
And this is not something new and he was buried in the same place or his ceremony for his funeral was in the same place as I conducted the funeral I conducted in the town hall of the Capitol. And this was, I'm not sure if anybody first a lot about that. He had a non religious funeral service, even though this was in the mid 80s.

David Ames  44:34  
Yeah, I think for right now, the I think there are many non religious politicians, but they have to hide. So I just very small handful, will say that they are agnostic. I actually think that one of the ways forward for us is to have a more formal sense of a humanist presence. Yeah, exactly. Yes. You know, for the politics. She needs to be able to say because the when when an American hears atheist they hear God hater immoral nihilist. And so I think a way forward is for a politician to say I am a humanist, I have an ethical stance, I, you know, I care about people, and that that might be the it for the future, a way for more secular politicians to hold their ground and and still be able to be elected.

Christian Lomsdalen  45:29  
And that is probably the reasons why you have graceful atheists.

David Ames  45:37  
Yes, yeah. Yeah. That Yeah, well, the podcast started because I just needed somebody to talk to I was feeling pretty lonely. So yeah.

Christian Lomsdalen  45:46  
But at the same time to show that you can be a moral human being that makes good decisions and care for? Well, your neighbor is an important part of establishing that this is a possibility that well does not seem to exist in America at the moment for politicians. Exactly. So I think that you what you do with highlighting the graceful ways to be an atheist is important.

David Ames  46:17  
Well, thank you so much, I really appreciate that.

Christian, can you tell us how people can learn more about the Norwegian humanist? I keep saying the wrong thing? It's not society, its association Association. Thank you. Sorry about that.

Christian Lomsdalen  46:40  
Oh, it's not that important.

David Ames  46:43  
And more about you? How can they find you?

Christian Lomsdalen  46:45  
If they want to learn more about the Norwegian Humanist Association that you can visit our webpage and it's quite easy in English, it's the most the USA it's human.no. So human dot Norway. Fantastic. Okay, that is the easy way to find the Norwegian Humanist Association. And you would have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and choose English. Okay, because that is not that easily accessible.

David Ames  47:15  
Actually, I wasn't, I was looking at it today in Chrome, and it'll just translate it for you. And it does a pretty decent job at that. Also,

Christian Lomsdalen  47:23  
we and the best thing about that is that you can read all the Norwegian pages, which are a lot of more Norwegian pages than English pages on this web page. So you will learn more actually, if you visited with the automatic translation than just visiting the Norwegian the English page,

David Ames  47:42  
we'll definitely have that in the show notes. Christian, I want to thank you so much for being on the podcast. This was a lot of fun. I always find it fascinating to compare culture. There's there's lots of similarities even and some differences. And I think that we all learn from that process. So thank you so much for being on the podcast.

Christian Lomsdalen  47:59  
Thank you so much for having me my

David Ames  48:05  
final thoughts on the episode. Christian was a fascinating person to speak with. Not only is he studying religion, from a teaching, didactic scientific point of view, but also the president of the largest Humanist Association in the world in Norway. And what Norway is doing is absolutely amazing that they are focusing on the human needs for community to have ritual in your life and give people the opportunities to act out their philosophical life states. I appreciate so much talking with Christian and hearing a different perspective, the European perspective that is definitely different than the United States, but also having very common ideas, the need for the separation of church and state for both the good of the state and the good of the church. And I find it fascinating that Christian is focused on the rights of religious people, including the politicians, and I think this is maybe what evangelical Christians don't get the most is that pluralism and secularism is actually good for everyone involved. I believe that history proves that out what evangelical Christians see as taking away something like school prayer, it doesn't occur to them that if you wanted to come and have a Wiccan ceremony or Satanic Temple ceremony, that would be difficult for them to swallow within a school. But by separating Church and State everyone is more free. I want to thank Christian for being on the podcast for telling his story, his personal story as well as the Norwegian story, giving us an A glimpse into what a more secular society can be like, one that embraces the rights of religious people and non religious people, and gives them the opportunities to live out their philosophical life stance. Thank you, Christian so much for being on the podcast. The secular Grace Thought of the Week inspired by Christian is about the human need for ritual. Two of my favorite books are, Kristen augments Grace without God and saucer seconds. For small creatures such as we, in both books, both women make the argument that human beings need to come together and physically act things out about their beliefs about their philosophies about their life stances to us Christians term. Sasha makes this explicit about births, coming of age, marriages, deaths, in the marking of time, things like birthdays, all of these things are really deeply important to us as human beings. And because they have almost always been wrapped up in religious tradition, on this side of deconversion, we can sometimes feel like they no longer apply to us. Or as Jennifer Michael hex coined in the Wonder paradox, dropped by and lie. In other words, we sometimes find ourselves at funerals and weddings that are religious, and yet we feel deeply uncomfortable. With all three of these authors suggest for us to do is to create our own traditions to reinterpret existing traditions to make rituals in our lives that are meaningful to us. And I love the way that Christian talks about this, our philosophical lifestance Or again, to use Jennifer Michael hex terminology, a graceful life philosophy, or in my words, secular grace. Next week, our lien interviews Kyler, that'll be a great conversation. Until then, my name is David, and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Join me and be graceful human beings. The beat is called waves by MCI beads. If you want to get in touch with me to be a guest on the show, email me at graceful atheist@gmail.com for blog posts, quotes, recommendations and full episode transcripts head over to graceful atheists.com. This graceful atheist podcast, a part of the atheists United studios Podcast Network

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Get You a Graceful Life Philosophy

Blog Posts, Philosophy

Without religion, how do you find meaning? How do you live well? How do you find out how to live well? What is life about, anyway?

Secular Religion

Throughout her book Doubt: A History, Jennifer Michael Hecht weaves the idea of a “graceful-life philosophy.” These life philosophies are formed after a region becomes more cosmopolitan—many cultures living next to each other. Since you can’t escape being confronted with challenges to your own beliefs, this confrontation of views leads to doubting whatever your accepted religion is. But losing your religion, eating, drinking, and being merry aren’t satisfying for most people. The graceful life philosophies provide that meaning. In fact, Hecht calls them “secular religions” since they serve many of the functions of religions.

This week I’d like to talk about these “graceful life philosophies.” In future posts, I’ll talk about how to go about adopting such a philosophy. If you’re anything like me, you might get overwhelmed by the quantity of choices. I recommend starting with curiosity. “Oh, that’s interesting,” instead of, “I need to get started now!!”

The following “secular religions” provide answers, or at least guidelines for:

  • Making sense of how the world works.
  • What life is about; what’s the big picture.
  • What we should spend our time doing.
  • What it means to live life well.
  • How to handle life’s challenges.
  • How to prepare for death.

Examples

Some philosophies of life are more fully-formed and can replace religion for most things. Not only how do you pursue a good life, but also how to live with others, how to eat, dress, etc. They may provide community and events. Examples include:

  • Stoicism: fulfillment and happiness come from living according to our nature as humans. This happens when we live as the best humans we can: thinking and acting rationally and living for the good of ourselves and others.
  • Non-theistic Buddhism: you should pursue the Eightfold Path toward a better life for you and those around you.
  • Epicureanism: pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain are natural and normal, so go with the grain and do that well. You can achieve ataraxia (mental and emotional tranquility) if you do.
  • Secular/atheistic versions of established religions, like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism

Some philosophies may be less fully formed but might form the solid core of a life philosophy you build yourself over time. The fact is, we all cobble together our own philosophies of life as we gain experience. These might provide fewer answers to mundane questions about how to eat, dress, etc., but they’re helpful places to begin. Examples of these partial philosophies include:

  • Secular Humanism: We’re human, so let’s work to develop and help humanity and the world around us.
  • The teachings of Ecclesiastes: There is no absolute meaning, no life after death, but life is still good, and one’s own work is good. (Doubt, a History, p78)
  • Existentialism: Ut is up to each individual to create her own meaning and values in life by engaging in the world, by pushing back against oppressions that threaten to limit our possibilities and by getting out there and doing things—not just contemplating what you might do. (How to Be Authentic, Skye Cleary, xii)
  • Absurdism: There is no intrinsic meaning, but we crave meaning anyway. We must face this absurdity by constantly keeping it in front of us and acting against it, living life to the fullest. (The Myth of Sysiphus, Albert Camus, throughout)
  • Pragmatism: What works is more important than what accurately reflects a complex, incomprehensible reality (How to Live a Good Life, p245 and following)
  • Effective Altruism: We should dedicate at least some of our resources to making the world a better place and ensure these resources get put to the best uses they can. (How to Live a Good Life, p256)
  • The Satanic Temple: “The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits.” (The Satanic Temple website)

Even the teachings of Jesus could be included here if you ignore 2000 years of religious cruft. In his book Jesus for the Non-Religious (which I haven’t read), John Shelby Spong describes Jesus as breaking tribal and religious boundaries and prejudices.

Starting to Get Started

As you’re coming out of religion, wondering what to do, it may be worth learning about various philosophies of life. Here are a couple caveats to bear in mind:

  • You are not behind! You’re not starting from scratch.
  • There’s no race to some finish line. This is about your life, so you can take the necessary time.
  • None of the philosophies are perfect. They all have limitations.
  • They are not one-size-fits-all. You will build your own philosophy of life anyway, and it may be cobbled together from multiple. My philosophy is a strong dose of Stoicism, plus a good helping of Christianity, Epicureanism, Buddhism, and Skepticism.
  • Learn to distinguish life-hack from a life philosophy. We’ll get more into this over time.

Resources

Josh de Keijzer: After God’s End

Agnosticism, Atheism, Bloggers, Deconstruction, Philosophy, Podcast, Post Theism, Scholarship, Secular Grace
Listen on Apple Podcasts

This week’s guest is Josh de Keijzer, PhD. Josh writes at After God’s End: Fragments of a Post-Christian narrative  

Josh grew up in an evangelical home in the Netherlands. He knew his family was “set apart,” different from the mainstream Dutch culture. 

“I realized…I had been brought up as an evangelical…We were always part of a minority. ”

As a teenager, Josh took his faith seriously, so he had a hard time with the adults in the church. Their actions did not line up with what they believed, and the hypocrisy was rampant. 

Josh had always wanted to visit the US and was able to attend university and seminary in the States where the questions really began. 

“[I was at] a solidly evangelical seminary but there were plenty of people who did a lot of questioning. I have to credit them for opening my eyes…”

Josh’s questions led him out of the Christian church, but he hasn’t given up on spirituality. Josh’s life has meaning as he lives with compassion and love for others. Always a beautiful thing to behold. 

Links

Substack
https://joshdekeyzer.substack.com/

Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/aftergodsend/

Recommendations

#AmazonPaidLinks

Quotes

“I realized…I had been brought up [in the Netherlands] as an evangelical…I realized that we were always ‘set apart.’ We were always part of a minority. ”

“I really hated worship music. I’ve always hated it.” 

“[I was at] a solidly evangelical seminary but there were plenty of people who did a lot of questioning. I have to credit them for opening my eyes…”

“I was given white privilege even as a foreigner.”

“[Justification by faith, now] simply refers to an immaterial fantasy in order to avoid material responsibilities.” 

“Systemic thinking does not come easy for evangelicals.” 

“I call myself a radical theologian but not a Christian.”

“Even though I’m not a Christian, I’m not against religion.”

“Basically 99.9999% of all god concepts are neurotic constructs to drive us away from ourselves, and so, therefore, I’m not too excited about religions.”

“If religions go, then you get something else. You get ideology, and all ideology is just as bad.” 

“That’s the problem with religions and ideologies. They are not just glasses for how we see the world; they are our eyes, our instrument for understanding…”

“Knowledge is social and perspectives are transmitted socially.”

“There is no meaning in life, and you need to accept that before you can create meaning.” 

“…once you leave the Christian faith you don’t have to become an atheist. Atheism is often another version of a committed point of view about which we cannot say anything for certain…”

Interact

Join the Deconversion Anonymous Facebook group!

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Podchaser - Graceful Atheist Podcast

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

Transcript

NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.

David Ames  0:11  
This is the graceful atheist podcast United studios Podcast Network. Welcome welcome. Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast. My name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Please rate and review the podcast on the Apple podcast store, rate the podcast on Spotify and subscribe to the podcast wherever you are listening. If you are doubting deconstructing going through the dark night of the soul, you do not have to do that alone. Join our private Facebook group deconversion anonymous and be amongst friends. You can find us at facebook.com/groups/deconversion Next week's guest is Holly Laurent from the mega podcast. Holly and the mega podcast crew are amazingly funny. And now they're about to do a special series that you're gonna love. Mega is an improvised satire in a world of a fictional mega church, and they're releasing a comedy investigation mini series inside the world of their own show called The Rise and Fall of twin hills. The Rise and Fall of twin Hills is a hilarious riff on the self important truth seeking that happens around church scandals and the twisted psychology of those who are inside them. This mini series is chock full of ridiculous scandal put it this way. If you think that the real mega church pastors improprieties we've seen over the last few years are bad. Get ready for the outlandish high jinks of Pastor Steven Judson. If you're a fan of great comedy parody or just want a light hearted take on deconstructing the harmful beliefs we know so well then go check out mega and their new mini series that comes out on May 21. My favorite past episodes have awesome guests like Cecily Strong and Louie Anderson. So look up mega now and follow them. You're not gonna want to miss the rise and fall of twin hills. It's on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Special thanks to Mike T for editing today's show. On today's show, our lien interviews. This week's guest Josh de Keijzer. Josh calls himself a radical theologian. He no longer calls himself a Christian. You can find him on Instagram at after God's end. And he brings a really interesting perspective to the table. Josh is Dutch the discussion that Arline and Josh get into reflects on the differences between the Netherlands and the United States. Near the end, Arline and Josh talk a bit about post modernism. And Josh begins to describe something that I would call secular grace. Here is our lien interviewing Josh de Keijzer.

Arline  2:54  
Hi, Josh, welcome to the graceful atheist podcast.

Josh de Keijzer  2:57  
Thank you, Arline.

Arline  2:58  
I'm super excited. A past guest, Tony, George sent me your information and said, Hey, he may want to be on the show. And I reached out and I was already following you on Instagram. So I was excited when you said yes. And yeah. I'm excited to hear your story. So the way we usually begin is just tell us about the religious environment that you grew up in and tell your story.

Josh de Keijzer  3:21  
Okay. Well, thanks for inviting me on the podcast. And I'm excited to tell a bit about myself. I'm, I'm from the Netherlands. And I have studied in the United States from 2009 to 2017. So it was a long time. an MA in, in Christian thought and then a PhD in systematic theology. Oh, wow. And so I left America, actually, I wanted to stay in America and teach at a college but the whole theology thing in academia was collapsing. So an early sign an early sign of, I would say the de Christianization, or the upcoming de Christianization of the US anyway, so I had to leave and and after returning to the Netherlands, I was unable to make the significant meaningful theological connections. So my academic life finished with me leaving America and now I'm a copywriter and enjoying it very much and taking on bigger names, and bigger jobs. And I'm a ghost writer. Now I write books for companies and for people. And I'm always able to throw in quite a bit of my theological heritage, even though I'm no longer a professing Christian. Anyway, so I started by being born in the Netherlands a long time ago in the 60s. He's, and it was only much later, let's say, you know, toward the end of my stay in America, that I finally realized that I had been brought up as an evangelical as an American Evangelical. Oh, wow. And specifically, you have to attach evangelical to, to the nomenclature because I realized that growing up as a Christian, we were always set apart. We were part of a minority. And we had our network of people. We were not alone, as a family and as a church. But we also didn't really fit into the wider scheme of things. We were strangers in a strange land. Yeah, so later, I realized that's because I was an American Evangelical. And so I've always had a deep interest in America. I also had family in states in the Seattle area, my uncle and and emigrated to the United States in the 60s. So it was kind of an infatuation like America was the real deal. That's where that's the origin of my faith, and, and the whole shebang. So I grew up as an American Evangelical, and we met American missionaries who would come over to Europe, and we, my father was very much in love with an organization that originated in America by the name of Operation mobilization, okay. And he always wanted to join that organization. But he didn't. But eventually, I did. And I spent a couple of times with a couple of years with Operation mobilization on their, on one of their ships, initially, until it sank in South America, and then stuck around for a total of eight years with that organization. During that time, I also wrote a course for like, missionary awareness. So, you know, if deeply, deeply invested, and later I did my bachelor in, in theology, and biblical studies, and then eventually I ended up in, in advertising as a graphic designer, and later as an art director, but I wasn't really satisfied intellectually, I guess. And so it feels like I had an intellectual awakening. And then we're talking like, early 40s. But the intellectual awakening was accompanied by a renewed interest into sources of my faith and the foundations of my Christian faith. So I, I got deeply interested in apologetics, and which is the defense of the Christian faith. A lot, lots of that in the US. And I applied to go to seminary in applied for a seminary in the US for my Masters, and then got admitted at a Christian thought program. And by then I'm in my 40s. So that's where I come from.

Arline  8:02  
Yes. Wow. Okay. I'm curious. What is you said, you guys were set apart. You are clearly like this American version of evangelicalism. What is the like religious look of the Netherlands? Or is that it's very broad, or is it very secular? I have no idea.

Josh de Keijzer  8:18  
Oh, the Netherlands is very secular. Okay. So we experienced our de Christianization moment in the 60s and the 70s. And by the 80s. Basically, nobody went to church anymore, but nobody is not entirely fair. There are still, you know, a bunch of Catholics in the south. We have strong roots in Calvin Calvinistic reformation. But it's, it's only present mostly as a cultural cultural memory. And it is not a there. So we have our Bible belt to like you have in the in the US, we have our Bible Belt. It's really like a narrow strip that crosses the entire nation is like this, where the very conservative people live. And as an Evangelical, I did not belong to them. I had a allegiance elsewhere.

Arline  9:22  
So what did your upbringing look like? Like, was it Church on the weekends church on Wednesday night? That's what I think of evangelicalism, like the more modern music, or was it traditional? Was it at your home to that was another thing

Josh de Keijzer  9:35  
that started to house church in? Oh, wow. The late 60s. And I still have fond memories of that, you know, I don't ascribe to that faith anymore. But fond childhood memories of you know, all the interesting stories of the things that happen there. But yeah, it's very much a kind of a brother in church, met at a house and later at a A synagogue that was no longer in use in our town, gathered a group of people, I think the maximum number of members at one point was at 88, or something, usually much smaller. But there were a lot of a lot of hypocrites around. And let me nuance that because we're all hypocrites we cannot get by in life without being hypocritical. But there's, there's just like the basic level of hypocrisy. And then there is next level hypocrisy where people really try to achieve objectives with sneaky by sneaky means. And I've met a lot of dead men a lot of that. And so as a teenager, I struggled with my faith, because I liked all the music of the world. And I like punk music and new wave, you know, if we're talking about the 80s, and I was a member of a band, I was a singer and a keyboard player. And on the, on the other hand, the faith thing. So I struggled with that. And now when I look back, I realize that even back then, the hypocrisy that people had, and not just general hypocrisy, but people who try to con my parents and, and put them down and just did humiliate them. And replace them. I guess it really did something to me at a subconscious level. I know that I always hated worship music, I just hated it. And luckily, being the pianist at church, you know, you hit along and you turn all those songs, either in jazz or, you know, whatever you fancy you improvise around the song. And so that was the fun part. But actually, I really hated worship music. I really hated it. I've always made it. Interesting, right? Was that, like an early rebellious response? I guess. So I guess like did, this didn't work for me.

So and then later, when I, I came to the US to study theology, I was invested at a sort of an intellectual, from an intellectual point of view, looking that, you know, if you can nail down the intellectual foundation of Christianity, then you don't have to worry about the worship styles and stuff that I don't really care for. But then at least you were making a contribution at a very fundamental level, that kind of, I think that was my objective. And so he can make your contribution that way intellectually. But the culture never appealed to me.

Arline  12:42  
Oh, that's fascinating. I liked a little bit of both of it. Like I also have good memories, I did not grow up in the church. But my years in church, for the most part, were good. But I did I liked the Hillsong music, but I also liked the reading all the dead white guy books like So thinking back to when you were young, and you're talking about being rebellious, like young people take their often will take their beliefs very seriously. Like if Jesus really is the only way to God and like all the stuff that you're being taught is true. When you see people's lives not be changed, and the way they treat your family and the hypocrisy. It's much harder to like, make it work. Because it's like, if there really is a Holy Spirit, who's supposed to be changing people, why am I seeing this kind of behavior from these people, especially the adults that you're supposed to look up to? And things?

Josh de Keijzer  13:32  
I was not self differentiated enough. So in my view, it was just like, my dad was being beleaguered by evil men. Yeah, of course, that's not what Christians were like. So there was something wrong and maybe it was the devil. You know, he was he was waging a spiritual warfare here. And oh, good. Those lines. Yeah. So I think I think my rebellious ness is more at a subconscious level. And my hatred for worship music was a sign of that. It was it was a sign of things to come.

Arline  14:04  
Ha, that's funny. That's funny. So yeah, so what happened? Were there small things that happened that you started losing your belief? So we're

Josh de Keijzer  14:12  
no, no, no, not at all. So I struggled with my faith, but I was committed and I remained committed. And by the time I had my intellectual revival, or whatever you want awakening, I was, I was still firmly committed to the Christian faith, and already gone through a couple of phases of, like, recommitment or deepening or whatever you want to call it. I don't care. But so no, the questioning started only at the seminary. That's where I started going haywire from the Midwest, and I'd finally kind of achieved my dream. And so it was at the the Walhalla of Christianity, so to speak, you know, my, my blend of Christianity and And so now I have come to the truth right now. Now I would figure it all out. But then we were. And this is a personal anecdote, so I'm not going to go too deep into it if you don't mind. But in my family situation, stuff went really bad. Between me and my wife. It resulted in me living alone on campus. For the rest of my stay in America. Okay, so that was a first dent. And I'm like, so How was this possible? You know, the Lord guided us it was God's will. God knows everything, he knew that this was going to happen. So how can God make this happen? Why couldn't he have prevented us from going because then this wouldn't have happened bla bla bla. So you know, the questions start coming. And I guess my I also met people at that seminary, it was a thoroughly solidly evangelical seminary. But there were plenty of people who did a lot of questioning, and to credit them for, you know, opening my eyes, like, Hey, you can think differently. You don't have to be a mentalist. And one of the one of the major insights was, and it wasn't my first year that I realized, hey, look, you can describe certain things as sin, you know, or rich people need to repent and and get right with the Lord. But you can also do family marriage therapy, and then help them see where it comes from, and not sin, and they start feeling much, much better in the Lord. So that kind of I realized that. So I struggled along and try to embrace some some like postmodern notions, blah, blah, blah. But the big change for me came. In my second year, I had a black classmate, and she posted something on on Facebook, and one evening, where narrated how she had been stopped by the police in her own her own neighborhood. And police had told her, Hey, you drove through red light? And she had answered, No, I didn't. And then I said, okay, but next time, you know, you better be careful. And so she narrated that. And suddenly, it dawned on me, comparing myself with her situation. There she was in her own country, in her own name, having to experience these things on a regular basis. And here I was, as a foreigner, in America, driving my sports coupe, vehicle, speeding everywhere, all the time, under any circumstance, not just not worried. It's like, it's not in my mind that I should be worried about the police. And if I would have been stopped by the police, I would have thrown my hands in the air and say, I'm sorry, officer, I'm not from here. I'm from Europe, and we drive differently. I was just not thinking what I was doing. I'm sorry, it would have just let me get off. But hey, if you're a black, it's a different story. Ah, even even in the northern parts of the Midwest, and, and so I realized what was going on I was I was given white privilege, even as a foreigner, and I was living it out subconsciously, like all these other white people around me. And she was not having that, any of that. And she had to be careful in her own neighbor. So that set off a chain reaction. I finally started seeing racism from like, from the inside. I was already pretty much aware of it, but I started seeing it from the inside. And next I realized that racism played a large part in how things were being done at my seminary and university, because they have diversity committee. Oh, sure. And guess who was on the Diversity Committee of this all white seminary? X, black person? Why Asian person Z? And who is the president of the committee? Asian background, Professor, okay. Yeah, like African American professor. And so they were allowed to do their little thing in their little corner. As long as the rest of them could just go on doing what they were doing.

Arline  19:24  
It didn't look like anything was actually going to be changed or accommodated.

Josh de Keijzer  19:29  
at a deep level, not at a deep level. I see. And, and then, of course, you start hearing the voices and it started it's with like, a theologian, like what's his name? Nevermind, nevermind, his name doesn't matter. Like a very moderate, pretty conservative theologian who had a Hispanic background. We noted that you know, in history, the history of theology See that many decisions were made out of concerns of power, and over truth. And so you started, I started seeing more and more of that, and it became more and more uncomfortable.

And so I would say that racism was the big, the big chain, the big changer for me. Because how is it possible there you have a seminary, and we all have the word of the Lord. The Bible is God's absolute word contains God's absolute truth. And you know, we are so lucky to have it and to understand how it works. And so let's expound the Bible, the word, let's do a little bit more of Bible study or systematic theology, and you know, can get doctrinally righteous. But at the same time, they these very people were not able, and still, to this day, and 10 year from now will not be able to address the latent, not just even latent, blatant racism in their city. So what then broke?

Arline  21:10  
Again, it goes back to like, for me, at least I understood that the Bible, the Holy Spirit, all these different spiritual things were supposed to change people's lives. And when you watch people who have privilege and power, use those things for more privilege and power, and not to take care of the groups of people that when I would read the gospels, and even the Old Testament prophets, it looked like this is the stuff that God cared about. Now, I have a very, you know, a different perspective on lots of lots of parts of the Bible now, but Jesus seemed to hang out with the disenfranchised people. And yet, we watch, especially white American evangelicalism literally keep power and privilege for themselves and not not want anything to change, because why would they want things to change? Because then other people might have privilege and power and they don't? They don't want to have to share anything. It's, yeah, but it doesn't make any sense. Because you think that they're being changed by this magical supernatural stuff?

Josh de Keijzer  22:16  
Yeah. And so the funny thing is that, that I realized at one point that the entire theological structure structure, the way theology is set up, is a setup, to avoid the moral consequences of, of the gospel, whatever the gospel may be, I don't know. I don't know what the gospel, but it is, it's insane. So it always talks about the personal sins, and and it always addresses the vertical relationship between a believer and God. And so it's a very sterile kind of faith, justification by faith. For instance, when Luther first coined that that term, in the early 1600s, early 16th century, when he first coined that term, it was a revolutionary term. And it meant justification as in just pneus, as injustice for free. What does it mean technical term, as a technical term and evangelical theology, it means to get off the hook with God. So God is opening the invisible realm, blah, blah, blah, and nobody knows what happens. But magically, you're off the hook. So it's a real term, it doesn't it basically doesn't mean anymore. It's anything anymore. It simply refers to a to a non material fantasy, in order to avoid material responsibilities.

Arline  23:50  
That makes a lot of sense of I've heard it said that. I can't remember the name of the book, but it was it talked about the difference between how white American Christians and black American Christians and again, you know, there's nuance of course there's nuance, interpret the Bible, and there's this with white evangelicalism, especially, and maybe other other types of white Christianity, I'm not sure but it's very individualistic. Like anytime Paul's talking, it's not talking to y'all to use my like Southern Georgia. It's not y'all, it's just you individually. So then as long as you have done your vertical thing to deal with God, it doesn't matter the people that you've harmed. And then whereas with black Christianity, there's a much more a deeper understanding of the like, systemic things that are harming entire groups of people and because they've been part of being harmed by the system set in place. I used to wonder like, how do we help Christian when I was still a Christian like how do we help white Christians see this, but it was a chasing after the wind to use like a Bible phrase because I saw very little desire For to understand anything differently than what they did understand.

Josh de Keijzer  25:03  
There is there is no desire on the part of white evangelical Christians in America, by and large, because there are some there are some

Arline  25:12  
hashtag, not all I know.

Josh de Keijzer  25:15  
But it is very disappointing. It is deeply disheartening. And I have close friends at that particular seminary who are still close friends of mine. But when Philando Castile was shot by that police officer that happened in my street, by the way, I used to walk every day. It's a very long street, and I love to love that St. Larpenteur Avenue in Minneapolis, St. Paul, actually, anyway, so my friends for white hot, because the people were assuming things about the police officer, and things were not fully investigated. So they were white hot about the police officer being on what do you call that in English? Like leave, like afraid of leave, I think. But they could not muster enough indignation for you know, the shooting of a, of a of a black person

Arline  26:17  
who had done everything he was supposed to in that situation.

Josh de Keijzer  26:21  
I heard I heard audio. That's It's sickening.

Arline  26:26  
I had family who their perspective went straight to well, why was the woman recording? And it was like, because otherwise we would have never known what actually happened, like this poor lady has to has to like, extra traumatize herself to record this. And it was just, I couldn't understand. Sorry, I have a hard time articulating this, I couldn't understand how someone being just pointed, like murdered by the police officer was not the like, clearly this is a terrible thing that we need to figure out what's going on. I don't understand why it's not understandable.

Josh de Keijzer  27:07  
But for me, it highlighted my evangelical friends inability to, to understand or to even. And it's not like they hated blacks, those people? Well, they love black people. They had a very good friendship with our neighbor in seminary, he was black, you know, in time, they can't see it, and they're not willing to see it. And it's mind boggling, mind boggling.

Arline  27:29  
Have you noticed, I noticed this in the church. And I know that the worship of whiteness goes way outside the church like this is not just a church thing at all. But white church people that I knew, could have black friends, and even use that as an excuse to never deal with any kind of thing that they may have done that was racist, or see racist policies. But they could use that as an excuse. But it was like this bizarre I can separate you guys from the way that I vote or the way that I, you know, believe about police brutality, or I don't know, capitalism, I mean, anything, there's so many different things that, did you see the disconnect that people

Josh de Keijzer  28:11  
totally, I cannot figure it out, except that maybe as you when you're an evangelical you Your world is, in a sense, very simple. Because everything is your personal relationship with Jesus. And everything is seen from that perspective.

Arline  28:30  
And that little individualistic, individualistic approach, so

Josh de Keijzer  28:34  
you're not able to even understand the systemic nature of politics and the socio economic realities that surround you. All you can think of, we need to, you know, one issue here, to make sure that the Christians come back in power so we can do, can make sure that the Lord's will is done in this country that was founded as a Christian nation. But it's like, even there, the thinking is extremely simple minded. And systemic thinking does not come easy for evangelicals. And I know because I struggled to develop it, you know, at a later

Arline  29:11  
I was part of the group for a long time

thinking about Christian nationalism, what do you see happening over here with the Christian nationalism and trying to take back America and and all that stuff?

Josh de Keijzer  29:34  
Yeah. So I was I, I left the US in 2017. So I've had one year or good eight months of Trump. And I didn't know how quickly to leave the place. Yeah, because it was it was becoming a very scary place. And I think America is a scary, very scary place. And there's something deeply ironic and I I tend to revert back to the evangelical movement because I'm, I've been part of it for so long. So, in a weird way, I still identify with them, like I talked about us, you know, which is because I'm an evangelical but so what they're the weird thing is this. They are they are warning against an apocalypse and impending destruction of the world. And, and by their actions and voting in an absolute moral and moral monster, they are actually bringing about the demise of their own nation. Oh, wow. That's, that's how I see that I could completely exaggerate things here. But if I read some of the American media, not all the time, but there are people who say similar things like we're really sliding to chaos, anarchy, if we're not careful, and look at how polarized the American society currently is, there's even like Sean Hannity, and what's his name? Oh, cut of what did he call it? Breaking up the nation, they have a term for it. Civil War is that whatever euphemism of nation of states breaking away from from the off, you know, I

Arline  31:24  
know seceding, but I don't know. I don't know if that's the right

Josh de Keijzer  31:28  
thing. But that's not the term they're using. Yeah. This, my goodness, where you guys go on with this.

Arline  31:34  
It's sad, because there's this strange inability to see the idea of patriotism and love of nation, also bringing about what feels like the destruction of the nation that you say that you love them. But, you know, the nation that they love, I think is this mythical white supremacist world that I don't know that it's ever existed, at least

Josh de Keijzer  32:00  
for those are fantasy, people are always fighting, nostalgic fantasy.

Arline  32:05  
And if you live your individualistic little Christian world, then if your daily life is fine, it doesn't register that you're perfect. When you go and you vote, and you believe they do these different things, you're participating in what can make things way worse. But it depends on also your thoughts of what's worse, because for us, that sounds worse. But the idea of, you know, women having power over their own bodies, black and brown people having access to resources to like upward mobility, and more wealth, and all these different things that sounds bad to them. And it's, I don't understand it, I have a hard time.

Josh de Keijzer  32:42  
What I find very interesting is that evangelicals who always warned against post modernism, who Be careful post modernism, because that's like devaluation of absolute truth. They are the most postmodern idiots I've ever seen. But then postmodern thought is a great, then they are postmodern idiots. latently lie to you, when you confront them. It's something about Trump or they will ignore it. Now we keep talking about Trump, Trump is a little bit out of the picture, perhaps I don't know. But like the public debates that are going on, like there's been, there's often an obvious proof for for something, they will just deny it or they will, they will flock behind Fox News and and espouse those the lies that are going on there. So I find that very, very weird and ironic.

Arline  33:36  
That's fascinating. I hadn't thought about that. But that makes sense the idea of relative truth, because I remember learning that, that that was bad. You just don't believe that. Of course, there's objective truth. And yet here we are with those Saint very, very many of those same Christian people perfectly fine with ignoring objective truth, or believing whatever, what is it confirmation bias, whatever they are, whatever will already agree with what they've heard, which I know we're all guilty of. I know that's true.

So like, where are you now? What are like, metaphorically like, where are you now? What what are you doing as far as? Are you on a spiritual journey? Are you out you're done, or we were?

Josh de Keijzer  34:26  
What happened? Because of my family situation, I could not simply return to the Netherlands in 2012. And so in 2011, I applied for a Ph. D. Program at the same city. And I got in, amazingly, and it was a mainline Lutheran seminary. Oh, wow. And I have to say that was a breath of fresh air. And though I'm no longer I don't see myself as a Christian anymore. but I still like Lutheran theology, and of course Lutheran theology. There's two conservative kinds and that are not so interesting. But liberal Lutheran theology or if you will, radical Lutheran theology or where it intersects with liberation theology or feminist theology. I have to say it's it's fantastic, fantastic theology. And I did my research on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who is famous in the in the US a claim by different different factions of Christianity. But in order to understand Bahnhof rebel, I had to study Luther. So I had been back to the 16th century. And I discovered a minority report and Luthers theology, even though he said about, or initiated the Reformation, which became super big, of course, it's probably fair to say that his discovery or his invention, if you will, imagination of justification by faith, and the theology that came to be known as the theology of the cross is actually kind of a minority report in, in Christianity and as pumped up here and there. And it is always the story not of power. So the main story, the main narrative of Christianity is always about power. And how you secure power, either by apostolic succession, because then the first pope got the keys from Peter, who got the keys from G. JC, right? That's right, yeah. So that works. And then the other ways to say, the word of the Lord, we have the word of the Lord, and it gives you knowledge of how things work. So those have been two main strategies in Western Christianity to hold sway over the masses, and power and gain political power. But the Minority Report says something very different than it's as if Jesus is God's self revelation, which we all are suggesting is, then we can be safe, we're safe, it's safe to say that whatever God is, is always going to be contrary to our expectation, because there you have a baby in the manger, making dirty diapers, you know, he could die anytime he's in a manger. So he has poor parents, and he becomes a man of, of with, with a lot of grief and suffering in his life, and he dies on it. That's God. So the god, you thought was sitting on the throne, the true nature of that God reveals itself or himself or herself as brokenness, weakness, as death. And so and so that kind of theology can never come to a consensus about this is the right doctrine or the right dogma, it is ongoing searching, that tries to subvert every constructed makes, because every construct you make is already like trying to domesticate the idea of God. That's very interesting theology. And I still like a lot of it, even though I'm no longer a Christian. And some of the best thinkers in Europe have come from that tradition. Think of Kant and Hegel and Heidegger, not that the role morally clean people, but very interesting people, and they have set the course on Nietzsche. He has a Lutheran background Kierkegaard. So I really liked a traditional LOD I still do. And then toward the end of my studies, I came in touch, I was introduced to radical theology. And unlike the name suggests, radical theology is not theology. It is not, it's not a discourse that helps us connect with God. But it is the discourse that takes every god concept, and it says, Oops, look at that wrong, something is wrong here. It started with the death of God theologians in the 60s if you've heard of them. That was an entire movement at that time of a theologians that said that God had died. And what they meant is God died culturally, or the way we do theology, we cannot do that anymore, or Christianity is over and things have to go radically different. And so that movement has continued. And it is, again, a minority report, because in the holes of official theory, theology dumb, that's it's not recognized. It's not talked about. It doesn't have it doesn't get a place. But that theology is very radical. It's very subversive, antithetical, and it is, and that's the beautiful thing of it. It's a perfect tool to actually analyze society as such, and to analyze ideologies and it has The routings in continental philosophy, like strong links, but the thought of Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher who came up with the notion of deconstruction, which even extra angelical took over and turn to something else. And strong connections with the Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Shishak, who started is also fit, very influential in Europe. But it has a lot of connections with practical theology. And so it's exciting stuff. And I traveled down that path. And so I call myself a radical theologian, I guess. But I'm not a Christian.

Arline  40:42  
I am familiar with some of those names. Mostly just the names. I don't know much more than that. But that's fascinating. I love it.

Is there anything I should have asked, but I did not ask that you want to talk about?

Josh de Keijzer  41:04  
Well, let me just say that, even though I'm not a Christian, I'm not against I'm not against religions or anything. But religions are complex. ancient ways are usually ancient ways, complex ways of understanding reality, and bringing in morals and finding answer for questions. But because we as human beings, when we become self aware, and self conscious, and we become aware of the nature of our life, lives as meaningless. And as has eventually ending, we get this anxiety that drives all human beings, we devise strategies to avoid our end and to avoid facing the darkness in the eyes. And so that religions conform to, to the anxious human being, and then becomes a tool that is unhealthy. And so basically 99.999 of all God concepts, are neurotic constructs to, to drive us away from ourselves. And so therefore, I'm not too excited about religions. But okay, if religions go, what do you get, you get something else, which is ideology. And ideology is just as bad. It's just got under a singular name. And it is the same drive to or away from ourselves and away from our fate. And as we anxiously avoid our fate fee, we try to trample on our people and lord it over other people seek wealth and seek diversion, and run away from the truth.

Arline  42:41  
Yeah, it seems like if we're harming others, and we're, I don't know what the word is that I'm looking for, like so attached, maybe that's attached to the ideology, or the religion, anything that gives us meaning or just answers questions that we that we have. And we can't detach ourselves from it long enough to ask any probing questions. All the while harming other people and harming ourselves. Like, that's not good. No, like, no matter what, what version of that, whether it's an ism, you know, a secular ism, or a, or a religious thing? Yeah, it's, it's true, it's

Josh de Keijzer  43:20  
that but the problem is that both with religions and ideologies, we are not able to, to understand reality, apart from it, there's just no way for us to do it. So during, during the years that I wasn't even Jellicle Christian, like actualizing, that God would not exist was not an option. It's not that I could not say, Okay, let me just play the atheist here, and there is no battle. I can conceptually do it. But from deep from within, I was not able to conceive the world as possible. Out of God. That's fascinating. Yeah. And so ideologically, if you look at capitalism, for instance, people who are are not haven't thought about this long enough and haven't done the hard work. They cannot envision a world where the free market does not reign supreme. It just, it's not conceivable, then how should we do it? You mean, it should become ease, you know? It's not conceivable, even though they can conceptually talk about it. And so that is the problem with ideology and religion. They are not some they're not just glasses through which we look at the world. But there are basically our eyes there are our our main instrument for understanding our reality. And, and they're often very unhealthy. They're, they're anxiously driven, and we can see it. So we think we're normal people, or we think we're decent churchgoers, or we think we're, you know, we're pursuing a career in society, but All the while they're just driven by it is deep in this thing deep down in us.

Arline  45:05  
Do you know and this, this is me thinking of the fly? What are your thoughts on like, how do we help people not think in such a? Well, if it's not this absolute thing, then it will only be this other absolute this binary thinking, like helping people have nuanced. Do you have any idea how we do that? Or is it like? Well, it's not really our responsibility to do that to other people.

Josh de Keijzer  45:25  
Yeah, it's possible by forging friendships with people who think different from you. Because knowledge is social. And so perspective, perspectives are transmitted socially. And that is a very good thing. And also, I think we should be brutally honest about reality. And so I tend to say like, there's a lot of people who would say life is meaningful. Life is not meaningful, there is no meaning in life. And you need to accept that before you can create meaning.

Arline  46:02  
Oh, that's fascinating. Yeah. I think humanist I think it's what I would, I guess, put myself under. And so yeah, I believe, you know, humans, we make meaning out of things. Even when I was a Christian, I was, like, theoretically fine with when I died, I died. Like I didn't, I wasn't, you know, didn't feel any kind of way about that. In theory, and you know, I never got so sick that I might possibly die. And it was, it came, you know, face to face with it. But yeah, that's an interesting idea that we have to realize that life does not have meaning before we can begin to make meaning.

Josh de Keijzer  46:37  
Yeah. And so what drives that? Is this, the moment we become self aware, so we become to realize, so Mommy, are you going to die? The child asking that question. And, yeah, one day, I will put this a long way off. And then will I also die? Yeah, but that's a long way off, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Still, that moment is the moment where the conscious human being becomes, you know, her true self. So you need to you need to face that you need to not run away from it. And it makes sense, once we can accept the main Oh, yeah. So this is what I was gonna say. So what makes meaning for us is, we try to turn the world, or COVID into ourselves. So we become the center of the universe, and make everything evolve around us. And that's how we think we create meaning. I'm sure it works to some extent. And I'm not saying we're super selfish beings. I'm not saying that. But it's just it's an orientation, like the self has to be the center, the self has to achieve longevity or eternity. Immortality, if not, for real, that may be in the books I write, you know that that kind of thing. The memories, the things I leave behind are the ones I love.

But once you can let go of self, and kind of can accept that you're finite. So like, throw yourself in that abyss of darkness, and accept that, that even though it's maybe 30, or 40 years old, except it is now. And once you can do that, then you can return to life. And then say I have a surplus on my back, that's my life that I just lost. And I don't need to center it anymore. And so then you can start centering other people. And when you center other people, I guess to the common word for that is love. And when you when you use your life, your surplus for developing of others, and you don't care whether you're remembered, or you don't care, whether you're rich or poor, you just don't care. Because you've already lost your life. And then when you invest in others, then you find the meaning of life. Because the meaning of life is to live difficult word, EXO centrically or outside of yourself. But that's something that because of our evolutionary upbringing, your evolutionary origins, we can do, our self consciousness forces us to center ourselves in anxiety. And once we can overcome that we be find the meaning of life to help others to be there for others to give love.

Arline  49:26  
Part of me, you know, having been a woman in the Christian world for a long time, it's like, but that's what we did for all that. That's what I did. You know, it's like, and that's what you did.

Josh de Keijzer  49:37  
That's totally unhealthy.

Arline  49:39  
Yeah, that yes, the not being able, like Brene Brown, I don't know if you're familiar with her work, she talks about the most compassionate people are people with boundaries, people who can like give and give and give and then say no, I cannot give any more I need to be able to take care of my own self are really

Josh de Keijzer  49:56  
saying this, because that is the absolute necessary addition to what I'm saying? Because yes, you're right. Healthcare comes first. But I'm talking about is not like, you know, just be the least just serve you. I'm not saying that.

Arline  50:15  
Oh, yes, I know. I know. It's, it brings up that same feeling. But I know what you're saying. And you're not the first use of Internet who are like, loving other people taking care of other people like, because there really is a lot of truth behind that. Well, I was gonna say pour yourself out for people, oh, Christian Christianese comes out all the time.

Josh de Keijzer  50:35  
But yeah, that's not what I mean. It's just like, if you live decentered, then it's basically the Buddhist tradition, once you can see yourself. So it's like Jesus tradition and the Buddhist tradition coming together. Because Jesus said, If you want to gain your life, you have to lose it. Because like, what does it mean? What does it mean? What does it mean? And then quickly, Christians turn it into you needs to be born again and saved. You actually, you don't need salvation, you need loss. But the Buddhist tradition is like, once you can understand that you are an illusion, here, you're an illusion, and you can let go of the desires. And then everything is sold. There's no problem anymore. But healthy boundaries, so but this weird error is that there is a component there of self care. And you can only truly love others when you are able to take care of yourself. I agree. I agree to that.

Arline  51:33  
Yeah. Do you have any recommendations, podcasts, books, anything that you read, as you were deconstructing or that you're reading now that you're like, This is so influential in my life?

Josh de Keijzer  51:48  
So I'd like to bring up one book, no three books. One is then sort of the academic version. That's the Palgrave Handbook of radical theology. Okay. And it's not a cheap one. But it brings together so thinkers over a period of what 50 years in the area of radical theology, and what I like about radical theology so much is like, Okay, once you leave the Christian faith, you don't have to become an atheist. Atheism is often another version of a committed point of view, about which we cannot say anything for certain so why? And so it's like, radical theology charts, of course, beyond the division between theology faith on one end, and atheism on the other. Although it can be quite atheistic, in its in its own way. Then two other books. So one is a book that recently came out and I haven't read it yet, but the the author asked me to review her book for her. And the author has had her Hamilton. And she's, and the book is returning to Eden a field guide for the spiritual journey. So I thought it was so nice to mention that.

Arline  53:04  
Okay, yes, it has popped up a few different places in my Instagram. So I have been hearing about this book, and it makes me curious. Yeah.

Josh de Keijzer  53:13  
And so I think it is a way for Christians who can no longer be Evangelical, to still do something meaningful with a biblical text and find a new way of making meaning out of it through a mythological interpretation, I think that's what I'm, that's my take on it. And then the third book is interesting. It's called safer than the known way, a post Christian journey, by Maria, Francesca French. And she is, uh, she actually was in my seminary. So we're friends. And I'm also I just did a review on her book. And so her story or her, her narrative in that book is very much like my own. It's post Christian. It is radical theology. And it charts of course, beyond the division, or the end and antithesis between atheism, and Christianity. And so I think that's a very interesting book for, for people who are done who are really done with religion. And that might be a good book to

Arline  54:17  
pick up. And I have found there lots of people who they're done with religion, but they might still love Jesus, they might still, you know, have an end for so many people being a Christian was such a huge part of their lives for so long. That it is you know, it's not always something you can just throw away like, the language is still there. The some of the feelings are still there. Now, sometimes it needs to be like, and we're done, like completely. But yeah, that's not always the thing. So I've heard of the second author or the Maria author, and then yeah, returning to Eden has popped up a few different places recently. So it makes me curious. Okay, how can people find you online? That's how I found you. How can others find you?

Josh de Keijzer  54:57  
Yeah, so I have an Instagram work out after God's end, where I usually post things that would make any Christian angry. Which are expressions of my anger towards Christianity.

Arline  55:13  
Yeah, I very much get it. I recently just posted to my like personal Facebook, I need a women's like Facebook thread where we can just be angry sometimes together, and I've had three people be like, I'm here for it. And so we have our little group that just, sometimes you just need to be angry with some other people. And then you feel a little bit better. Yep, I understand. You're right, you're

Josh de Keijzer  55:36  
right. And other than that, as a theologian i, okay, I call myself a radical theologian. But on the other hand, I don't call myself a theologian anymore. I've, I've an interesting career now as a freelance copywriter. Maybe I'll call myself a philosopher. I do that sometimes. That I tell people I studied philosophy of religion, which is actually very true, as far as my PhD is concerned. But I'm a copywriter. So I could give you my account, or mentioned my accounts, but they are. I'm on LinkedIn there. But I write a lot of Dutch these days, because I've written 1000s of pages in English. But no matter how much I try, it's never going to be as good as my touch. That makes sense.

Arline  56:24  
Yeah. I'm enjoying honing

Josh de Keijzer  56:27  
my skills as a Dutch copywriter. And who knows, I will, you know, pick up a book idea and work on it at some point.

Arline  56:36  
That's awesome. Well, Josh, thank you so much for doing this. I had a delightful time getting to know you better. I appreciate it.

Josh de Keijzer  56:43  
Thank you, Arline. That was a great conversation.

Arline  56:52  
My final thoughts on the episode, I really enjoyed that discussion. I love that Josh is using his platform today to just be a space to get his anger out. But also to let other people know that they aren't alone, that you can deconstruct the fundamentalist or conservative Christianity that you grew up with, or that you've believed as an adult. And there are places for you to go. There is radical theology, feminist theology, womanist, theology, queer affirming theology, like there's so many other ways to look at the Bible, or Christianity or Jesus and still love those things, and appreciate them in a new way. I personally have thrown it all out in in fine without there being gods or goddesses or any kind of thing like that. But everyone needs somewhere that they can, that they can land if they want to land somewhere. And so this is good that this exists out on Instagram, and the online community that you're able to build on Instagram really is amazing. And so I'm glad Josh is doing that. And I've learned a lot from his page. And I know other people have learned a lot and will continue to learn. And so Josh, thanks again for being on the podcast.

David Ames  58:19  
For the secular Grace Thought of the Week, I really can't help myself but talk about the post modernism and secular Grace aspects of Josh's story. I've found it just amazing, having been a part of the church when the idea of being postmodern to have truth be relative, the will to power to be a negative thing, something that was decried from the pulpit constantly to find ourselves in a moment where the church seems to have embraced this entirely. Unwittingly, they would never obviously call themselves postmodern they use post modernism as an epitaph. The other interesting thing about that is that the way that post modernism is used colloquially by the church is incorrect. Interestingly enough, post modernism is really important for those of us who have gone through deconstruction and deconversion. And it's more than Derrida and the original idea of deconstruction, that had nothing to do with religion. But more so the idea of modernism, modernism was about having answers, answers to life's questions, authorities that could be trusted. And post modernism was a departure from that the recognition that those authorities could be mistaken, were in fact mistaken, that the answers that we were satisfied with weren't good enough. In Dana Freibach-Heifetz's book titled Secular Grace, she draws a direct line from the enlightenment to post modernism to see secular grace, and that in her mind that progression is a healthy and natural one. Obviously, that's something that that I agree with. But I appreciate when I hear someone else articulate secular Grace without using those words. I think Josh was describing that a focus on loving people even serving people to use that churchy word is a part of this proactive love that I call secular grace. Next week is Holly Laurent from the mega podcast. Holly is amazing to talk to. She is a fantastic comedian, and I think you're gonna love that. And also check out the rise and fall of twin hills, a satirical look at powerful pastors within the pretend world of the twin Hills Church on the Mega podcast. Check that out as well. Until then, my name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Join me and be graceful human beings. The beat is called waves by MCI beads. If you want to get in touch with me to be a guest on the show, email me at graceful atheist@gmail.com for blog posts, quotes, recommendations and full episode transcripts head over to graceful atheists.com. This graceful atheist podcast part of the atheist United studios Podcast Network

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

You Can’t Change the Past

Blog Posts, Deconversion, Philosophy, Purity Culture

Forget everything else. Keep hold of this alone and remember it: Each of us lives only now, this brief instant. The rest has been lived already, or is impossible to see.

Meditations 3.10 (Hays)

One of the hardest things about deconverting is coming to terms with the fact that there’s so much time already spent: time spent doing what now seems like a complete waste; time spent not doing the things that seem to actually make up a life. So frustrating. Such a waste. Why did purity culture have to happen when I had youth and energy? Why did I spend that youth and energy building up hangups and trauma around sex? Why don’t I know how to have friends?

It’s like Plato’s allegory of the cave was somehow tangled up with that urban legend about waking up after a party, missing a kidney. Or does that metaphor only work for me?

And it’s harder the later in life you deconvert.

One of the most helpful things I’ve found is to accept that the past is gone. Nothing I can do about it, nothing I can do to get it back.

Easier said than done.

First, why is it helpful? If I know I can’t do anything about the past, I can shift my focus on the present moment. The present moment is something I can do something about. Sure, I can learn from the past, but when it comes to making choices, what matters is the here and now.

Even better, if I accept the past as unchangeable, I can be kind to myself, cutting myself some slack for the road ahead.

A thought experiment to take away: What if you were dropped into your current situation? What if you were unceremoniously plopped into the body, memories, life, history, and family of someone else in this situation? What if you knew it wasn’t your life? What would you do? Would you do anything differently? Would you feel differently about the past? How?

– Jimmy

PS – I asked one of these new AI programs for a suggested title for this post. My favorite: “From Kidney Theft to Puritan Lessons: Surviving Unappreciated Time.” …success?

Thom Krystofiak: Tempted to Believe

Agnosticism, Atheism, Authors, Book Review, Deconstruction, Deconversion, Naturalism, Philosophy, Podcast, skepticism, Spirituality
#AmazonPaidLinks
Listen on Apple Podcasts

Stay skeptical? This week’s guest is Thom Krystofiak, the author of Tempted to Believe: The Seductive Power of Claims About “The Truth.”

Thom grew up Catholic but as an adult began practicing Transcendental Meditation. He followed gurus and groups for decades but was never quite convinced of the more spectacular claims of TM. 

Thom shares about his experiences in the TM movement and what pushed him out. He also discusses important questions people, regardless of their belief or skepticism, could ask themselves: What do I mean by truth? How do I find the truth? And how much does truth really matter? 

Quotes

I am, by nature, a skeptical man. My skepticism shows no signs of
mellowing, but grows sharper and deeper with time. And yet I have spent my life surrounded by believers.

[Is it] better to be fooled many times than to be a skeptical man[?]

Am I missing something?

“Why is that I’m not susceptible to any of the beliefs the people around me hold…”

“[Flying] wasn’t happening yet for us as individuals, but maybe if we put three thousand people together in one place…maybe that’ll be something!” 

“…the rise of fake news and alternative facts and the more bizarre conspiracy theories…all of these things are based on beliefs and they’re based on beliefs that do not have evidence…’”

“Some of our greatest societal challenges…resonate with these same principles: How much does the truth matter, what do you mean by the truth and how do you find the truth?”

“It’s not just a matter of, ‘Do you accept evidence at all as a valid way of finding out what’s true?’…it becomes a much more difficult task of sifting through competing versions of evidence.”

“Some people have given—either themselves or others—the license to make things up…”

Links

Thom’s personal site
https://krystofiak.com/

#AmazonPaidLinks

Interact

Join the Deconversion Anonymous Facebook group!

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Podchaser - Graceful Atheist Podcast

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

Transcript

NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.

David Ames  0:11  
This is the graceful atheist podcast. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast. My name is David. And I'm trying to be the case with our community manager Arlene continues to run the Tuesday evening after the podcast drops hangout. If you want to be a part of that, please join the deconversion anonymous Facebook group at facebook.com/groups/deconversion. Special thanks to Mike T for editing today's show. On today's show, my guest today is Thom Krystofiak. Thom has written an amazing book called tempted to believe the seductive power of claims about the truth, quote, unquote. What Thom has done here is really describe what skepticism is, why it's necessary and how to be skeptical without being cynical, and without being a jerk about it. What I think you're going to find interesting is that Thom's religious experience, although he grew up a Catholic is really about his time in the transcendental meditation movement, and more from a new age point of view. So what's interesting is, he's bringing skepticism from that perspective. And he begins the book by asking the question, Am I missing something? And the book is really the answer to that. I loved this book, I this is the book that I wish that I had had when I was going through my own deconversion. I hope you enjoyed the conversation with Thom, and I hope you and to help you go out and get the book. tempted to believe. Here is Thom Krystofiak to tell his story.

Thom Krystofiak, welcome to the graceful atheist podcast.

Thom Krystofiak  2:06  
Thank you, David. It's a pleasure.

David Ames  2:08  
Thom, you've written a book called tempted to believe the seductive power of claims about the truth. And as I just mentioned to you offline, this could not be more timely. I said in previous promotion of this particular interview that if I were going to give it a subtitle, I would say it is skepticism without being an asshole. I might have been a little bit more catchy. Yeah. And that is kind of right in the lane of what we're trying to do here on the gristmill atheist podcasts. So you are incredibly welcome. So glad that you're here.

Thom Krystofiak  2:47  
Thank you, thank you so much.

David Ames  2:49  
What I'd like to do is begin with, you know, your personal journey and for lack of a better term, your spiritual journey and what that was like, and then we'll jump into the book after that. Okay.

Thom Krystofiak  2:58  
Yeah, let me try to boil it down. as briefly as I can, you know, I did not go through a difficult deconversion process in my, in my life, I was raised as a standard Catholic, I went to Catholic schools all the way through high school, including Jesuit High School. But, and I of course, absorbed all that as you do as a child. And you're more or less, I'm more or less assume that was just the way things were. But, you know, my my leaving the church or leaving belief of that kind took place quite naturally. For me, it was just the way my mind started asking questions, even when I was, I suppose around 16. And then, strangely enough, one of the Jesuit priests sort of there were some liberal priests in our, in our school, he thought it was a wise thing and what was called theology class, to assign Sigmund Freud's the future of an illusion, which is, which is all about Freud's idea that religious beliefs were illusory. And here's the psychological reasons why. And that really spoke to me. But in addition to that, my own thinking just about how is it that we can possibly know all this really definite stuff about the nature of the universe, so that'll happen. And so it was, it was, it was graceful. For me. It was graceful both for me, and it was, it was treated gracefully by those in my life. You know, luckily for me, I didn't have a problem with my parents, you know, freaking out that, that I had left the fold that they had invested in, you know, in so many different ways, right? There weren't that kind of they were those kinds of people, so I didn't have that issue. Even my teachers at school they knew by the time of my senior year of high school, they knew where I was but they didn't cause trouble either. So I had a graceful exit, it was easy. Okay. Then what happened to me is when I was in college, I started for whatever reason, beginning to have a sense that perhaps there's something more to this reality than what the day to day that we're all in meshed in. Now, whether recreational drugs had anything to do with that, or whether it was just some sort of natural curiosity, I don't know. But I was interested in the possibility. And so when I heard various people in groups talking about ways to open to greater realities, I was intrigued. And I explored a few of them. But the one that got me was Transcendental Meditation. And the reason it got me ultimately, in the beginning, was because they had embraced scientific approach to verifying the benefits. Right. So I mean, the kinds of benefits let's put it this way, a scientific approach to to verifying some changes that happened into people and people who practiced TM. You know, they certainly couldn't verify the broader claims that they may have been interested in. But they, but they had that scientific attitude, they had done some pioneering research that was published in Science Magazine and Scientific American. And, and I will say that, that hooked me I said, okay, if I'm going to try something, this is the one. So that's what I did. I liked it, I liked the way it work, the effects it had on me. And so I, as, as the years of few years unfolded, I got seriously interested and became a trained teacher of Transcendental Meditation, which, you know, this is, as people may know, this is a, a program or a practice that was brought out to the world by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In the old days, I mean, some decades ago, a lot of people would recognize that name. These days, not so much, probably. But, you know, he was the guru of the Beatles, etc. That's the way he was always talked about in the press way back then, you know, millions of people learned all around the world, 10s of 1000s of people were teachers, it was a big deal. And as you can imagine, we we'd go, we were in the training was done in Europe, I was in Europe anyway, I was pursuing my own studies, but the trainings were generally in Europe, and they would last, you know, over the course of the entire training might be six months or more. And so you're completely enmeshed in this world of people who are absolutely enthused not just about the practical fruits of meditation, but about these ancillary claims that are more and more extraordinary about, about what the universe was about, and what human life was capable of, and so forth. And being in meshed in math for six months. And having, you know, you naturally have a desire to do well and be part of, you know, to be a good teacher and be part of this whole thing. I naturally was drawn to at least partial acceptance of some really extraordinary things. Now, I don't I don't think I ever became a full on believer in the sense that many people are believers and things about some of these claims. But they certainly enticed me and made me think they were possible. And so I'll just briefly mention a couple of them. So the the biggest thing that happened during the time I was doing that training was an advanced program was cut was brought out, in addition to the regular 20 minutes, twice a day of meditation, which was the whole thing in the beginning, an advanced program was brought out which was basically human levitation, the ability for the human being, to fly, not just some sort of internal thing that felt like you are floating but actually, the claim was, yes, we're talking, floating, flying through the air. And, and I was, you know, some people did it before I decided to try it, because, hey, why not? This is, this would be fantastic. If

David Ames  9:32  
it was. Yeah.

Thom Krystofiak  9:36  
You know, it's a little weird to say that I would even be willing to try it because it's so outrageous. No, that's such an outrageous claim. It flies in the face of just everything we know about physics and science. And that doesn't mean I don't rule things out is completely impossible if they fly in the face of current scientific knowledge. You know, there are things we can learn that we haven't learned yet, but this is pretty cool. pretty far out there. So, but nevertheless, I was far enough into it to say this is worth a shot. And some people had done it that I knew before I did a little bit before I did. And it came back with some, you know, reports that sounded like they were verifying the thing in some way. Anyway, so I jumped in and did it. And it was extraordinary. It was absolutely one of the most extraordinary things I've ever done in my life. And I think a lot of people might say the same, just the way the body reacted to this, essentially just a mental process. That was that was engaged. And it's, it's something that I think would be a great subject of scientific research exactly what is going on there where the body does some things it's never done before, in response to a mental stimulus. And so it was wild. It was incredible. It was energetic, but it wasn't flying by. It wasn't levitation by any match.

A couple of years later, after I had done this, and then come back, and I was teaching meditation, and here in the US, I, marshy put out the word that he wanted to gather 3000 people, this was in Amherst, Massachusetts, to do this technique of skill of yogic flying together for the first time in human history, you know, and I said, okay, at that point, I was willing to entertain the possibility that, okay, it wasn't happening yet for us as individuals, but if we put 3000 people together in one place, and we're all doing it simultaneously, maybe that will be something and something extraordinary. And, as I said, in the book, when I when when I did that, for the first time in that large group, I was expecting something to happen. You know, exactly what, who knows, but something really different from what had happened ever before. Right? And it did. So, you know, that's not to say there were it's not, it's a rich internal experience. It's something that people get value out of, and a number of ways by doing it. Maybe even some integration of brainwaves, and mind and body and all these things have been explored. But certainly it wasn't what the claim was, it didn't happen. Of course, it hasn't happened since. So that's one thing. And then my wife and I moved to a little town in Iowa called Fairfield, Iowa, which had about 9000 people at the time. And again, Maurice, she made up made the call in 1983, to say, let's get 7000 people into this little town of 9000. And all do this together. And that will really crack the world open. It wasn't so much, oh, we're gonna fly. Isn't that really cool? It was more. His focus was always what can we do as individuals that will affect the collective consciousness is the word he would tend to use the collective consciousness of the whole human race? Is there somewhat, and he certainly believed, apparently that, that, that that should be possible. And originally, the idea was, well, let's just get enough people to practice TM just to meditate, and that will change the world. And then as that wasn't happening fast enough, he said, Well, let's get this advanced group. And let's get them together. And then we'll see what can really happen. And so we said, Great, we quit our jobs, we moved down here along with 7000 people, it was an, again, a really amazing experience. And then, many of those people were encouraged later to stay, to form a permanent community to keep doing this together. And they built two large dome structures where the people would come every day and twice a day and do this. So the idea was, well, we'll keep doing this and then we will finally crack it all up. So this group here in Fairfield, that up maybe about 3000, stayed over time, not the first day, but they managed to arrange their lives so that, you know, they could somehow support themselves. Some entrepreneurs came started some businesses brought businesses, people managed to support themselves and got rolling here, and states, so maybe two to 3000. At the peak, we're here. And there's still probably 2000 here. And this group of people that I was now fully enmeshed in because I never lived in a community of two or 3000 people who believed a lot of very extraordinary things I'll just mention a few in a moment. And so all the people around me that I associated with believed a raft of things and these would be The one I already mentioned, you know, possibility of human levitation. Another one would be the fact that certain practices, they're called the Yagi O's, and in Sanskrit or an Indian lore, but these are basically just practices, performances can influence by performing some ritualized event, chanting some stuff in Sanskrit pouring some materials on some objects, you know, whatever the ritual was, that can eliminate problems change the course of, of a person's life accompany even as a society. And of course, the idea that a large group doing something together like this would like, like these practices would utterly transform human human life on a collective level. And belief in astrology, it's called Jyotish. Again, the Indian version is called Jyotish. But it's essentially just astrology, that it's a perfect predictive science. And on and on, so I'm surrounded by a belief in karma, you know, the fact that everything that's happening to us was because of things in past lives, or parent lives, and it's all highly orchestrated. And reincarnation, you go on and on. And this was the assumed coin of the realm among the people I was living with, including my wife. And I was curious about some of these things, but really not not a believer in any of any of them. Yeah. Especially, you know, as the flying, it became clear that wasn't really happening that one drifted, drifted away, even from my consideration that it's any kind of likely event at all.

So this was the origin of the book for me over the book that I wrote, because in my own internal exploration process, which was, why is it that I am not susceptible to these beliefs that everybody around me is holding to one extent or another in the early days, especially? And it was just a fascinating question. It wasn't just a intellectual academic thing, like, Oh, I wonder why it was also it wasn't like I had tension about it, or felt that I was horribly missing something. But I did wonder if I was missing something. Because a lot of a lot of these people were quite admirable, quite intelligent, etc, accomplished. And they managed to believe these things and found some sort of benefit in their lives from believing these things, apparently. And I wasn't. And so I'm going, what, what am I missing here? And so I just tried to dive into that, and exploration on many, many different fronts and different levels to see. Was I missing something? Or were they just applying criteria about reality that I could not subscribe to, due to lacks a lack of evidence, basically. And that, you know, that's essentially what I what I came to, and feel comfortable with. And that, to me, let me say one more thing that a major demarcation or separation that I make in the book is between something that someone chooses to have in their life because they like the way it feels, they just like, like having in their life, and making a definite claim about something about the universe or the world, or how human life works, a claim. So to me, a claim is something about, about an event that will appear in the material world, I claim that astrology will predict this in my life. Well, I want to see that prediction come true. It's a claim or the claim that you can levitate we want to see we need to see the levitation otherwise, let's not talk about it in that in that term. You know, if doing a certain spiritual practice or ritual is supposed to alleviate a problem, let's see does does that actually play out? And so yeah, my focus was on on claims. I'm happy to have people have whatever they want in their life that makes them feel satisfied as long as they're not bending the reality and making claims factual claims about the nature of human life, that really cannot be not only cannot be established, but all the evidence that we do have, seems to contradict it. And as as the years went on here, I mean, we've been here for 39 years. Yeah, so. So it's a long, it's a lifetime, you know. And during that time, many of the people, at least the people that are my closer friends, have had us not the same degree, necessarily, as I am in this journey, but a movement in that direction. And I'm pleased and happy to report that to some small extent, at least, some of the people who've have read my book have had some of that perspective solidified. And it kind of brought together some of the maybe thoughts they started having, but brought together in a more coherent way. That is, how do we want to look at this world? How do we want to evaluate claims about this world to make sure that they're, they're valid, and that they have substance,

David Ames  21:08  
that so many things, I want to respond to their couple things, just just to say that one of the things I've really appreciated about the book is the humility and the kindness with which you describe some of these, in your words, off grid claims. And there's an empathy for the human condition and are and you know, the title of the book, tempted to believe that we are all tempted to believe in things that may or may not have enough evidence for it. Again, very much in line with what we're trying to do here with the podcast that just, you know, we're all human beings, we're all susceptible to these things. And, and yet, we are all after the truth, we're trying to find the truth. So I really appreciated that. One of the things I think, for my listeners is going to be interesting, my listeners tend to be former evangelical Christians, on some part of the spectrum from D convert from deconstruction, you're just doubting to full blown D converted atheists is that this comes at it from an orthogonal an angle, many of those evangelicals, when they were believers would have seen transcendental meditation as evil. And so it's, it kind of sneaks in past some of those defenses. And yet, I was amazed at the parallels, right? This is, again, the human condition. And last thing I'll say is, I also very much appreciated that you acknowledge the difference between the potential positive benefits of the experience and community versus a claim about the way the the universe actually works, and making a really hard bright line between those two. So for example, if you find, you know, performing the ritual of, you know, beneficial to you for your mental health, if you find meditation, or any of these, these kinds of practices, beneficial, more power to that person, not, that's fine. It's when the person begins to claim that this is affecting the world in some way that is beyond the realm of physics, that that's when we start to care about the truth.

Thom Krystofiak  23:09  
Right? Well, that's great. And, you know, I appreciate your noticing what you're calling the humility in the book. And that has been an advantage. I just ran into someone at the grocery store yesterday, he goes, Thom, I love your book. And I didn't know she was reading it. And not not a close friend, but someone I an acquaintance. And she mentioned the same thing that compared to what what you often expect in books that are trying to deconstruct for former beliefs. You often have people like Richard Dawkins would be the extreme example of someone who is often described as caustic, and dismissive and so forth. And yeah, I mean, I didn't want to do that. And I don't feel that so. So that's cool. The one thing I didn't say yet that I want to say, and I think it's germane to what you were just speaking about is that, well, let's let's get into it this way, that the whole idea, the difference that you just summarized between doing something that feels beneficial, or that you'd like to have in your life, versus making a claim about how the universe actually works in observable ways. That's a that's a bright line. You know, that's a clear distinction. Some people many people don't care about the second thing. They don't care if it can be proven if there's evidence for it. They just clearly don't. And, and you go, Okay, well, is that all right? Is that is that just another way of being? And to some extent, I want to sort of go in that direction and be again generous to say, well, that's the way that's the way their life is going. And those are their values, but This is the other area that was not the impetus of my book, but sort of got sprinkled in as the time went on, with the rise of the incredible the rise of fake news and alternative facts and, and really bizarre, more bizarre conspiracy theories and so forth, and the divisive pneus. In our political sphere. All of these things are based on beliefs, and they're based on beliefs that do not have evidence. And these things are not a matter of, oh, well, this is someone's internal life, it's their spiritual life, or whatever it is. And, you know, we shouldn't be too concerned about what they're doing inside their own head.

But when it starts to manifest, as it really seriously has, not just in America, but really around the world, when these kinds of alternate realities, not based on facts start being treated as if they were facts, and building entire, you know, political movements on them. We've got problems. And so this is what started to become more apparent to me even though it wasn't part of my original impetus, that the same kinds of questions that we're talking about here about how you evaluate what's true or not, or whether it's important that you evaluate things in a certain way as to being true or false. Whether you apply the rigors of evidence and rational thinking or not. It it's it's become a matter of really deep societal importance outside the realm of religion or New Age beliefs or, or the kinds of things I was talking about in my background, well, outside of that sphere, as important as all those fears are, we have another big thing on our hands. And it's completely related, just as you said, even though my book is not talking about the typical journey that that a lot of your other guests and people have gone on, you found that it was resonant with some of those same same processes. Well, now we're having, to me, some of our greatest societal challenges outside of those realms, also resonate with the same principles, which is, how much does the truth matter? And what do you mean by the truth? And how do you find the truth? And, to me, the greatest challenge that we face, perhaps, is that people totally disagree about that. What's interesting, though, is there are people who go, especially in the spiritual realm go, I don't, I'm totally not interested in objective means of proving any of this. I have my own internal truth that I am totally solid and clear about, you know, that's one thing where you just sort of deny the applicability of any kind of objective truth you go. That's that's not that's not relevant here to me. And that's, that's a, that's a tough issue. But that's, that's mostly on the subjective or spiritual realm. When you get into these other societal realms, where people are arguing about what's true, or what isn't true. A lot of times the people who are saying really outlandish things,

Unknown Speaker  28:43  
claim to have proof. They're

Thom Krystofiak  28:46  
not saying, oh, proof doesn't matter. This is just the way I feel I have an intimate experience with Jesus Christ or with whatever. Don't talk to me about proving it's irrelevant. They're saying, No, we can prove this. Yeah. So if you, for example, I don't want to offend any particular groups that you have your listeners, but it's an obvious, obvious example, in our society. If, if Donald Trump or some or his fall, so many of his followers are going to say, the election was stolen, they don't say, I have a feeling the election was stolen, or, you know, my, my spiritual guide told me the election was stolen, they say it was stolen, and we have evidence, right, you know, and then they bring it to court. And of course, all the courts so far, have failed to agree that there was any kind of evidence, but nevertheless, the claim is made or a lot of conspiracy theorists will claim that they have evidence certainly the big one is the nine 911 truthers who, you know the idea that it was an inside job and it was totally put up fake thing. They'll put out reams of really impressive looking video discussions with some experts and so forth, proving that there's no way these towers came down in this way from from airplanes. And so this is what gets doubly difficult. Because it's not just a matter of do you accept evidence at all as a valid way of finding out what's true? They'll go, yes, of course we do. And we've got evidence. And then it becomes a much more difficult task of sifting through competing versions, right of evidence, and say, which one of his really holds up. And the problem is that none of us most of us are incapable of doing all of that background, evidential research or checking ourselves. And so we naturally have to ferret out which of the experts or authorities out there in the world are the ones that we have reason to think are reliable. And then we follow those. So this gets really thorny. And that's why the only the only hope I see is in a greater depth of education emphasis, I don't know if this will ever be happening in our educational systems, to the process of doing exactly that. How do you weigh how do you ferret out the the reliability of a piece of evidence of an authority of suppose it expert? You know, how do you weigh these things? You can't just take the one that feels?

David Ames  31:44  
Exactly. And I you do talk about that a lot of just, and within the world of disinformation that basically, we just pick the paradigm that makes us feel the best. And that's no way to do this. I want to jump on this just for a second and say, This is why the book is timely for a number of reasons. You know, I think, you know, even beyond the political and the religious, you know, we're under an onslaught of advertising being thrown at us and with social media, and what have you that we are constantly evaluating claims, whether we know it or not, and being conscious of that, and having a standard is just deeply important. And in particular, and in time of disinformation. And in a time where technology is going to only get make the problem worse for the foreseeable future, that we will have more and more claims that we have to evaluate, having a sense of what the standard is for good or sufficient evidence is just absolutely critical.

Thom Krystofiak  32:44  
That's right, and it's going as you say, it's going to get more and more intense. Speaking about social media, you know, you get, you get the problem of what are called Deep fakes, which are, there's, the better and better ability is of technology to create a video of you saying something that looks exactly like you're saying it even though you would never say that and never did. And so, it's going to go to a completely different level of difficulty, to tell the difference, and to see how any, any sort of authority is going to try to step in, to prevent some of these clearly wrong attempts to fool people. So it's, it's one thing in the old areas, you had stories, you know, if you go back 1000s of years, you had people telling stories about the origin of life, or some savior or some holy man. We, we basically had stories and that worked incredibly well. You know, you have billions of people subscribing to essentially stories that were created 1000s of years ago, or laid down 1000s of years ago, stories passed on were very potent, and they always will be, although, as we've been seeing, at least in in Western societies, for the for large degree, in more industrialized Western societies, that the grip of some of those religious stories has been greatly weakening, you know, in not true all over the world, but certainly true and like in Europe, and, and so forth. And even in the US among, among young, younger people. So some of these stories are not having the same potency that they had before. But but now we're gonna get a whole as you said, a whole onslaught of things, whether it be in advertising or even more, more dangerously, in those parts and those people who use social media to try to change your, your critical beliefs, about about things that really matter. It's one thing to convince you that this is the best bike to buy, you know, Hi, some advertising, you know, it's another thing to convince someone about the reality of some political claim or some or some factual claim, and to do it in a way that that you're completely incapable of, of yourself telling the difference. That is truly alarming. So, yeah, so it's not just a matter of individuals getting better at being able to tell the difference between some someone who's trying to fool him and someone who's giving them a good solid piece of information. It's, again, as I said, the question is going to be to what extent government or society is going to have to try to put some controls over this rampant growth in MIS misinformation that gets more and more sophisticated.

David Ames  35:50  
And again, this is the I don't want to say argument. But the reason why skepticism is necessary. I think skepticism as a word has negative connotations, people think cynicism. And the thing I really related to you, and I think that my listeners will relate to is finding yourself what feels like alone? Why am I the only one who in your words is not susceptible to these these claims like that is the deconstruction deconversion experience, we find ourselves in this hermetically sealed bubble of people saying the same things, reinforcing the same things. We've heard the answers, we understand the answers, but the answers are not satisfying. And the the temptation is to say, maybe there's something wrong with me. And and yet, again, this entire book, and everything you're talking about here is about why skepticism is necessary. And that if the truth matters, you know, we can't we can't make someone value the truth. But if they do value the truth, there has to be some process some way of understanding, again, have good evidence or sufficient evidence, and can therefore be accepted or that need to be discarded.

Thom Krystofiak  37:02  
Yeah, absolutely. It's an interesting process that you and your guests and others go through in terms of that, that we could say, a light a light bulb turning on or something, something inside being activated, to start to wonder about these things. And that that really is the essence, you know, it's like, do we wonder about what's true? I mean, obviously, all scientists have always wondered about what's true. That's that, that sense of, and they do it in a way that is, that is not constrained by necessarily what came before. It's not like, Oh, we've always been told that rocks fall, because it's the nature of things to go towards, you know, the center of the earth. You know, with no idea of gravity, just that it's the nature of things. And someone starts to wonder about that. You just have to wonder, how does, how does this really work? And what's really going on here, that, that light bulb coming on, which doesn't come on for some people? Yeah, it just, it just doesn't, they're, they're happy with, with the world that they're living in, and the beliefs and practices and community that they have, it's working, it's working for them? And it's only when a question comes up internally, to wonder about it and to ask certain questions. And I don't know how that exactly happens. But why it happens for some and not for others. Exactly. Yeah. It may just be that some people are temperamentally more open or ready to ask certain questions than others than others are.

I was on a podcast called Buddha at the Gas Pump, which is a fabulous thing. It's actually it's a friend of my longtime friend of mine, is behind it. He's interviewed like, I don't know, six or 700 people, and they tend to be people from the spiritual world, about all kinds of things. But he, he also had me on, and he was very forthright and discussing the kinds of things that we are. And anyway, as part of that, there was a group that he has, I don't know, maybe 15 People who email around on these questions. And it's fascinating because that group kind of bifurcates and some of them are strongly in the camp of I have had this experience which was so strong, and so opening or was clearly a direct perception of truth. But that's the end of it. That is just the end of it. and it has, there is it's not like they they're incapable of asking questions about all kinds of things, but they're not interested in asking questions about that.

David Ames  40:11  
Right? Protected.

Thom Krystofiak  40:14  
Yeah. And there's a difference between someone who's protected by, by a religious tradition, or the fact that their parents and their schooling and all of the people around them believe it. And it's, it's a whole community thing. And it's just been deeply bred into them. And someone who was absolutely sure, because they had some sort of awakened awakening experience. And, and they don't, and I keep, from now on then trying to get them to think about the idea that it is absolutely true and wonderful that they had this amazing experience. And it had great benefits in their lives, they feel freer, they feel wider, they feel, you know, less anxious, less concern, they feel more connected. These are all great things that anyone would love to have. So there's no question about it happened. You got these fruits. That's wonderful. Yeah. But there's an the tendency to want to claim things about the universe, about the nature of life in general, beyond the experience, and they it's almost always happens, that somewhat someone, even if they have an experiential basis, for some, some wonderful thing, they ended up wanting to make claims about the universe, like everything that consciousness was primary consciousness existed eternally, and it created a matter matter came out of consciousness, sort of like God, sort of like God, God was there eternally. And all this stuff that we see he just created somehow. Similarly with that, so they tend to go in that direction, even though it's that's a claim about things that goes way beyond anything that could ever be established. Right.

David Ames  42:14  
You have some amazing quotes in the book. That's the other thing that I really appreciated about it is like this is well researched. And some of my favorites were from Fineman. The one that I've heard before, but just really struck me was, the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. I feel like that really expresses this. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said it this way to relate to religion to what you just mentioned, that experience can trump evidence as we have to actually work fairly hard to overcome that feeling of experience that we've we've gained some insights about truth beyond just the the warm and fuzzies. And you know, the sense of awe. Last thing I'll say on this is just that it's the human experience to experience all and all as a good thing. It's when we start to attribute unverifiable or unfalsifiable claims based on that experience at all. Yeah, that's

Thom Krystofiak  43:12  
right. I mean, the quantified men, you know that you're the easiest person to fool. Towards ties directly into the opening, you know, the opening aphorism in my book, you know, whether it's better to be fooled many times, yes, than to be a skeptical man. It's all about the fooling. And whether William James, I get into this a bit as well, William James, who explored spirituality and religion and psychic phenomena, as well as being the founder of American psychology. And philosophy really, is quite an amazing man. But, you know, when he wrote the book, or the essay called the will to believe he started it off with a preface, where he was saying, the person who, let's say, is going to be skeptical about about all these things, is, is is demonstrating that he's, he's afraid to be duped, he doesn't want to be duped. And he's saying he's putting that above some of the fruits that he could get, if you would just let it go. You know, this fear of being duped which is exactly, you know, kind of what, five minutes talking about to you know, the first principle is you must not fool yourself. Why not? Why not? is sort of the interesting question. That's the, the ultimate question, really, why not? And, you know, William James, I think he kind of went off the rails as far as I was concerned, because he was saying things like, Well, if you're always going to be skeptical, you're never going to get married. You're never going to take this new job that might have a risk in it. If you're always doubting everything. You're never going to do anything. In your life, and you go, Yeah, that's true. But that's all very pragmatic stuff. That's Those are choices that you make in your life. You know, whether you doubt whether this investment is going to be rewarding or not, is not the kind of doubt we're talking about. It's not the kind of skepticism we're talking about. We're talking about skepticism about claims about reality and how it actually works, not whether this woman is going to turn out to be the perfect wife for me. Right. So you know, so he ended up being really pragmatic when he was talking about doubt and faith and the will to believe, saying, We have to believe stuff. And of course we do. I believe that it's a good thing that I am, you know, this investment I just got in recently. I believe that's all right. I don't know. But I have a strong feeling that it will be a good idea. I don't hold back and go Well, I just don't know. I just don't know. So we're not talking to some kind of debilitating, absolute skepticism or doubt about everything.

David Ames  46:03  
Right. I'm talking about solipsism. Yeah, exactly. Yeah,

Thom Krystofiak  46:08  
we're only talking about when people make substantive claims about how things are, then make a difference that make a difference to the rest of her life goes. You know, that's where you might want to have some questions. Yeah.

David Ames  46:27  
I wanted to circle back really quick to how some people who who make off grade claims say that they have evidence in my world, in my listeners world, that tends to be apologists. And there's a whole field of evidential apologetics that suggests that there is all of this evidence. And it's clear that it's basically, you know, circumstantial, hearsay, and embellished legend with kind of an objective point of view, when you're talking to that person, they are 100% convinced that they have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, let's say, you know, there are historical record and, and so one of the, again, one of the experiences of, of deconstruction, deconversion, is when you begin to recognize, I no longer find that, that evidence such as this convincing, that isn't sufficient to the magnitude of the claim, I just want to like, talk about a bit more about the challenge of coping with people who are claiming they have evidence, but that evidence isn't sufficient for the claim.

Thom Krystofiak  47:34  
Yeah. It's a matter of how much yeah, how much leeway you give this the sources of authority in your life. And how much leeway you give to the stories and, and the types of evidence, you know, generally, people who are believing in these, a lot of religious things and other off off grid claims, will give a great deal of leeway, you know, they will give the kind of spaciousness that they would never give, let's say in a court of law, or in some actual proceeding in their own practical life, where they're trying to nail down what really happened or what really is the truth. You know, I mean, Thomas Paine had that story, you know, that. If, if anybody were to come before a magistrate, with the four gospels accounts, which, about the resurrection, which have completely different details, and to some extent, contradictory details about precisely what happened when and who did what, you know, what is this? I mean, you can't possibly accept it, you go. There's something funny going on here. This isn't this isn't this isn't anything like an objective? evidential account? So? So yeah, it's, it's something some term that I use somewhere in the book was some people have granted either themselves or others the license to make things up. You know, you allow things to be declared and accepted as truth. Because of what they the fruits that they give you. And you give a lot of license to the quality of the evidence. Yeah, I've, I've certainly, I, you know, I always like to look at things like, Oh, someone and apologists trying to present the strongest proofs for God or something or for the resurrection. I always think they're going to come up with something really cool, you know, here that I can sink my teeth into. And I'm always I'm always dissatisfied, but I I have there something in me that wants us to, it's not like I want to believe in that sense. It's not like, Please convince me but, but I would, I love to I would love to be blown away. weigh, but the strength of evidence or the strength of an argument. You know, my wife always jokes with me. I don't happen to believe in UFOs, even though that's not that could be a physical reality. I mean, it could be, but I don't think we've got the evidence. I personally don't think we've got the evidence right now. And, but, but she knows that I would love to have a UFO land on my lawn? I would, I would love it. It's not like, no, no, no, I don't want to believe in that stuff. Right. I'd be happy to believe in it. Yeah, if there was good evidence. And so it's not that some people have a desire for belief or to believe certain things, and others don't. I have. I have I don't know about desire, I kind of have a desire to be to be confronted with a, an alien on a UFO. I mean, why not great, or, or a ghost or something? I mean, I don't believe in any of these things. But how cool would that be? Yeah, if it was really something I could sink my teeth into?

David Ames  51:11  
Yeah, a few things about that. Like, I avoid talking to apologists, but when I do I point out that if you really could prove the point you're trying to make you can win a Nobel Prize, right? Like, you know, you discover alien intelligence, you know, you are a million dollar winner. They're like that, you know, all you have to do is have the evidence to back it up. And so I would love to see that kind of evidence for for something that was an amazing claim like that.

Thom Krystofiak  51:37  
Yeah, I mean, you know, there's this guy, what's his name? Greer, the Disclosure Project? You know, that's an example of someone who has assembled huge amounts of military guys or intelligence guys are this that the other thing and all kinds of other fairly obscure evidence, but mounds of it, that it's totally convincing to large numbers of people? It's like this is it. This is evidence this is this is it? Yeah. But as you say, the truly convincing evidence is never forthcoming. Yeah. It's just not.

David Ames  52:22  
You talk about a number of scientists that have, you know, a sense of wonder about the universe. And the immediate person who comes to mind to me is Carl Sagan. And his candle in the dark book, I think, really touches on this, you know, he tells the story of being a young boy, and just really being fascinated with UFOs and extraterrestrials and but his scientific nature took over and even though he would love to be able to have said, there are in fact, extraterrestrials, you know, he could not find the evidence to do so. And what I appreciated about Carl Sagan and I often say like, I'm a more of a Sega nite, atheist than a Dawkins, I guess, in the sense that I have this wonder at the cosmos, this wonder at the universe, and that, and he expressed that so so well, contrast that a bit with you also have a chapter where you talk about people who become dissatisfied, or with the scientific view of the world, and, and basically make a conscious choice to go from a more scientific view of the world to an off grid view of the world.

Thom Krystofiak  53:34  
Yeah, no, that's great. I mean, the example of Sagan who is so great, someone who, as you said, was entranced with with some of these greater possibilities, like aliens and, and so forth, but couldn't go there unless the evidence allowed him you know, he was one of the strong guys involved with SETI, you know, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. And, but if the evidence wasn't there, he couldn't do it. And yeah, I mean, people who get, I mean, one example in the book was, this was a long time ago, but the former president of Columbia, who just came out with this remarkable statement that that where science was going meaning mostly Darwinian theory at that time, was undermining some of his beliefs in the divine origin and so forth of everything. And he just came right out and said that I would, I would rather rest in my satisfying even if they'd be deceitful dreams. Science is is not going to do it for me. And that that's an interesting problem. You know, people will, will wonder whether a view that is based on reason and science Ansan looking for evidence, therefore necessarily putting aside a lot of the things that humanity has taken sustenance for, spiritually for, for millennia, what exactly that's going to do like, some people like Sagan are going to be a brilliant and full of awe and wonder and great people, no matter what other people, if you totally remove these sustaining beliefs that they have, or if somehow they they get weakened, or lost in them. We don't really know what what what that's going, what that's going to do. And so some people do question certainly question whether science, a scientific view, has enough stuff to offer the human psyche. Yeah, those who are enamored by the wonder of the universe and of life and, and evolution and, and at every scale, it's just so remarkable from the, from the farthest reaches of the cosmos down to the tiniest bits of matter, you know, it's all uniformly amazing and wonderful, and those who are susceptible to that kind of joy or or interest are well rewarded by that kind of interest. Some people are not character are not temperamentally or characteristically as susceptible or open to those kinds of joys and those kinds of rewards. And so this is, this is an interesting question that I don't have a solid answer to, you know, those who either tired of science or are not susceptible to the charms of science, whether they just need something else. And so the people I talked about in the book, one was the guy who's known as rom das now, who was Richard Alpert. He was a psychologist at Harvard, with Timothy Leary. And they both did LSD experiments at Harvard, and got thrown out for that reason. And Alpert, when he went to his, his, his dismissal meeting, or his review, or whatever, said, I'm not a scientist anymore. I'm giving up my badge. You know, I'd rather I want to, I'd rather go to India, which he did. Where, where there are these miracles being talked about? And I'd rather believe these miracles, then be a scientist and study, you know, bring out the data anymore. And, you know, there are people with that kind of orientation, that, that they they'd rather have, sort of an extreme example of, of what Barnard Columbia said, where he'd be happy in his deceitful dreams, if they were, if they could sustain him. You know, deceit is as far as being full deceit was not necessarily a problem for some people, if they get the fruits and this is, this is a whole other area of challenge. I mean, I think, I think there's probably, I don't know, what percentage of the people on this planet are, are enthused could be enthused by, and nourished by and by the joys of, of scientific knowledge or true revelation based on evidence about the way this amazing world actually works in our lives and our bodies in the universe. versus those who are, are a little bit cool on that, or cold on that. And once something else, once once some other they want the miracles they want. They want some stories, they want some, some rich, you know, mythology, that's, you know, another person I talked about in the book was Elizabeth Gilbert, who wrote, Eat, Pray, Love, that great best seller. And at one point in her life, she says, I'm tired of science, I'm tired of skepticism. I want to feel God in my playing in my bloodstream. And that's exactly what we're talking about here. That especially if she was depressed, your marriage broke, fell apart, whatever she was in a state of pain, and she's going I want the pain to go away. Yeah, I want something that will help get this make the pain go away and replace it with something else. And, you know, science won't necessarily always be able to step in when you have certain kinds of emotional and psychological pain. I mean, forget about pharmaceuticals or whatever. But I mean, in terms of scientific knowledge isn't going to unnecessarily come in and infuse you with all this joy, if you are truly in a needy, needy state emotionally, psychologically, so these are some of the other challenges to this whole.

David Ames  1:00:13  
Yeah, for sure. And I agree with you that I think their new atheist perspective of the end of religion is ridiculous, that's never going to happen. I also found it interesting reading philosophical history that this question has been asked over and over again, what happens if we take the gods away? What, you know, what happens to society, you know, and the attempt to create civil religions and that kind of thing, the way that I, we try to approach it here is to say, you know, that, I think my conjecture is that our relationships with other human beings, is the point is the meaning in life, as it were, not that that the universe has meaning, but that, that we create that between us and that trying to provide some level of community for people to have had a soft place to land as they let go of some of these off grid claims. That's kind of what we're trying to accomplish here.

Thom Krystofiak  1:01:03  
Absolutely. You know, and something I mentioned that people are probably aware of that. There's an interesting example of Scandinavia, which is the least religious least conventionally religious part of Europe, perhaps the world. They have really stepped away from there. They were, of course, Christian, primarily Christian, Jewish, whatever, but primarily Christian in the earlier times. And that has dropped away in Scandinavia to a degree that hasn't been seen in virtually any other society. And if you look at, there are studies that are done of the happiest cultures on Earth, the happiest countries, the the healthiest countries, meaning not just you know, their physical health, but their overall well being. Scandinavian countries are almost always at the top of those of those of those studies. And so, that to me, is now granted, people will say, Yeah, but you know, they're building on this history of Judeo Christian stuff of values. And, and sure they are, but so are all of us. I mean, we're all in Western societies, we're all in mashed in a society that has a lot of roots that way, and we're familiar with all that. And various stories that still resonate with us, you know, the story of the Good Samaritan, or whatever, that's a universal story that is just incredibly moving on an empathetic level. It's not, it's got nothing to do with, who is the god? Or what kind of God is it? Or what's what sort of deal does he have? It's just, here's a human being, how do you treat them, and, you know, but we're all enmeshed in these moral exemplars, whether it be from religious stories, whether it be from other stories, historical stories, you know, we all have plenty of stories, and plenty of examples, even just movies, books, whatever, where there's good people, and that resonates with us, or we know people, you know, we people in our own lives, who were just so touching that they were so loving, or caring or connected, and that resonates with us. And we resonate to with other people's needs and suffering. And so we have that basis. And so in Scandinavia, sure, you can say, yeah, they had Judeo Christian background, well, sure, we've all got all kinds of backgrounds, but what they've managed to do is take the fruits of those some of those stories or feelings and, and myths or whatever, and they're just in the background, they're part of their ethical life, probably. And they move forward without necessarily subscribing to these more outlandish or extraordinary claims about the universe. Without without the gods really without, so the question of what's going to happen without the gods, we don't know if it would always be like Scandinavia, but but Scandinavia being the premier example in the world. Right now. Is, is encouraging. It's encouraging.

David Ames  1:04:23  
And just to wrap this up, one of my favorite definitions of religion is from Anthony Penn. And it doesn't require supernatural claims. It is the collective search for meaning. And so a sense of we are a community and we support each other and we care about each other and we are even pushing each other to good works as it were, you know, like it all of that is good. And it's only when we start to make, in your words, you know, claims about how the universe works, where the story becomes literal in some way. That that's the problem.

Thom Krystofiak  1:04:57  
Yeah. When things sort of solidify I and solidify that way into discrete doctrinal claims, whatever, obviously one of the side effects of that throughout history has been wars fought over these doctrinal differences. I mean, you know, the idea that you have to take these wonderful aspects of human life and, and, and define them and say you must subscribe, or if you don't subscribe any longer, we're going to shun you, you know, these kinds of prac. This kind of adherence to the specificities of these discrete claims, has obviously been harmful in a whole bunch of ways. And if if it were possible to, to have religion in the sense of you just described it, which I think to some extent is what's going on and a lot of Scandinavia and elsewhere, is it would be, I think it would be a wonderful thing, it would be a win win, yeah.

David Ames  1:06:00  
So heading towards wrap up here, you start the book with a couple of questions. Is it better to be fooled many times than to be skeptical? And are you missing something? We'll end with the beginning a bit here. But like how you resolve that for yourself, personally? How do you answer those questions? And again, I appreciate that's the entire book, people will go and buy the book.

Thom Krystofiak  1:06:22  
Well, you know, the book is really a journey that's rather than the book being, I ask a question at the beginning, and then I answer it for the next 300 pitches, you know, it's more, let's, let's look into this. And so it's looking at it from this angle, from this angle from this aspect of history and this aspect of philosophy, this aspect of religion, this aspect of science, it's just looking at it from different facets and illuminating different ways of, of exploring the question. So it's in the book is an exploration rather than a declaration of my of my answer, but but in the last chapter, I think I say So after all that, yeah. Is it better to be fooled? And I admit that it is. It is, for me better to be fooled in certain circumstances. And I talk about that a lot. We don't need to get into it much. But I talked about that, that if if if I was in some horrific situation in the morphine had run out, and they could give me a saline solution, which has been proven to work as a placebo after you've gotten some morphine for a while, and then they give you saline for a while, and it works just about as well as the morphine because the body has that incredible response. Please fool me. Yeah, don't tell me. Sorry, Bob, the morphine is gone. Yeah. You know, I mean, fool me. But I go to some lengths to try to explain why that, to me is an acceptable kind of fooling. And the basic reason is that morphine is real. It's a real thing. It's not like an angel that they're telling me about, which I don't believe in, it's morphine. And that's real. And they're saying, this is morphine, they're fooling me about a specific fact, but not about the fact that morphine works, which is what's working in my brain. So there are ways that I'll be happy to be fooled, but they're more like that. They're more like these technicalities. No, I don't, I don't believe for me. And this is where it comes down to something, David, it's like, who are you? Are you a person who cares about the truth? Who cares to really feel grounded? In what am I doing here? In this world? Who What am I? What is all this? If those are questions that matter to you, then then being fooled about those things is completely off the table. It's completely unacceptable if that's, if that's a high priority for you to feel that here I am in these in these small number of decades on this planet? And do I is it important to me that I make my best efforts to really understand what is true, what is going on what this is, what life is, what all of this is how should I live my life, all of these things? If that's a critical priority, which it is for me, then the idea of being fooled about those fundamentals is completely a non starter. It's just and I you know, I understand that some people in my mind might be fooled about those things, or feeling great about it. Yeah, I'm not trying to take that away from them. I'm not pontificate. I don't go after my friends who are believers and just, you know, assault them with my skepticism. But, but, but for me, for anyone who is has that kind of orientation towards towards a grounding in reality, or grounding and truth, the kind that we're talking about, it's just not it's just not a possibility. And the second question, Am I missing Something I'm not missing something that I that I haven't clearly missing something that they have, you know, they've got some stuff that I don't know. But I mean, that's true all of us have people have stuff that you don't have one way or another. But the question is whether you would really want want that. And no, I'm not missing something that at this point in my life, I wish I had, I wish I had faith or I wish I could believe these claims that I can't find evidence for. Because they'll do something for me. I can't put those two together with the desire to be grounded in truth.

David Ames  1:10:38  
The book is tempted to believe I want to give you just a second to be able to promote that how can people find the book and any anything else that you'd like to promote?

Thom Krystofiak  1:10:46  
Okay, thanks. The book is just simply available on Amazon, both in terms of print, print, book and Kindle. So it's just Amazon, you can just say tempted to believe they will, unfortunately, Amazon always keeps older editions around once they've been published. And I did a preliminary version, mostly because I wanted to have some readers have a book in their hand, as I was finalizing it. Okay, so there was a preliminary version, which is still out there. This is this is the one with the dynamic blue cover with an incredible picture on it. It's not, it's not the one that with text only. And it's the one with, you know, all the reviews and so forth. So it's pretty obvious, tempted to believe on Amazon. And, you know, not necessarily terribly germane to the things we've been discussing here today, but some of my shorter writing over the years on a variety of topics. And other things is in my website, which is simply my last name, which is Krystofiak, which I will spell. It's, it's K, R, Y, S, T O, F, as in Frank, I A K. That's krystofiak.com. And then there's some things there that also talks about the book.

David Ames  1:12:03  
Fantastic. And we will have those in the show notes. And I will try not to murder your last name again. Thom, thank you so much for being on the podcast. Oh,

Thom Krystofiak  1:12:12  
it's been a great trip. Thank you.

David Ames  1:12:20  
Final thoughts on the episode? I love this book. I loved this conversation with Thom, this is so important topic. Skepticism is it's it touches every area of our lives from the onslaught of advertising that we face every day to the misinformation and disinformation that political entities put out to apologetics. And this comes from all corners. It is not just Christian apologetics that I'm talking about. Thom comes from the Transcendental Meditation perspective, and having new age friends who are making in his words off grid claims. And I identified so much with the I feel impervious to these claims. Why is that? What is there something different about me. And so it's Thom's humility that comes through in the book in the conversation that is so profound. When you hear the word skepticism, the first thing that might leap to mind is really argumentative debate style cynics. And it is actually the exact opposite is humility, of recognizing the human condition and our susceptibility to believing things that we want to believe that we want to be true. And believing things that fit within our in group. And skepticism is actually from humility of recognizing I could be wrong. Therefore, I need some evidence to know whether this thing is true or not. The other thing that I think Thom does really well in the book, I'm not sure we completely got to it in the conversation is acknowledging the reality of the experience. These literally all inspiring experiences. Create in us a sense of having touch to the Divine, having touched the transcendent, having gained secret knowledge. When you have the experience, you can't help but make those connections. And part of skepticism is recognizing that it is our ability to fool ourselves as the Fineman quote says that is the problem. And so we are protecting ourselves by looking for objective evidence. But it is the empathy for the human condition that Thom has in the book that really speaks to secular grace, secular grace for our son elves when we believe things that don't have evidence and secular grace for those people, we'd love to believe things without evidence. The book is tempted to believe by Thom Krystofiak is amazing, you need to get this book you need to read it. It is one of those things that I'm telling you, we'll help you through deconstruction and deconversion. We will, of course have links in the show notes, as well as the link to Thom's personal sites. I want to thank Thom for being on the podcast and even more so for the book. I said to him Off mic that This truly was the book that I wish I had had when I was going through my deconversion. So thank you, Thom, for writing such an empathetic, humble and true book. The secular Grace Thought of the Week is about humility, about our own ability to fool ourselves. The Fineman quote is, the first principle is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. If you really absorb that, if you really feel that viscerally. And for those of us who have gone through deconstruction and deconversion that should feel pretty real and present in our lives, you can begin to recognize when you are fooling yourself in lots of different contexts. I'd love a quote from Alice Gretchen when she was on, she said that she stopped being good at fooling herself. And I feel the same way. And if you are like me, and you find yourself skeptical, and you're like Thom and unable to accept claims without evidence, that is okay. It's actually a good thing. And it will protect you from, as we've already said, advertising, politics, disinformation, as well as religion, or supernatural claims. But it ultimately begins with, I could be wrong. And really knowing that and feeling that. So the skepticism that Thom is talking about, the skepticism that I'm talking about is less about saying where someone else is wrong, and more about recognizing where we have been mistaken. We have lots of great interviews coming up. We have got Julia from Germany, who is a doctor and at one point in time in her life, given up her medical career to participate in a healing ministry. And her deconstruction is just powerful and deep. We have Jessica Moore, who is a part of the deconversion anonymous Facebook group, and is now dealing with purity culture, and surviving the aftermath of purity culture, as well as a number of other interviews that are coming up that are gonna be fantastic. Until then, my name is David, and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Join me and be graceful.

Time for the footnotes. The beat is called waves for MCI beats, links will be in the show notes. If you'd like to support the podcast, you can promote it on your social media. You can subscribe to it in your favorite podcast application, and you can rate and review it on pod chaser.com. You can also support the podcast by clicking on the affiliate links or books on Bristol atheists.com. If you have podcast production experience and you would like to participate podcast, please get in touch with me. Have you gone through a faith transition? And do you need to tell your story? Reach out? If you are a creator, or work in the deconstruction deconversion or secular humanism spaces and would like to be on the podcast? Just ask. If you'd like to financially support the podcast there's links in the show notes. To find me you can google graceful atheist. You can google deconversion you can google secular grace, you can send me an email graceful atheist@gmail.com or you can check out the website graceful atheists.com My name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist join me and be graceful human beings

this has been the graceful atheist podcast

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Robert Peoples: Affinis Humanity

Atheism, Deconversion, Humanism, Philosophy, Podcast, Secular Grace
Click to play episode on anchor.fm
Listen on Apple Podcasts

I believe in you.
I believe in people.
I believe in change, and if any change is going to happen,
we have to do it.
There is no savior coming to save us
that responsibility is ours.

This week’s guest is Robert Peoples of Affinis Humanity. Robert grew up in a Black Baptist church in New Jersey. When he was young, he enjoyed church but was an inquisitive child with many questions and no satisfying answers. As a teenager, Robert looked for answers outside the church—from Thomas Paine to Allah to the Buddha. 

“When I read The Age of Reason, that set my trajectory on a whole different path.”

By 18 years old, Robert could no longer believe in anything supernatural. His understanding of the world came from philosophy, history and science. This was incredibly difficult for his family, but they continued to faithfully love and support him.

“[My mom] said, ‘Why don’t you believe in something?…’ I said, ‘I can’t…this is based on critical thinking.’”

One frustration Robert has with the Black church community is that it works to change unjust systems but then uses phrases like, “We couldn’t have done this without God.”

“It makes us co-dependent on…benevolent white leaders in power, for God to somehow change their hearts and change their minds.”

In recent years, Robert has been working with a political non-profit to ensure the “separation of state and church” and to change unjust policies. Human suffering is caused less by individuals “in need of heart change,” and more by systemic racism, homophobia, classism and other inequities.

“You can’t think transcendental thoughts. You can’t think about leaving religion…when you can’t eat, when you’re about to evicted…when you have no support.”

In the midst of all the work to be done, Robert is hopeful. He is effecting change in the world and reminding others that “to be human is enough.” He stands in awe of the beauty of nature, his daughters and this short life. His story is one of world-changing secular grace. 

“The Book of Life opens up each and every time I wake up in the morning. I write my own book.”

[Humanism] has increased my love for humanity exponentially.
I no longer love people with conditions.

Links

Affinis Humanity
https://www.affinishumanity.org/

Secular Coalition for Arizona
https://secularaz.org/

Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/affinishumanity/

TikTok
https://www.tiktok.com/@affinis_humanity

Twitter
https://twitter.com/AffinisHumanity

Interact

For a Secular Grace holiday weekend
Jennifer Michael Hecht: Doubt A History
Dr. Anthony Pinn: Humanism and Race
Sasha Sagan: For Small Creatures Such As We

Join the Deconversion Anonymous Facebook group!

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Podchaser - Graceful Atheist Podcast

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

Transcript

NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.

David Ames  0:11  
This is the graceful atheist podcast. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast. My name is David, and I am trying to be a graceful atheist. Please consider rating and reviewing the podcast on the Apple podcast store, rate the podcast on Spotify, and subscribe to the podcast wherever you are listening. Do to poor planning on my part and not at all related to the Christian holiday next weekend, we will not have a new episode. I had an interview that fell through and I did not have a buffer. The team was fully ready to produce another podcast and yet I didn't have an interview ready to go. So for next weekend, which does happen to be Easter. I have a few recommendations for you one, after you've listened to this episode, Robert Peoples of Affinis Humanity. Listen to it again. Robert is absolutely amazing. I'm also going to recommend three episodes that capture a lot of what you hear in Robert story today about humanism that is alive and proactively loving. The first is Jennifer Michael Hecht from way back in 2019. She wrote the book doubt a history. I have quoted that 1000 times it's an amazing conversation, and she is absolutely amazing. Next up is Anthony pin of Rice University. Robert and I talk about Anthony in this episode that I believe is back in 2020. Anthony has written a number of books on humanism, as well as the perspective from the black community, a really significant voice within humanism. So go back and check out that episode. And finally Sasha Siggins episode where she talks about her book, small creatures such as we, these three and Roberts episodes today that you're listening to represent secular grace and the kind of humanism that I am trying to espouse. So during your Easter weekend, jump back into the back catalogue and hear some great interviews from the past. Special thanks to Mike T for editing today's episode. onto today's episode. My guest today is Robert Peoples. Robert is the founder of affinest humanity which is an organization that is trying to promote secularism in Arizona. Their motto affinis is Latin for affinity a natural attraction to a person, thing or idea. Our mission is to alleviate religious discrimination for secular communities in education, business and government. Robert also participates with the Secular Coalition for Arizona. They recently had secular day Arizona, where they spoke and talk with legislative leaders in Arizona about secularism and the need for secularism. We discuss secularism as pluralism, the needs to recognize that even for believers, separation of church and state is good for the church as well as the state. Robert represents secular grace in so many ways, he is a humanist who is focused on loving people caring for people for representing a proactive love. And Roberts motto for finesse humanity is to be human is enough. I cannot tell you how deeply impacted I am by that simple phrase. I will be meditating on that for years to come. Robert is a quote machine. I will try to capture a handful of those quotes in the extended show notes on the blog. Listen carefully to what he has to say Robert is an amazing person. Here is Robert peoples to tell his story.

Robert Peoples Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast.

Robert Peoples  4:20  
Thank you. I appreciate being here. Thank you. Thank you for reaching out.

David Ames  4:24  
So Robert, you are the leader of an organization called Affinis Humanity whose mission statement is to alleviate religious discrimination for secular communities and education, business and government. I understand you've just participated in the secular Day at the Capitol and Arizona. Is that correct? That is correct. Yeah. And so I'm really excited to hear about your work and in the secular community. I tell you what, man, your tagline. To be human is enough. Just gets me. That is you have spoken to me This atheist soul I can tell you with with that, with that statement, this podcast, we talk about secular Grace a lot. And I think that you and your work embodies that. And as I mentioned off, Mike, you have made me a fan of yours. So I'm just really excited to have you on.

Robert Peoples  5:16  
I'm honored, I'm honored. Thank you for that.

David Ames  5:19  
So we're going to spend the first half talking about your personal story. And then probably the second half, we'll we'll get into all the things that you're doing with your work in the secular community. Let's start where we often do, what was your faith tradition growing up? What was that like for you?

Robert Peoples  5:34  
Ah, so I grew up. I'm originally from New Jersey, currently reside in Arizona right now. And I grew up in a Baptist household, I grew up in a Baptist church. Actually, it was called union Baptists. I can't even I can't believe I still remember the name of the church. And, you know, and unlike some other unlike a lot of other people that have experienced, you know, the RTS, the religious trauma syndrome connected with religion, I did not, I liked going to church. I liked the people, I like my friends. And I even sung in the choir. And however, I always had a lot of questions. I was always very inquisitive about things. And a lot of those questions couldn't be answered sufficiently. And when I was about about 13 years old, I started having a lot of questions. And my mother was saying, you know, you need to talk to the pastor, you need to talk to the deacon about this. And I said, I did, but it just doesn't sound right. It doesn't feel right, I need to do a little bit more digging. So my cousin, my first cousin, he said, You know what, Robert? I'm gonna give you a book, man. I want you to read the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Oh, wow, I was 13. When I wrote. I was 13. Right? My mother always instilled reading in me at a very early age. You know, she and so I was very thankful for that. And you know, in a classroom, she didn't want me to be the kind of kid where the teacher called on you to read a paragraph, I would shy away from it. So she really instilled heavy reading in me at an early age. And I have to tell you, David, when I read the age of reason, that set my trajectory on a whole different path. And so from there, I told my mother, you know, I want to study Islam for a little bit. She said, Okay. Well, I work with some doctors, and there is a mosque in Princeton University. And so if you want to learn Islam, you're going to learn true Islam, you're going to learn how to speak Arabic and the whole nine, and so I was doing a lot. And an Arabic went to the mosque for about two years. And I said to myself, Okay, I get it. Now, I want to learn Buddhism. She knew a doctor that went, there was a Buddhist, a couple, and there was a Buddhist temple in Princeton University. So I study Buddhism for a couple years. And so about that time, I was about 1718 years old, and I said, you know, I have a pretty good foundation of what all of these belief systems are, you know, not so much Buddhism, because actually, Buddhism is actually atheistic in nature, right. It doesn't have a central godhead, you know. There's a saying that goes, if you ever see the Buddha on the side of the road, kill it. Because that's not the Buddha. Right? You are. Right. Okay. Yeah. And about 1718 years old, I said, Okay. I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist. And my mother had a hard time with that. The rest of my family had a hard time with that. But I did not face any. I was not ostracized I was not treated any differently. So I don't have any you know, horror stories regarding that. She said, Why don't you believe in something even if I want you to be a Christian, but even if, if you stayed a Muslim, right, just just just believe in something? And then I said, I, I can't because this is based on critical thinking. It's not based on emotion. No one in the church hurt me. The pastor didn't hurt me. People weren't mean to me. This was based on critical thinking this was based on just academic research, history, science. And, you know, I made that declaration. And so I got out very early. You know, it wasn't I wasn't like in my, you know, because I'm, you know, I'm in my late 40s Now, and so I wasn't in my 30s These are 40s When I decided to deconstruct, I started deconstructing in my teens. So good for me, right? Because I didn't have to wrestle, you know, with the psychological trauma of that. And so yeah, that's that's how I was raised up, man, I was raised up as a as a hardcore Baptist. And, you know, my mother is still a Christian to this day, but her eyes have opened up to a lot of different issues that we've talked about throughout the years. And so yeah, you know, that's kind of like my journey started out early man.

David Ames  10:35  
Yeah, that's awesome.

I always say that I think for precocious kids, somebody who can read the Age of Reason 13 is Christianity and just, you know, more fundamentalist religion in general is just a really hard place to be, you know, especially you're asking questions to the deacon, and you're just not getting the answers that you want. And so, man, proud of you to, you know, grow through that and not and not fold under the pressure. What I find now on this side of deconversion, is the recognition of just the social pressure of religion, even like your mom saying, just believe in something. There's that social pressure of that concern, that you believe in something?

Robert Peoples  11:29  
Absolutely. And I didn't tell you during my teenage years, I was also reading Nietzsche. You know, Ludwig Feuerbach, serene Kierkegaard Oh, I was heavy into, I went down to philosophy matrix. And so, you know, I just wrestled with a lot of things very, very early. And then I would say to anyone, you know, that is deconstructing to start implementing philosophy in your life, because it teaches you how to think not what to think. Yeah, you know, and that really helped me out, David,

David Ames  12:06  
that's awesome. You have a, it's either Instagram or tick tock, where you talk about the reverse engineering of theology by using the tool of philosophy, just like you say, how it teaches teaches you how to think, absolutely, oh, that is so much fun, I'm super jealous, I didn't come to philosophy until much later in life. And I really, really wish I would have been exposed to it earlier.

Robert Peoples  12:31  
Hey, but better, but a better, you know, mean, better to grasp it, you know, now than later, you know, it's, it's something and I blame our, our educational system for that, you know, because in a lot of, you know, European schools, you know, they're teaching philosophy and grade school, and here in America, and we're not introduced into philosophy, and so we want to take it almost as an elective in college, they don't teach that in high school in this kind of America, you know, so, you know, so a lot of us just missed the boat with that, you know, if you don't seek it out, you're not going to learn it.

David Ames  13:08  
And then just one more comment about your story, I think, how important it is the step back, and the look at comparative religions. So you did it the real way you went and actually studied each of those religions, but even just taking a class, just to be able to recognize the similarities and differences. There are cultural differences, you know, radical cultural differences, but there are so many similarities as well, that it is incredibly difficult when you look at it as a whole, all of humanity and all of the religious beliefs that humanity has added over time to say, Well, mine is correct. And all the rest of them are incorrect.

Robert Peoples  13:46  
Absolutely. And, you know, and what comparative religions, the, you know, the lesson programs teaches us as well as that, you know, we are kind of restricted in this box of geography. You know, if I grew up in Iran, if I grew up in Iraq, I'd probably be a Muslim. Yeah, right. If I fought, you know, if I grew up, you know, in China, you know, China's predominantly an atheistic country. Right, I would have been born an atheist, right, my parents would probably be secular, inherently. Right. So basically, our belief systems are based on our geography. Really? Yeah. Yeah. You know, comparative religions teaches you that like, Okay, over here, over there, and it's like, Oh, okay. So it's just by happenstance that I was a Christian in my early years, based on you know, and also based on the fact that, you know, 80% of African Americans in America are Christian of some sort. Yeah. So that, you know, that leads to, you know, a whole other history, you know, dealing with the Atlantic slave trade and all that, you know, so there's like a lot of rich history. that so?

David Ames  15:08  
Let's address that, you know, so I've heard other black atheists talk about being a minority of a minority, you know, how difficult is it to be a black atheist, you know, within your own community within the atheist community? You know, are there extra challenges, there

Robert Peoples  15:27  
are huge challenges. I could say, emphatically that coming out to one's family in the black community, as gay is better than to come out that you're an atheist. Homosexuality is more embraced, than you coming out saying that you don't believe in a God in the black community. It is it is hard. You know, you know, years ago, even you know, when I was dating, I would have women say to me, you know, you're a great guy, you know, you're a great guy, but I'm just I'm looking for God fearing man. You know, you know, but good luck, you know, good luck on your dating journey. And, and I'm like, wow. So it doesn't matter how someone treats you doesn't matter how a man treats you, you know, you're more consumed with his theological background with his belief system, than just treating you like, a great human being. You know, that's, that's unfortunate. I've lost friends, friends that I've because I shoot poor, like, I love shooting pool. And, you know, you know, friends that I've met just at the pool hall. And you know, we talk about a lot of things. And one person in particular, I knew for two years, and all of a sudden, religion came up. And I said, Oh, yeah, I'm not religious. He was like, Oh, so you're just, you're just spiritual. Now, it's more than that. It's a little more than that. I'm an atheist, you know, I'm an atheist, and, and, and I'm a humanist, as well. And he said, What, well, how do you? How do you think you got here? I said, evolution. And slowly but surely, he distanced himself from me. And that happened several times. years, just, you know, just being friends. You know, and that one thing, one thing, it just, you know, had me shunned. You know, and, you know, that was, that was difficult, you know, but I gained so many more friends, so many more like minded individuals, you know, and so, it made up for that, but, yes, being a unicorn, yes, being, you know, a black male who's an atheist who was also a feminist who was also for human rights. Yeah. I am in like, the fraction of a percent in this country, you know, and so, yeah, it's, it's, it's difficult, you know, and I'm gonna just say this. By mine, by me being an atheist, by me being a humanist. For what it's worth, I've been embraced more David, by the white American community, then I have my own because of this, and, and I don't say that lightly. I, that took a lot for me to just say that. That took a lot for me to say that and, but it's true, but But now, especially being on social media now, especially Instagram, more and more black people, more and more people of color in general are coming forward and expressing their ordeals with societal religiosity, and it's given me hope, you know, it's really given me hope and so yeah, it's it's difficult, you know? It's very difficult. But But now, it's, I'm okay. You know, I'm okay. I'm okay with it because I have a huge support base. And I have people that love me, and I, I wouldn't change my decision for the world

David Ames  19:56  
you have, you know, mentioned a few times I think in Instagram and tick tock to normalize black atheism and, and I think you and your voice, you know, it's more than just atheism, it's the humanism in it, it's the humanity, it's a loving people part that I think is what will reach religious communities, right? Like, that's what's gonna reach in and say, Hey, there's a way that you can live and be kind to person without having to have a religious faith.

Robert Peoples  20:25  
And I definitely agree with that. That's why a lot of times when I, when I have conversations with people and people question, you know, my belief system, or even lack thereof, I always start out, I used to always start out with the whole, you know, atheist conjecture. But over the course of a few years, I lead off with humanism, because I, basically, I, I live my life, you know, I identify by what I do believe in, versus what I don't believe in. And I think, like you said, that opens up ears a little bit more when I say I believe in you. I believe in people. Right? I believe in change. And if any change is going to happen, we have to do it, there is no savior coming to save us, that responsibility is ours. And people tend to perk up their ears just a little bit more. When when when they hear that because let's be honest, you know, all atheists aren't humanists. Right? Right. You can't write you can't you can't be a racist and be a humanist. I know, I know, atheists that are races, right, you can't be a humanist, and be homophobic. I do know atheists that are homophobic. Right? And so, you know, so the two aren't, you know, mutually exclusive, you know what I'm saying? And so, I like to lead with humanism, because that kind of lays the foundation, when I have a conversation with individuals.

David Ames  22:03  
Awesome. Let's expand on that, how did you discover humanism? Who are some of your humanist influences?

Robert Peoples  22:12  
Oh, well see, I know, you know, I know a lot of people have, have issues with, with Nietzsche, you know, in his, you know, Neo holistic, you know, views on on life, you know, it could be a little dark. But for me, he was the ultimate humanist for me. He critiqued religion so much, but it wasn't just out of just critiquing it, just to create arguments. He cared about how it affected people. And I was put on to him by my cousin, who also put me on to Thomas Paine. And but for more kind of modern, I guess you could say, mentor that who I never met. Oh, hitch, Christopher hitscan. See, oh, man, for me, he was the epitome of of humanism, or if it was anyone that I could, that I could have met, you know, before his departure on this Earth, it would have been all hitch, you know, he and I, and I liked his, his his veracity, you know, he didn't mince words. And I think one of the reasons why, you know, humanism and secularism has not really created a foothold in the government and businesses in education is because we're still, we're still dancing around eggshells, because we don't want to offend the sensibilities of religious, right, we still kind of want to give this kind of soft answer. And, you know, you can't go for the jugular vein all the time, right, but you have to stand your ground, right? It's like something what Malcolm X once said, he says, I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong than one who comes like an angel and is nothing but a devil. Right? I don't care if I think that you're wrong or right. But stand on something. Right, make a decision make an executive decision. And I loved hitch for that hitch did not care and especially in this era of evangelicalism, this Christian nationalism that is basically warped into fascism. They're bold, they are bold. I mean, you we have legislators that are saying, hey, You know incest and rate they're you know no they're they're not exempt from from the abortion hey if your rate gas one it's a gift from God look at it as a gift from God they're they're saying what they want to say they're bold but us as humanists us as atheists assists secularist we're still kind of like No, no, you shouldn't say that. That's against the Constitution. The First Amendment says we have to be a little bit more aggressive and how we attack this evangelicalism that is arrested our government we have to be a little bit more even on the verge of being a little bit more militant about it, but militant with love. Right, right. Militant with love. And so yeah, oh, hitch. Yeah. Oh, hedge you know, old time Nietzsche, but modern Oh, hitch for me. Oh, hitch was the ultimate humanist for me.

David Ames  26:14  
I want to hear your thoughts on how humanism can or cannot be, in your opinion, a benefit for the black community? Do you see that as something that the black community is missing? Or needs? Or is that just something that has been helpful to you personally?

Robert Peoples  26:34  
I think it is essential. In my opinion, I think it is a mandate for black America to get out of the situation that it's in. Um, I believe that societal religiosity has hampered the progress of black people in this country. It has made us docile, and how we are treated, because, hey, don't worry about what happens to you here. You're going to be in the great bind by forever, just life is just temporary, don't worry about what people do to you. And that message has been destructive. Ah, as Bob Marley once said, you know, if you knew what life was worth, you would look for yours on Earth. And now you see the light, you stand up for your rights. And once we realize that heaven is what we create here. Heaven is what we create generationally. Once we understand that, and we break the chains of religion, we'll be able to see life differently. And we'll be able to move differently, other than just marching. Because David, let's be honest, marching hasn't helped, you know, for society to say, well, you know, what, just dress a certain way, you know, just dress professionally? Well, MLK was assassinated. So he wore suits, so that doesn't help. Protesting hasn't held, if anything, things have gotten worse. And a lot of it is because we're still arrested, mentally arrested. And this form of religiosity where we're just like, it's going to get better. God has it. It's in God's plan. If we you know, we may not understand it now, but we just have to just be be strong about it. Instead of doing the work ourselves and it pains me to, to see my people just dragged through the mud and not promote action because we're waiting on a savior to make everything okay. You know, there's something to say psychologically about when, as a child, no matter how much you studied, as an athlete, no matter how much blood sweat and tears you spent, and practicing, getting injured, studying the playbook, you then say all of this couldn't have been accomplished without the power of God. You have set your own abilities aside your own abilities aside, to give all of the glory to what and what that does to us is it makes us codependent on and I'm gonna be honest, it makes us codependent on but Neverland, white leaders in power for God to somehow change their hearts and change their minds. That is what religion has us doing, waiting on benevolent white leaders that don't really care about us, that God is going to change their heart, we have to not be so concerned about changing hearts, we need to be concerned about changing policy. I don't care what you think about me. But you're going to change this policy. And if something happens, you're going to be held lawful for that. And so that's why I believe humanism is an absolute necessity. And, and it has to be something else as well. I can't say, leave this religion alone. Come on to the side of humanism. But we're not offering anything. Let's be honest, the church has had a head start. Yeah, the church is communal, David, right. I mean, hey, if you need a job, so and so as a, as a VP at this bank, hey, they can get you a job. Oh, you want a mortgage? Oh, you know what? So and so was a loan officer. I mean, the church is a one stop David. And so for me, for us to say leave that communal, rest Haven, and then come to the side of humanism. Okay. What is there on that side? What's the benefit? I'm struggling? What do you have to offer? Do you have any outreach services? What do you have to offer? And so you know, when we're talking about, you know, like Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs, you can't think transcendental thoughts. You can't think about leaving religion and thinking about humanism, and the philosophical connotations of what that means when you can eat, when you're about to be evicted, when you're about to be foreclosed. When you have no support. But you can go to the local church and get support. We have to do better. We have to create organizations that help people. And that will make humanism very much attractive. Because where people, right, humans are communal creatures. Yeah. You see, we have to have something else besides philosophy in order to bring people in. And that's my that's my take on that man.

David Ames  32:33  
Yeah, I had Anthony pin on Rice University. And he talked about he's great. Yeah, he's great. He's amazing. Yeah, it talks about something very similar of like, we need to have a soft place to land for for people coming out of religion in general. And then the black community in particular, you know, like you say, resources, the community that all of those things that that's what I'm driving, trying to build, you know, like, how can we build community that could meet the real world needs of people in the world that that the church has been doing for millennia, right, then? And that's when I think humanism becomes functional? As it were, right?

Robert Peoples  33:16  
And you know, what I want to be I want to be a part of that. Hey, you know, let's, let's, let's brainstorm. You know, like, let's, let's brainstorm and create, you know, like, national organization with it. Like you said, you know, humanism has to be functional. Yeah. It can't just be in the head.

David Ames  33:35  
Yeah, exactly. I sometimes talk about like, I want to humanism that bleed, sweats and cries, like, you know, that we've had it so much so that it's the philosophers talking and their white towers. And you know, I'm much more interested in what it's like to, you know, you're going to be evicted and you're hungry, and you've got four children. What do you do then? That's, that's what actually matters. That's what actually counts and how do we how do we apply the principles of humanism in that environment?

Robert Peoples  34:05  
Oh, excellent. That that's you hit the hammer on the nail with that one.

David Ames  34:17  
I want to talk more about secularism that isn't necessarily something that we talk a lot about on the podcast. So what is secularism to you? And then that'll be a springboard for you talk about Affinis Humanity and what you're doing with that work?

Robert Peoples  34:34  
Oh, okay. So yeah, so the so the terminology secularism, you know, it's there, there's duality that exists within the term, right? It has a dual meaning, right. So the political meaning is anyone who believes and upholds the separation of church and state. So actually, you could be a Christian. But if you believe in the separation of church and state by political definition, you are secular by nature. If you're a Muslim, and you believe in the separation of church and state, you are secular. Now, of course, just like any other words, words evolve over time throughout history. And so now secularism has become more attached to individuals that have no religious affiliation. Right? It has evolved into that. But I think people should always keep in mind that it has a dual meaning and I am willing to work with anyone that is for to separation of church and state, I don't have to agree with your theological base. But if you believe in the separation of church and state, we can work together. You know, and, and so and that, you know, brings me to, you know, how I got connected, actually, with the Secular Coalition for Arizona. lobbyists, extraordinaire, Tory ro Berg reached out to me on Facebook, I've been living in Arizona for about 13 years. And about a little over three years ago, she just messaged me and said, Hey, have you ever heard of the Secular Coalition for Arizona? Like, No, I've never heard that organization. So I started digging, and I'm like, wow, they're a 501 C four. They're a political nonprofit. Wow, with a lobbyist. Wow, that just blew my mind. And so I met with the chair, and I was a part of the organization for a few years, you know, and so that really started getting me and getting me aware of the politics that go on with trying to implement this at Woody in Handmaid's Tale society, within the government. And it just blew my mind. I performed the secular studies there where I would speak with a roomful of lawmakers, senators, House of Representatives, and we would just have a closed door session on what it means to keep Arizona secular. And sometimes emotions flared, right? Yes, you have people you got Christians in there, you got hardcore Christians in there. You You know, you have some senators, you know, Senators that are atheist. Right. And they're and, but at the end of the day, everyone was respectful. And I learned so much about that. And so that really kind of fueled my desire to really get into the government aspects of that, before that. I was into the schools, and I'm still into schools. I have to tell this story. So I have a friend and he's, he's a principal at a school here in Gilbert, Arizona. And if anyone knows about Gilbert, Arizona, it is very well, Mormon occupied heavily. And so a friend of mine, she has a daughter, and she was the class president. And so she said, Robert, I want you to come to my school and talk about what it is to be a humanist. I said, okay, so of course, I had to talk at a meeting with the principal and a meeting with the superintendent as well. And he said, Okay, Robert, I'm gonna tell you now, you know what territory you're in, you're in Mormon. You have a very small box to operate under a very small box to operate. There are going to be fires. I know that they're going to be fires. I just want them to be manageable. So you got a small box to move in? Got you. Yeah, went in there. I did about a two hour presentation. When I asked everyone, you know, what is their you know, if they would like to share what is their belief system or lack thereof? I would say about 75% Were like, I'm atheist. I'm agnostic. I'm bisexual and agnostic. I'm gay, and I'm a secularist. I'm a human. I'm like, Whoa. I'm sort of preaching to the choir, so to speak here, right. And of course, you had other ones that were Mormon. Right, sir. And q&a came up, they asked a lot of questions. And at the end of the day, I received about I don't know maybe about 3040 emails from parents saying, Thank you for your presentation and the name of that presentation. It's almost like self fulfilling prophecy almost ready, if I can say that right? The presentation was to be human is enough.

David Ames  40:07  
Yeah.

Robert Peoples  40:09  
And that was, you know, that was wow, maybe six years ago. Okay. Yeah, you know, and so, so I was in so I went to other several schools was very well received. And then of course COVID had to show its head. And so that kind of interrupted the flow of a lot of things. But from school, then I wanted to get into business and then government. And that's when the whole secularism bit came about and serving on the board with this wonderful organization really opened up my eyes really educated me on a lot of things. Got me connected with lawmakers, even though we might not see eye to eye. I made a lot of progress with him, and influenced a lot of policies that they created. There's still a lot of work to be done. But yes, I just want to let people know that are, you know, atheists humanists, that it's okay, if someone believes in a god or if they're religious, work with them if they uphold the separation of church and state, because in the grand scheme of things, we all need each other. I don't, we don't have to agree with one another. But the key thing is to understand I don't have to agree with you. But I want to understand your perspective. And to me, that's more important than agreement.

David Ames  41:35  
I love it. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, quick story on that, you know, I think, even as a Christian, I was very much for the separation of church and state, because it's both good for the church, and good for the state. So when I, when I went through deconversion, and that was just an obvious, obvious thing that, you know, that's important to uphold. And, and I think within 2016, we had a real world example of that as kind of Christian nationalism came to the front stage. And I watched, my, my wife is still very much a believer. And when I watched her grieve, you know, how Christianity was being manipulated politically. And I think that's just a testament to why separation of church and state is important, even for believers, because it may not be your brand of Christianity that is being represented politically.

Robert Peoples  42:27  
And that's something that we we consistently and perpetually brought up in the chambers of lawmakers is that, you know, what, like you said very eloquently, your brand of Christianity may be looked down upon. Yeah, you know, so a secular society is best for everyone, for everyone. And it's just, you know, I mean, you know, peer reviewed studies have shown that, you know, and the the Happiness Index report that comes out by the United Nations, the most happiest countries in the world happened to be the most secular.

David Ames  43:07  
Yeah.

Robert Peoples  43:10  
Right. You know, children who grow up in secular households exude higher levels of empathy than religious children.

David Ames  43:20  
Yeah, interesting, which would shock a lot of people.

Robert Peoples  43:24  
But if you think but if you really dig and being, you know, coming from an ex Christian background, you know, you know, both of us, you know, we can kind of understand why that is, right, because it's a level of accountability. If I do you wrong, if I commit a wrong to you, I can't go into my closet, and pray about and say, Well, you know what, God forgave me. I don't care if you don't forgive me, my Lord forgave me. So I'm gonna go on with my life. As a person who is a non believer, I have to rectify the wrongs that I committed to you. I can't go in my closet, and ask God for forgiveness. I have to come to you, man to man, woman, a woman and say, I'm sorry, how can I fix this? So it makes sense about the empathy being higher with children that have no religious affiliation? It makes sense.

And I have a question for you if I can ask you

David Ames  44:32  
to. Yeah, please. Yeah. Go said Your wife

Robert Peoples  44:35  
is still a Christian is still a believer. How? I'm curious, how do you how do you to navigate through through through this ordeal?

David Ames  44:45  
That's a whole podcast in itself. You know, well, I'll tell you, it's your tagline. To be human is enough in that, you know, I recognize, first of all, how much I love my wife and I embrace all of her humanity, which includes her faith. But it's very hard, right? Like I don't want to pretend like it isn't difficult we we have a number of listeners to the podcast that are in what we call unequally yoked relationships. And it is challenging, it is hard. But we have recognized we've been able to communicate to one another that we we love each other for who we are, and that we're committed to the relationship and that we want to work through, we both want to work through it that that really helps. And so not every relationship, I think will survive through this unequally yoked thing. But one of the things that made me want to start the podcast was to differentiate from some of the atheist voices out there that were, you know, burn the bridge on your way out and go out in a blaze of glory, right? Yes, yeah. Yeah, there are some relationships you want to keep, obviously, not abusive ones, or psychologically or physically or anything like that, but once it you want to keep and so one of the messages that I wanted to have was, this secular Grace includes the believers in our lives to to not see believers as dumb or ignorant or what have you. But to remember what it was like to be convinced I was 100% convinced Robert 100%. And so I can't, you know, see that as lesser than or less intellectual or something like that. And so, again, my whole thing is about embracing humanity, embracing my humanity, embracing the humanity of others, that includes and entails other leaders.

Robert Peoples  46:38  
I like the I like, you know, the whole you know, secular grace, you know, atheist grace, you know, because I do see that a lot. I see a lot of ad hominem attacks. Yeah, well, actually attacking people's character, because they, they're still a Christian, or they believe in some god of some sort. And, you know, we we've all been, I mean, at least for me, I think the majority of us the reason the number one reason we were Christians in the first place was because we were indoctrinated ever since we've had a rattle in our hand and a pacifier in our mouth. I mean, I mean, you know, our brains are, you know, that the human brain doesn't fully develop until about 25 years old. So imagine you're an infant, you know, and you're experiencing all this stuff. And it's like, no wonder, like, no wonder people are struggling, you know, and me knowing that, you know, I can't commit ad hominem attacks to believers, because I know why they believe I know why they're resistant to information because the indoctrination man, the tentacles of indoctrination, are deep, and they reach far. And that's why religious trauma syndrome is a thing. You know, and some people never, you know, some people will forever deconstruct, some people will never reach a conclusion. Right? They will always struggle with the residuals of their, you know,

you know, deconstruction of their religiosity, they will always I know, people that tell me, you know, Robert, I know,

hell doesn't exist. I know, it doesn't exist, but you know, what, every once in a while, I raise an eyebrow, and I get a little nervous. Isn't that something you know, that it doesn't exist, but because of the level of indoctrination that you've experienced as a child, the residuals are still there, even though you know, it's not real, you still have a physical reaction to it. Man, that's that's heavy I almost I've really not almost I'm gonna be a be hitch in this moment. Not almost, it is a form of psychological child abuse. It is a form of psychological child abuse. Children should be raised in a neutral setting and let them decide let them decide what they want to do. Yeah, you know so yeah, I I don't go for that when when people attack people's character for I don't I don't stand by that.

David Ames  49:14  
I can tell from from the things I've read and listened to of yours. So yeah, yeah, back to the comparative religion you know, imagine if we did Middle School comparative religion class that you know, as children, the age of reason, they get, you know, exposure to more options and you know, would be able to make their own choices quite a bit better. So, absolutely.

Robert Peoples  49:45  
What, because I talked about what kind of led me down that trajectory of, of embracing atheism and humanism humanism more importantly, what led you on that path is as as As a former Christian, what transition in your life that started you questioning your own belief system?

David Ames  50:08  
Man, again, this could be an entire podcast. With 2020 hindsight, I recognize that I was a religious humanists, right, like I was all about grace, I came to Christianity in my teens. So I feel like I had a little bit of a sense of my own self without that childhood indoctrination, but I stayed in it for 27 some odd years. So it wasn't, it wasn't that I got out of it easy. But I always was focused on people. And I felt like the, the attractive part of Jesus was, I came for the sick and not the well, and, and, you know, and the attack on hypocrisy of the religious leaders. And that's what drew me to Jesus. And that was the thing that I thought it was supposed to be about. And it was, you know, years of watching other people not feel that same way or not think of Jesus the same way and be more focused on rules and not having sex and, you know, things that just didn't feel as important, right, like that, you know, was about caring for people. And so early, early on, you know, I had friends who were gay, where I recognized you, I can't, I can't hate this person. I love this person. That was one one part of it intellectually, for sure. You know, I deconstructed long before I knew what deconstruction was right? I had let go. literalist interpretation I had let go of even the authority of Scripture had really lost, lost all of it there near the end, I tell a story about reading through the Bible, in a year, a year or so before I D converted, and my wife would be like, you're angry? Why are you so angry? I, you know, that was that I, you know, I was I was reading it without the rose colored glasses on for the first time. And it was painful what I was seeing there. And so I talked about this in a, an article I wrote called, How to D convert in 10 Easy Steps as a joke. But you have this moment where you give yourself permission to doubt permission to go and seek information outside of the bubble. And I feel like that happened to me, roughly a year before a deconversion. For me, and I just started to allow myself to hear outside voices, you know, the occasional article would come up from an atheist perspective, and I'd find that I didn't disagree with them entirely. Things like the separation of church and state all of those things. But I always like to say it was 1000 things, not just one. Those are some of the mileposts along the way. But I had a oh shit moment. I was reading a Greta Kristina article that was talking about the lack of the existence of a soul. And I realized I agreed with that. And I was like, Oh, shit, I I don't believe and I was done. There was no progressive Christianity. For me, there was no anything else, I finally was able to just say, you know, kind of my skeptical personality, my need for answers that I think you have eloquently described for yourself as well. I was just going to embrace that. And let's go find, you know, the science and the philosophy that has, you know, evidence and argumentation and things that that felt like I could press on them really hard and be really skeptical, and they would still remain true, right? And how unlike that was for my faith where it felt like I was betraying God by testing him by asking questions and things like that. So that's the quick that's the quick version. Again, I could tell the a very long, long version of it, but

Robert Peoples  53:56  
Oh, no, I appreciate that. David, man, like you said about doubt, man. You know, how does the quote go? All great truths start out as blasphemies. Yes. Right. It's it's that it's that doubt, doubt is the beginning of wisdom. Yes, you know, and that's something that the church really teaches against. And so yeah, man, thanks for Wow, thanks for sharing like when you said you were done done, and that was listening to what you were saying you were base you were deconstructing for years, you know, so that's when you came to that conclusion. Like kind of very easily like, Oh, I'm, I'm Dun dun dun. Because you had the years of not even knowing that you were really deconstructing

David Ames  54:39  
I had no idea I was completely ignorant. That's what was happening, but that's exactly what was happening. Yeah.

Robert Peoples  54:44  
Oh, that's good stuff, man. Good stuff.

David Ames  54:56  
We've been talking about a lot of things, some of them negative one. I want to I hear a little bit about you have a, an Instagram where you talk about the benefits and the joy of being on this side of deconversion. Just like to hear you expound on that for a bit like, what is it like for you today that you've left kind of the religious bonds behind?

Robert Peoples  55:21  
You know, I? Wow, I can I'll lead it with a with a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

was a Douglas Adams right? You know, why is it that we can't look at a garden as beautiful without thinking that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Yeah, that I'll open up with that. The benefits of walking away from religion and the benefits of humanism is it has increased my love for humanity exponentially. I no longer love people with conditions with conditions on their sexual orientation, their conditions on their ethnicity, their conditions on their gender, I can walk out of my house, and I look at the hummingbird differently. I'm in all, when I see a hummingbird, I'm in all when I when I see ants, when I'm walking on the street, I'm always looking down. Because when I look at ants, which are the strongest insects probably alive that can lift to 50 to 100 times its body weight. Can you imagine if we could do that as a human? I'm, I'm six, five about 225 Can you imagine me lifting 100 times my own bodyweight. You know, I'm, I just have such a reverence for nature around me. Um, I can wake up in the morning, and I don't have to, I don't have to go to a book. You know, I don't have to go to archaic scriptures to lead me. The Book of Life opens up each and every time I wake up in the morning, I write my own book, David. I can love people, regardless of their belief. You know, before when I was a Christian, I wasn't around people who didn't believe I looked at them like they were crazy. Now, even as a non believer, I can look at a Muslim as a Christian because I have a lot of Christian friends, I have a lot of Muslim friends. And I love them even still, I may not agree with them, but it doesn't impede upon the love, I exude for them. And it's such a bag of heavy bricks just to lay down knowing that I'm not going to be here forever, that I'm not going to be in this, you know, heavenly firmament, forever. There is there is peace and tranquility, knowing that my life is finite, because it allows me to love life more. I don't want to live forever. I want to do things where I know there is a limited capacity. I have an expiration date in this world. And so that allows me to try to make as much of an impact as I can, every day of my life. And I enjoy life more because it's finite. I want to say I love my daughters more man, I I love the fact that you know, you know what, I'm probably going to outlive you but I'm gonna make sure that I have the greatest impact I have in your life. Accountability, David, um, if I do it wrong, I'm going to remedy it. I'm going to bring rectification to the issue and to see someone look at me like, wow, that took a lot for you to come forward. I don't know. If I could have done that. I would probably have had to pray about it. Talk to my church leaders. The Accountability. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. That's it. You know, and so those are those are some of the benefits of of humanism matches of reverence and an appreciation for life and humanity. Man,

David Ames  1:00:07  
I could not have said it any better. That was amazing. Well, Robert, I am just profoundly impacted by your work, to be human is enough is going to stick with me for four years, I'm going to be quoting you on that one. So I hope that you and I can become friends, I hope that we can do more work together, I'd love your work, I want to give you an opportunity to tell people, how they can reach out for you to you how they can contribute to your work, how they can find you.

Robert Peoples  1:00:38  
Oh, absolutely. Everyone you can, you can go to my website to learn more, it's affinishumanity.org. It's a f f i n is just a little a little side note. So affinis is the Latin derivative of the word affinity, which means a natural attraction to a person thing or idea. And my attraction is to humanity. Thus, humanism, you can find me on Instagram affinis, humanity, and also Facebook, the same and Tik Tok as well. I finished humanity. And I like to I like to hear from everyone. And yes, David, we must, you know, when social media works, it works right and our connection to just to to extend past this podcast, you know, I mean, I want to really, you know, connect with you and just brainstorm about, you know, some of the things that you were speaking about, you know, bring bringing the functionality to humanism to society to real world issues. And I'm all for that man. And so, yes, let's, let's stay in touch.

David Ames  1:01:54  
Absolutely. And Robert Peoples thank you so much for being on the podcast. Hey, I

Robert Peoples  1:01:58  
appreciate you, man. Thank you.

David Ames  1:02:06  
Final thoughts on the episode? To be human is enough. Robert has captured secular grace in that phrase, I literally will be thinking about that phrase for the rest of my life. It is such a simple way to capture it and it has deep meaning. For humanists, it has deep meaning for anti racism. It has deep meaning for being a human being, period. Like Robert said, when social media works, it really works. I really appreciate this connection. I do want to thank our Lean for prodding both Robert and I to connect with one another, our lean our community manager for the deconversion anonymous Facebook group. Roberts work touches so many of the things that I care about, as we mentioned the secular grace and beginning with humanism and loving people without conditions. I need to quote him here at least once he says I believe in you. I believe in people. I believe in change. And if any change is going to happen. We have to do it. There is no savior coming to save us that responsibility is ours. And Roberts work in secularism, if for any reason that word secularism is bothersome to you think of pluralism, really, that's all we're saying is that no one ideology, whether it's religious, economic, philosophical or cultural dominates in a political sense, such that all other ideas are shut down. And the example is, like I mentioned with my wife, who was very much a Christian, but watched as a version of Christian nationalism, and not the Christianity that she would endorse, gains political power. You cannot guarantee that even if you are a believer that the version of Christianity that gains political power will be your version. And even if it is your version, you cannot guarantee that it will maintain that power. And so secularism or pluralism, the marketplace of ideas and ideologies, where there is freedom of speech, there is no religious test for for political office is an ideal, and it is both good for the church and it is good for the state. I love the work that Robert is doing in Arizona promoting secularism that is boots on the ground doing the hard work. I truly loved the way that Robert talked about reverse engineering theology with philosophy and how important philosophy was to him, even as a young man Starting with Payne's Age of Reason, and going into Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard and the existentialists, I can sometimes be negative towards the philosophy bros. But I need you to understand how much I appreciate philosophy and how important it is. It forces us to think deeply and critically about what we think, and why what we believe and why. And to be able to articulate an argument for it. It is incredibly important. And like Robert, I encourage everyone to dig in and learn philosophy. I very much appreciated Roberts willingness to talk about race that can be such an uncomfortable subject. And I appreciated the level of honesty that he brought to the table talking about not being accepted by his own community, and how hard that is. I also appreciated how much he recognizes that humanism can add to the black community. And Robert is such a powerful voice to spread that message and to spread a message of loving people without conditions. I want to encourage you to check out Roberts website affinishumanity.org, the links will be in the show notes. He has t shirts available, I think you can support him financially and the work that he's doing. He's also participating in the Secular Coalition for Arizona, we'll have links in the show notes for that as well. Please reach out to Robert and support the work that he is doing. Robert is a quote machine, go back, listen to this. I've listened to it twice already. He is an amazing human being and has such wisdom to share. I'm very glad that I got to meet Robert, I hope that he and I will have an opportunity to work together again. I want to thank Robert for being on the podcast for sharing his wisdom for sharing his love for humanity for sharing his joy in humanism and the freedom that he experiences in that. Thank you, Robert for being on the show. The secular Grace Thought of the Week is just to expound upon, to be human is enough. I'm not sure that I can adequately expand on on this. It is so profound in its simplicity. So much of what I am trying to say with secular grace is about embracing our humanity. When I say humanity, I mean our foibles, our weaknesses as well as our strengths as well as our intellect and rationality. So much of religion tries to deny our humanity that our normal human desires and wants are evil and wrong. You know, who we love or what color our skin is, and what we think in our private thoughts get categorized and moralize so that we turn in on ourselves and begin to hate ourselves. So much of what I want with secular grace is for us to be able to embrace ourselves as human beings and embrace one another as human beings. And that does include the human beings who believe in a theistic God, it does include human beings of a different race. It includes human beings have different gender identities and sexual orientations. It includes and people of religions other than Christianity, it includes people of other cultures. It is so easy to other eyes, the people with whom we disagree or who are different from ourselves and to deny their humanity. So my challenge to you is to recognize the humanity even in the people who you find difficult to love. This is secular grace. As I mentioned, we're going to take a break next week for your Easter holiday. Please re listen to this episode four or five times. I mean, really, this Robert is an amazing person and has so much to say. And then if you want to go into the back catalogue, and the links will be in the show notes to Jennifer Michael hacked Anthony pin and Sasha seconds episodes I highly recommend those for a secular Grace holiday weekend. Until next time, my name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Join me and be graceful

It's time for the footnotes. The beat is called waves for MCI beats, links will be in the show notes. If you'd like to support the podcast, you can promote it on your social media. You can subscribe to it in your favorite podcast application, and you can rate and review it on pod chaser.com. You can also support the podcast by clicking on the affiliate links for books on Bristol atheists.com. If you have podcast production experience and you would like to participate, podcast, please get in touch with me. Have you gone through a faith transition? Do you need to tell your story? Reach out? If you are a creator, or work in the deconstruction deconversion or secular humanism spaces, and would like to be on the podcast? Just ask. If you'd like to financially support the podcast there's links in the show notes. To find me you can google graceful atheist. You can google deconversion you can google secular grace, you can send me an email graceful atheist@gmail.com or you can check out the website graceful atheists.com My name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist join me and be graceful human beings

this has been the graceful atheist podcast

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Luke Janssen: Recovering Evangelicals

Agnosticism, Critique of Apologetics, Deconstruction, ExVangelical, Philosophy, Podcast, Podcasters
Click to play episode on anchor.fm
Listen on Apple Podcasts

This week’s guest is Luke J. Janssen, M.Sc., Ph.D., M.T.S., Professor Emeritus, Dept. Medicine, McMaster University, and co-host of the Recovering Evangelicals podcast. He is a scientist in medical research. During a faith crisis he began taking courses on theology which turned into an M.T.S degree.

I’ve been face-to-face with faith and science my whole life.

Luke tells his story in four 15 year phases: his early years as a nominal Reformed Christian, his young adulthood as a Pentecostal/Charismatic fundamentalist, a desconstruction phase, and where he is now, with a “small part of him that won’t let go” and a belief in a creative force.

It is just that I couldn’t pretend anymore.
I just couldn’t pretend that I was a believer.
I just simply didn’t believe.

Luke and his co-host, Boyd Blundell, cover many aspects of desconstruction on the Recovering Evangelicals podcast. They discuss various apologetic and scientific arguments and honestly reveal what they do an do not believe now and why.

Recovering Evangelicals
… for those who were once very comfortable in their Christian faith until the 21st century intruded and made it very hard to keep on believing;
… for those who are intrigued by science, philosophy, world history, and world religions, and want to rationalize that with their Christian theology;
… for those who found that’s just not possible, and yet there’s still a small part of them that won’t let it go.

Links

Website
https://lukejjanssen.wordpress.com/

Recovering Evangelicals
https://lukejjanssen.wordpress.com/recovering-evangelicals/

Interact

Join the Deconversion Anonymous Facebook group!

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Podchaser - Graceful Atheist Podcast

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

Transcript

NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.

David Ames  0:11  
This is the graceful atheist podcast. Welcome, welcome. Welcome to the graceful atheist podcast. My name is David, and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. As usual, please rate and review the podcast on the Apple podcast store, rate the podcast on Spotify, and subscribe to the podcast wherever you are listening. Special thanks to Mike T for editing today's episode. onto today's show. My guest today is Luke Jensen. He is the co host of the recovering evangelicals podcast. The tagline for the podcast is for those who were once very comfortable in their Christian faith until the 21st century, intruded and made it very hard to keep on believing. Luke is a scientist who's done medical research at the university level. And he also has a master's degree in theology. And as his website describes, he has been face to face with faith and science and that debate for all of his life. As you're going to hear as he tells his story, he has gone through multiple phases, faith and deconstruction. At the latter half of the conversation, we try to dig into what he does believe currently, and that is a journey in and of itself. You can find Luke on the recovering evangelicals podcast on all the major platforms. Luke's website is lukejjanssen.wordpress.com. That is lukejjanssen.wordpress.com. And I will have links in the show notes. A special thanks to Joe a mutual listener to both the graceful atheist podcast and recovering evangelicals for getting us all together. I got introduced to Luke and Boyd, his co host, and I really appreciate that. Thank you, Joe, for reaching out. Here is Luke Johnson to tell his story.

Luke Jensen, welcome to the graceful atheist podcast.

Luke J. Janssen  2:20  
Thank you for having me.

David Ames  2:21  
Hey, Luke. So we had a mutual listener of ours, Joe who introduced us, he was a big fan of you and Boyd's podcast recovering evangelicals, and this one, and so that would be great for all of us to get together. And so far, our email exchanges, I really am fascinated by the work that you and board are doing. I've gotten a chance to listen to a handful of those episodes. And again, just really impressed with the level of openness and rigor that you guys handle those questions. And so I think it's gonna be a lot of fun to have you on. I want to give you just a couple of seconds to hear to say, who you are like your like your your resume, so to speak of where your education was, and things of that nature.

Luke J. Janssen  3:06  
Okay. And I'll just comment as well on that, that Joel bringing us together. He's basically sent an email to the three of us, you, myself and Boyd, and he just said, well, to us, at least he said you should go and Dave show. Yeah. And we went we looked at each other when Dave show who's and the now your email was CCD in there, but your email is graceful atheist@gmail.com. And so we just thought that was a moniker that was a name. For a month, we didn't know who Dave was. And then some of the things happened with oh, that's who DAVE Yes. Yes. So it was great. So to answer your question, then, so I'm 6061 years old, went to university worked as a, as a scientist in a lab for just about 30 decades, just over 30 decades. And I'm now retired from that. I just wanted to move on to other things. And the work that we did was in the in the era of asthma, looking at cell function, that sort of thing.

David Ames  4:02  
Interesting. All right. And you have a master in science, Master's in theological studies and a PhD in pharmacology and physiology. Is that correct?

Luke J. Janssen  4:13  
Yes. And actually, you know what, now that I think about it, I'll have to talk about the MCS later on, because I forgot to even mention that. But yes, so in, I did my Master's and PhD in medical sciences. And that's what that formed the basis of my career for 30 years. And it was near the end of that, that I was going through this faith crisis. And amongst other things, I thought, you know, what, I'm gonna take some courses on campus here. And one course became three became 30. And then I thought, you know, get a masters and MCs so there you go.

David Ames  4:39  
That's, that's awesome. Yeah, I think blade refers to that. You know, he says, the type of person Luke is he just went and got a master's in theology.

Luke J. Janssen  4:47  
Well, it was easy because it's on campus. I didn't have to go far and then as an alumnus, as a member of the of the university I could take the course of for free Okay, so it was easy, but it was hard work. I will say

David Ames  5:06  
Well, we're here to hear your personal story. And you have really interesting story of faith transition going kind of in multiple directions. But let's begin where we always do with the faith tradition you grew up or what was, what was your faith, like when you were young?

Luke J. Janssen  5:20  
Right? I'll break my life up into four different parts. It just seems to be that what happened to my life, fell out over 15 year blocks. The first of which then was obviously when I was a kid, we grew up in a Christian reformed setting, which for the listeners who may not know what Christian reformed is, we were very Dutch and very Calvinist, I think a lot of people will know Calvinism is all about Yeah, I found that to be, it was more of a social identity, that group that I was in there. And again, remember, I'm just a kid, I'm less than 15 years old. But it was more of a social identity, it was just an in group, it was the place where your friends were your co workers, where a lot of your family members were there. And so it was just the place you were, it was the society, the social group that you were part of. And I wouldn't really say at least for me, as such a young kid, it wasn't a personal commitment to a worldview or a religion. But it was a very formative part of my life. It it shaped my initial views on who God is, or what God was, God was a very angry god, a very judgmental God. Obviously, he was absolutely in charge. And it also shaped how he saw humans how I thought I was led to believe that he saw humans, humans are utterly evil to the core. Not much good for anything else, but burning in hell. So And how was very prominent in the thinking when I was a kid again, and I think to some extent, I can see generally speaking in the Reformed faith, it also meant that I was utterly young earth creationist, I just took the Bible, literally, but then again, not that I spent a lot of time in the Bible, it was just when things were said, or you hear from the sermon from the the pastor at the front, you just took it at face value. And again, it just wasn't a particularly personal thing with me, it was just the water that I swam, and that was the first 15 years of my life.

David Ames  7:11  
Okay, I guess my question then to you is, did you internally have faith at that point in time? Or was it truly just cultural at that point?

Luke J. Janssen  7:21  
It would, it was very much cultural and not a personal thing. I certainly had beliefs and values that were shaped by that community, and I live my life by it. Well, that's not totally true. There are many times they didn't, but you, you strove to abide by the social norms, that sort of thing. But it was not a personal thing. Certainly not a personal relationship. Okay. But even to say that it was a personal belief. I don't know that I would say that,

David Ames  7:47  
okay. That's actually relatively similar to me. I grew up in a nominally Christian family, you know, they were believers. But that wasn't talked about much we didn't go to we didn't go to church. And so, my grandmother, I remember this this moment. So clearly, I was about 13, or 14. And my grandmother realized that I didn't know what the apostles creed was, like, she just about died of shame, like she had failed. And so I kept asking, like, you know, who is this God character anyway, kind of thing. And it wasn't until my late teens, that I became very serious. But anyway, proceed. So what happens after this?

Luke J. Janssen  8:24  
Okay, so then the next 15 year block of my life from 15, to 30. And it really begins with my parents, again, my parents were Calvinists. They were Dutch, and they both grew up in that whole system. But they had a major conversion experience. And I'd say this is they both had a major conversion experience. But it seemed to be more dramatic with my father. He had the from what he tells us, as I understand his background, he wrestled really deeply was religious issues, especially the idea of being one of the elect. This is one of those ideas that Calvinists are big on that, basically, some people have chosen to go to heaven, and some are chosen to go to hell. And that's just the way it is. It's nothing more to it. And he, my father really wrestled with that whole idea of being one of the elect, as opposed to the ones going to this very fiery hell. And he was deeply fearful that he was one of those assigned to hell. Now, I'm not clear on all the details, but what I do know is that he did have a very profound personal experience. It was a deeply religious experience. And it literally changed him overnight. He was a different person because of that. became very passionate about his new faith, which I'll now call the charismatic or Pentecostal faith. I mean, it took a few years for to really evolve fully into that Pentecostal charismatic. I'll use the word phenotype. Yeah. But certainly, it was a very sudden, emotional, profound commitment to this new kind of faith and it became the only thing that he could talk about even to this day. So that's what happened to him. And again, that was roughly when I was 15 years old. For a few years, I resisted that he of course would be one to take while he did take, take the kids to these various fellowships, various church groups, home study home groups. Every Friday night, we went to this one place called visa UK a very charismatic kind of a place. And I was very resistant to that for a couple of years. Until it basically was coerced into an all say, joining the team and air quotes there. It's it's an experience, I'm not sure how much really to get into, except to say, at one moment, I was completely against being, you know, joining this faith that he held. And just because of the circumstances that I won't get into the detail, it was basically I was pushed against my will into this new faith. Now, I don't want to just, I'm not going to put the blame all on him. I did accept that new worldview. I did. I did pray the prayer, say the words and became a Christian. And from that moment on, I was committed. But I do have to say that though the way to happen was rather coercive. And that's really all that I'm going to say. So bottom line is I've resisted for a number of years and now all of a sudden I dove in headfirst and I became one of them as well. I think I was sincere. I do think looking back on myself as a 18 year old I was committed. I sincerely held that belief. And I became Uber involved. I taught and was involved in the Sunday school groups, college and career group. I was part of that I was in a Christian rock band. This is hilarious, because I was a keyboardist even though I have absolutely to this day do not have any experience whatsoever with Keith Morgan's. I just simply had enough money to buy a synthesizer and I now became the keyboard is for this Christian rock band, which you know, toured for about a year didn't last long, but it came from the summer camp, and we played every year at the summer camp. But there you go, yeah. Went on all kinds of evangelists, evangelistic campaigns, if our church would, you know, have something going reaching out into the neighborhood or, you know, bringing your friends to Sunday, Sunday school, where their college and career group. There was one year that Billy Graham came to our city Hamilton in 1988. And so I was part of that.

David Ames  12:16  
Okay, that's probably a big deal.

Luke J. Janssen  12:19  
Yeah, so so very much I was, I was all in and I was serving, I played my guitar. I did play guitar. I didn't play the keyboard, but I played the guitar for youth group for worship services, that sort of thing.

So that's me being involved there. But then let's talk about what you know, what did that what did this mean? I went to church twice on Sundays, and at least once midweek, that midweek would be say the Wednesday night Bible study or the Friday night youth group and college and career, that sort of thing. So three days a week, if not others. And they were very emotional services, especially, you know, as you know, if the service is two or three hours long, which today is unbelievably long, but during the last half hour, things got really emotional, a lot of a lot of emotions, and especially the Sunday night service, that's really what it was all about is just driving towards that final hour, where a lot of emotions were being poured out. Went to revival meetings to various healing meetings. You know, I'm sure people have heard of Benny Hinn, there's a few others but Jesus festivals, there was the the, the folk gospel businessman conferences, they also had their events. And I was all always part of that. I was pretty committed, needless to say, and I bought into that for the first five to 10 years for sure. And what did I buy into? So I read the Bible, literally, I saw it is absolutely inerrant and infallible. Which obviously meant then that the creation accounts, they were literal. That's the way it happened six days, I was a young earth creationist. And I even started to write a book at that time. So now we're, you know, in the in, I'm past my undergrad, university experience, and getting into my postgraduate experience, where I was starting to write a book that would finally prove to the world that young earth creationism was true. And you're listening, you'll remember those days, I said, lots of coffee, lots of lunchtimes, with bread talking about young earth creationism, and I was working on this book, which needless to say, never happened. Yeah. Interesting. And it's not just the creation accounts that it took literally, of course, there's the destroyed Israel coming out of Egypt. That whole story I took literally, yeah, if you've seen the 10 commandments with Charlton Heston, Charlton, has you seen that movie? That's what was in my head? Yeah. And many of the stories, the Old Testament, the teachings of Paul, all these things I just took at face value, what it said on the page, I just took it that way, right? I was absolutely certain that we were in the end times. You know, that whole beast and the Antichrist thing. Speaking in tongues was part of it as well. The another thing that I refer often to the cosmic Vending Machine God, basically whenever you need something, you just pray for it, whether that be a healing, whether it be passing a test, or, you know, people often refer to getting a parking space, that kind of thing. Well, I believe in this cosmic vending machine, God, you just asked and expected to get it.

David Ames  15:21  
I love that analogy that that really captures kind of the the attitudinal position towards oh, I need a parking spot.

Luke J. Janssen  15:30  
Yeah. And it never occurred to us. It certainly does now, but never occurred to us that we expected God to answer that kind of a request, but not you know, this kid who's got brain cancer or, you know, kids. It's more heartbreaking when it's breaking when it's kids, but kids starving in Ethiopia, God wasn't paying attention to them, but he would find me a parking spot that just never occurred to us at the time. Now, having said that, I, part of my background there, part of my, what I grew up with, was this belief in miracles. And I I'm not sure really, I can't really remember whether I believe them or not, I certainly went to those kinds of meetings. I went along with it, not just went to it, but went along with the whole idea. But I'm not sure I can say I really believe that. Because the fact is, I didn't pray myself for healings. i If I really believed in it, then I would have done that. And I don't remember ever praying for myself or for other people for their healings. I mean, certainly not. You know, the whole. Well, there you go. Yeah, Demons, demons were everywhere. That was also part of my background, in the Pentecostal circles, we are always and that's going to play into the third part of my life where I reject the whole thing. We'll come back to that. And then the last thing that I believed in at that time, and it was a last thing that I can get rid of, that I had to wrestle through was this idea of the personal relationship. The whole idea that, you know, God is my, my, my personal buddy. And Jesus is my personal buddy. And, you know, I believe that wholeheartedly. But from time to time, if you asked me at that time, I would express some frustration that it was kind of hard to really see how it worked. Just didn't live. I didn't, didn't experience that personal relationship. In our podcast, we did a number of episodes that deal specifically with that. And maybe if your listeners are curious, you can see what I mean by that. But so there you go. Yeah. So those are the things that I believed that's the church I went to we saw the church down the road, we had this euphemistic expression the church down the road, which was basically, you know, any Baptist Church, and things like that. They were second class Christians. We were the true Christians. Oh, gosh. And of course, and of course, you know, Catholics, they weren't even Christian. Going to Hell, yes. That was what we absolutely believed. Yeah. So here's the thing is we're getting close to my 30s. The second the end of the second part, 15 year block of my life. All these uncertainties began to accumulate questions that were being raised, there was cracks forming in the wall, contradictions and mistakes that I read in the Bible, they just were becoming a bit of a problem a bit too much of a problem. I mean, I say, when I saw these contradictions or mistakes, even when I was in my 20s, I noticed them and you just quickly filed them away. But now they're beginning to sit in my brain a little bit longer. And I was beginning to puzzle with them, until I've quickly filed them away. Yeah. And here's the other funny thing that I do remember, at the time feeling odd about the idea that even though I was very Evangelical, evangelistic, I was also always, you know, not always, there were many times I was telling my friends or again, when I worked with the when I volunteered with the Billy Graham crusade, I would tell people about my face and about what I thought they needed. But, and I know I'm not sure I've articulated this, but I do remember thinking to myself, certainly become a Christian, go to church, but don't go to my church. My church is whacked. I want to be kind of a Christian. I honestly did think that even though I went there for years, and clearly, you'd think that means that I believed a good bit of it. I do remember thinking to myself, when I'm talking to people witnessing is the word that we use when I was witnessing to friends are telling other people. I was always thinking do go to church but Dakota mind because it'll weird you out. That's fascinating. Interesting. Yeah. It's funny that it never bothered me at the time. Yeah, yeah. But it did still attend for many, many years, even as these doubts and questions and concerns were building. And I do remember now, for stepping to the present here. I do remember reading your how to D convert article, David. And these are all steps that I read in there that these are all classic deconversion stories, people who are fully committed. And then one question after another begins to build and and then, as your article then talks about the whole deconversion idea. We also boy I also talked to Brian McLaren in one of our episodes about the same sort of thing. It's the exact same sequence of events. So that's the end of the second half of my life.

David Ames  20:18  
So again, you know, it's it's I know, we're going to we're going to diverge at some point. But it is interesting, the number of parallels, I think you and I are contemporaries, and two things that really struck me. My first real church experience, first of all, was my my mother, who had a dramatic epiphany and a transformation from drug to drug addicts to functioning human being that that was my impetus to become a believer. I was all in, I felt like I had a personal relationship with Jesus. So that's slightly different. But Pentecostalism was the first exposure that I that I had in the 80s timeframe of Frank Peretti. And there's demons under every boy. Yeah, that whole. So that could definitely relate to that. So and then, you know, a long period of time of attending church, but having questions and not knowing at the time that the word was deconstruction, right like that, that, you know, I slowly began to see, well, this can't be an Eric, because there are problems. And like, and grappling with that, but but still absolutely remaining unbeliever for a few decades in my case. So right.

Luke J. Janssen  21:24  
Now, I'm curious. And if you want take this out of the final cut, I'm curious, you said that you said you did have a personal relationship. I'll say that I claimed to have had one, but it didn't feel it. And here's the funny thing. There were times where I would begin to feel something and then it really is, yeah, I'm just creating these feelings. I'm just, you know, crip, tensing these muscles. And it's through the breathing and through various things. I'm beginning to feel something and I was smart enough to know at that time, you know, what, I'm just creating this feeling. And I didn't want anything to do with that. Did you have more than that?

David Ames  21:57  
Yeah. So you know, it's, I think you've probably had the same experience. When we're talking to say, an evangelical today, you have this weird experience of kind of defending your former faith. And so I'm going to do, I'm going to do a bit of that, obviously, my perspective has changed today. But I had this sense of conscious contact is what I used to call it right. I was not terribly disciplined to have prayer time, half an hour out of the day, that kind of thing. But I felt like I had continuous contact as it were. So I know that you talked about feeling I definitely had a feeling of connection to God and a feeling of of relationship. How I interpret that today is radically different. But, but at the time, that's what I experienced.

Luke J. Janssen  22:42  
Right? And no voice is obviously now. The other thing, I mean, I would hear people say, but I feel,

David Ames  22:49  
you know, feel, you know, like the the language is so hard to pin down. But like you feel guidance, you feel a sense of God wishes this or that, that kind of thing. Yeah. As opposed to, you know, literal voice, right.

Luke J. Janssen  23:10  
Okay, so I'll jump into the third quarter of my life. And I'm going to call this a slippery slope phase, which everyone can relate to that expression. You've heard it all the time. In your article to deconstruction, how to deconstruct article, I think you call this the critical mass stage. Yeah. And so here's an interesting story. I said that I was gonna come back to demons, which demons was one of the things that we believed in. And I said that played into the ending of this part of my life. I can distinctly remember that one Sunday that we were in that Pentecostal church I was going to at that time, and I think many of your listeners are going to know the name. Benny Hinn, faith healer, he had a brother or has a brother, Henry Hinn, and I'm pretty sure it was Henry, they both did the same kind of thing. But Benny certainly rose to very big fame. But I think this one was a service being led by Henry hand. And I just, I just remember in this service, again, in the background, over the over the weeks, months years, leading up to this, I was beginning to have less and less conviction about what we were doing. But in this particular service, as he was winding up, you know, turning the crank to get the emotions primed up. He had a stand up, put our hands to the front of the church, put on our palms to the front of church and said, Okay, now we're going to Castle, the demons from the North. Now, I want you to turn around, we're going to Castle, the demons from the south. And then we had to cancel the game from the east and from the west. And I distinctly remember leaning over to my wife, and even though I would still say I was a well certainly wasn't full fledged believer, and even to some extent, Pentecostal, I remember leaning over and said, We're not coming back here again. This is this is too much. This is whacked. Yeah. And we didn't. I think I was only there once again, years later when I was there for a funeral for a friend of mine who was there and otherwise we never went to that church, let alone we never attend Did Pentecostal churches and that sort of thing after that? It just was there was too much emotion and too much weirdness, I understand. Yeah. So we started going to another church and actually several churches, we had to find a place. And I'll just characterize them I was basically Baptist, because I think a lot of your listeners will get a sense of what a Baptist church is like. And that's the kind of place that we went to. At that time, I still saw united and Anglican churches, they were basically dead churches. That's what I would have said at that time that he was dead churches. But we'll go to these other churches that are certainly not on the other end of the of the spectrum, the Pentecostal type. And it was during this time, once we left that, we did find a church that we attended for quite a while for a decade at least. And I was quite happy there. But these questions were beginning to accumulate during that time and really accumulate with a vengeance with force. And I'm going to break those up into three different I'll call them forces or influences on my life. The first which would obviously be science. I was a scientist, I went to university, worked in the university and use science in my life. And it was at that time, and again, I was a young earth creationist again, at that time, every new dinosaur fossil, every new discovery of another evolutionary adaptation, when I learned about them finding basic building blocks of life in meteorites, and I read about what, so Stonehenge and Sumerian tablets, that sort of thing. Every time I read about these things, the all confronted the beliefs that I grew up with, they all challenged my faith. It was certainly the young earth creationism that I grew up with. Yeah. And it was just a constant onslaught. And I found myself developing this split brain mentality, I had the Monday to Friday brain that I took to work. And I might even use words like evolution and adaptation, that sort of thing. I will use them but I certainly didn't really think that way. And then this Sunday brain that I had, that was a whole different worldview, young earth creationism, creationism still, and I really maintained that kind of dichotomy for a long, long time, the Monday to Friday brain and the Sunday brain are two different parts of my thinking. And I kept them very compartmentalized. And I know that that's not, it's a short term strategy, it's not going to last very long, you can only hold that kind of dissonance for so long. And, and so we'll come back to that. And that's the one of those three influences in my life. The second one then would be the morals and ethics that I read about in the Bible. The classic list of things that seem to bother so many people, the Canaanite slaughters, the ones that are included, often included, apparently innocent women, children, animals, the completely male oriented thinking of so many stories and values, you see, you sell a slave, and if the slave is male, you can get this much money. But if it's a female, you get half as much or if a child dies, you get more for a son and a daughter, and so many other ways, there was very much this male oriented thinking, and a blatant discrimination against women and slaves and foreigners and children. And It puzzles me now, I don't know why I didn't see those kinds of discriminations before, or at least they didn't bother me. Somehow they made sense. I don't know what else to say about that. One of

David Ames  28:23  
my observations was, obviously Grace was a major part of my Christianity is, and I'm continuing in a secular fashion. But I talked about how I had Grace colored glasses on when I went over that Scripture. And it wasn't until I like took those Grace colored colored glasses off to just read it, the text as it is, and just see what it actually says that the horror of what is Is there really struck me.

Luke J. Janssen  28:51  
Yeah. I guess what I was doing, I guess I'm saying the same thing you just did. In my own words, I just think it was again, my biblical literalism working against me, I believe those stories as real events, the stories of the Canaanites slaughters as an actual events. In other words, it was a God ordained event. I just use it because that's what the Bible told me. And I realized now that these are very much stories that people told. But that was another influence that began to chip away at my my faith system, the morals and ethics, the biblical morals and ethics actually ruined my faith

and then the third one was world religions, which for decades, I believe that any other world religion was was well, you can't call them demonic but we would have there there this satanic Islam, long list of world religions that you just dismissed us completely. Well, certainly non Christian, but more than that satanic because we will use those kinds of phrases that back when I was still young and naive and very foolish. But here's the thing. My job as a scientific research researcher took me into contact with so many people of these other faiths and religions, even going to their houses for dinner, going to conferences and rooming with them sometimes. And it's, it's embarrassing to admit that what I found was I was very confronted with the idea that these people were not the evil monsters I thought that I was expecting, right? I expected these to be very different people that were just night and day different from me. And they were wicked to the core. And what I found, though, was that these people were fundamentally good, they were sincere, they were kind and compassionate. And when we did talk about religion, they were not offensive. And the funny thing was that they were also just trying to be right in the eyes of a God that they believed they were just trying to be good. Yeah. And what really brought this part this influence, this destructive influence in my life, what really brought it to a boil was reading a book, I read lots of books, but this one in particular, I know it hit me like a hammer in the center of my face, Kite Runner by Colette Hossaini. And very briefly, basically, the story is of a kid who grows up in Muslim Afghanistan in a modern setting, I think was like the 1990s or something. This kid makes a decision. He's only he's a young teenager, I think he's 12, I think, when this happens, betrays a friend, which leads to some horrible consequences. And, and then this haunts the kid, right from the moment it happens for his whole life, and then the rest of the book. I mean, that's the first chapter, I think. And then the rest of the book is him as an adult trying to reconcile, not only to find this friend and to apologize, and to get forgiveness and reconciliation, but he's also going through this journey to reconcile with a God that he knew the only one he knew, which happened to be a law. And again, he grew up in a setting this, Afghanistan, Muslim iscan Stan, where there was no other story paints that as if there was no other Christian influences, it was just Muslim. And so this kid, now a man is just trying to get reconciled with God, whom he calls a law, because that's the only god he ever knew. And it struck me as I was reading the story. And still in this, this Christian phase of my life, I was thinking, as much as this kid just wanted to get right with God, too bad, he's going to hell because he's Muslim. And, and then it dawned on me that this is I couldn't tolerate this anymore did not seem right. The kid just wanted to be right with Allah and wanted to apologize to a friend. But he was going to hell because he wasn't a Christian. And I just couldn't justify that anymore. That really was the nail in the coffin on that part of my life.

David Ames  32:43  
Well, we talk a lot about that. It's not one thing. It's 1000 things. And we often focus on the first thing and the last thing. Right, right. And yet there are many points in between that, but so it sounds like this was one of the last things for you the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Luke J. Janssen  33:00  
Well, certainly one of the last things that basically had me beginning to say, You know what, I'm not sure I'm a Christian anymore, that's for sure. But but it was a long list of questions that finally got me to well, we'll come to that in moments. So it did start a whole cascade of changes in my thinking questions that I now actually started asking with vigor, I didn't just kind of quickly ask me that and realize, oh, I don't want to go there and file them away. So I actually began to deal with some of these. And it was a long, hard journey of deconstruction, you know, with air quotes, that what people usually think of deconstruction, meaning just taking a sledgehammer and breaking everything, which I now have learned, deconstruction can mean, a very, excuse me, can mean a very different thing. Sure. Maybe we'll talk about that later on. But I started going out for coffee with friends with people I respected and was asking these questions and trying to reconcile them trying to have them make sense. And I just found myself giving up ground on so many things that I once believed with full conviction. And so what kinds of things naturally obviously one of the first things to go I think the first thing to go would be this, the inerrancy and infallibility infallibility of the Bible. How could that not happen? All these stories that I took at face value, and now I'm saying they could not have happened, it doesn't make sense. It's not right, you know, again, getting back to the canine Canaanite slaughters. So that was one of the first things that that definitely went, I stopped reading the Bible literally. We can talk more about that later. Things like atonement theology, I was very much I grew up Calvinist and for a long time I had I held this idea for decades held this idea of original sin, and that whole idea of Heaven and Hell and reward and punishment. Christian exclusivism though the whole idea that Christianity is the only way to get to heaven, and then that one of the other things I already mentioned this, but it was one of the last things that I had that I found myself wrestling with was that personal relationship even into my 40s and 50s, I still thought I'm supposed to have this and I just was not able to experience it not able to realize it. Without generating it myself. That's the thing. I think I could have been someone who would say, Yep, I feel that personal relationship. But I would know deep inside, I'm just generating as a friend of mine, as a friend of mine calls that the warm the warm fuzzies just generating the warm fuzzies. And then I call that God. And that was one of the last things that I've finally had to let go of. And it took me so long to get rid of that. That idea.

David Ames  35:34  
I think people will relate to that. Yeah. Yeah. And I know there's a more to the story. I'm anticipating that but yes,

Luke J. Janssen  35:40  
well, so now we're getting nearer to the end of that third 15 year span of my life, I found it necessary that I had to accept that I was no longer a believer. Definitely agnostic, that's for sure. But I've not wasn't quite comfortable calling myself an atheist. I wouldn't call myself an atheist. And that's because I'm a scientist, scientist says, Well, if you if you say this, you have to mean it in the meaning of the word. And to me an atheist is somebody who knows that there is no God. And I can't, I couldn't say that, then we can come back later to the fact that I still can't say that.

The interesting thing was leading up to that admission that okay, I'm not a believer, I'm certainly an agnostic, leading up to that there's all this fear of walking to the edge, and you know, the panic and the uneven uncertainty of coming to that. But once you do make that step, it was just a feeling of liberation. I just found that. Now I can now I can breathe easy. I can, I can be honest with myself, for starters, and I can, there was a joy and a peace. Let's put it that way. I actually enjoy MP. So I've given up this faith that I'd had for 40 or more years,

David Ames  36:55  
we talked about just the release the you know, best self honesty, you lose the need to defend your Faith anymore. And yeah, there's some very interesting things that happen. And the irony is how evangelistic it sounds when you try to describe it, you know, like, literally, you know, scales falling from one's eyes kind of thing,

Luke J. Janssen  37:18  
right? No, Dave, in your show? Do you? Have you had people talk? Or have you talked about this allegory of Plato's cave?

David Ames  37:25  
I'm very familiar with that. I don't know that. We've talked about it a lot on on the podcast. So if you want to give the listeners just a brief overview,

Luke J. Janssen  37:33  
okay, so and the reason I'm doing this is because this is now I'm feeling that in my life, in that part of my life, I was feeling this whole Plato's cave experience. Yeah. So very briefly, I haven't really thought to do this. But let me just try. So in Plato's cave, you've got this guy stuck in a cave, he's chained, and he's just seeing shadows on a wall, cast by some fire or something like that. And he just sees shadows, doesn't make sense. He's looking at it. And things don't make sense. But he eventually managed to get free, which allows him now to walk around the cave. And then he sees that these shadows are actually just, they're just shadows of A, he had been building an image of what the shadows meant. And now he knew what those shadows were all about. He knew what was creating the shadows, he saw it from from a whole different angle, He then proceeds to walk out of the cave. In the process, as he gets to the top of the cave and breaks out in the sunlight. Now he's absolutely blinded, and he's scared to death, because he can't see anything, doesn't know where he's going. But eventually, he, his eyes accommodate, he can now see clearly, things as they really are not no longer just shadows on a wall, in the cave. But now he sees the sky and the trees and everything around them. And he sees what things are really all about. And there's this feeling of of elation of joy. And then he realizes I should go back into the cave and get my buddies out of that cave. Yeah, and so so that's where I found myself at this point in my life that I had walked up to that edge with such fear and uncertainty, and the blindness of, you know, if I let go of this, and I let go of that, there's nothing there to catch me. And I didn't know what to do. But once I finally did, there was that feeling of, of release, you use word release, and joy and peace. And then I did feel that I wanted to go back and tell the people that I've been going to church with about, you know, what, all these things were talking about. Maybe there's a different way to look at these things. And I really began to as so I started a blog called reaching back into Plato's cave. I wanted to reach back to them and help them pass that those questions that we're all dealing with. Yeah. So that was very much a decision that I made to finally say, you know, what, I don't believe all those things. So in that sense, I'm not a believer, and I'm definitely agnostic. And I just want to clarify, I often want to clarify, I want to say this to people I'm talking to. I'm speaking now to two different groups of people, the ones who are Christians and the ones who are atheist. To the ones that are Christians. I want them to know that this is not a rejection of a faith. I have had, because it's not that I just chose to stop believing, and certainly not motivated by wanting to have a different lifestyle, you know, the whole sex drugs and rock and roll thing. It's just that I couldn't pretend anymore, I just couldn't pretend that I was a believer, I just simply didn't believe, at least not all the things that I used to believe. And so a lot of Christians will become judgmental. At this point, some Christians will become judgmental at this point. As if I had a choice, I didn't have a choice, I didn't just know that the faith was real. And I chose to believe differently, I just couldn't believe it anymore. And then the other thing I want to say is to the to the atheist, and it's, it's one thing to say that you can give up a lot of these faiths, but it doesn't mean that you have to reject the whole thing. And I just simply dropped the things that I couldn't hold anymore, which was a lot of things, I'll admit. But there still were some things that made sense to me, they still do, and I hope we can talk about some of those. We're in the fourth quarter of my life that I'll be getting to

David Ames  40:58  
Yeah, I you know, I said this loop to you off Off mic. And I'm just gonna say it here that that really the podcast, as I started, it was for those people who, when they looked around at what they had left, it was so little, that what remained was so little that they maybe they don't call themselves atheists, but they they don't say that they're more than agnostic in some way or another right like that. They can't they there's nothing left for them. That was my personal experience. But I want to acknowledge that people go through the deconstruction process and land in different places, there's a wide spectrum available to people. And one of the things that I find exciting about that is that that people get to go and explore, to learn to find out what they believe and why. And that's ultimately their autonomous decision that they get to make, right. And so I just want to make sure that that's clear from my end that although the podcast does generally focus on the D convert, where I'm acknowledging there's a pretty wide spectrum for people to experience.

Luke J. Janssen  42:05  
Good. So now I'm sure there's listeners that are wondering, well, then what do you still hold on to? The one thing that I just could not shake is the idea that there's this, there is a creative force, a life force. And that's simply because again, I'm a scientist. And so when I look under the microscope, and and see what cells can do, when I look at it through a telescope, and to see what's out there, it just leaves a feeling in me that there's something bigger out there. And I just, I can't believe that this whole thing is just some crazy cosmic accident. I just can't go there. Now, I know that some people call that a God of the gaps. And I have often wrestled with the fact I've been against people, not against people, I've been against the arguments that are based on a God of the Gaps argument. I'm just against those. And that's the thing I said, all I'm doing is holding on to a God of the gaps. But I'd been corrected on that partly through some thinking. But I'll be honest, it was also in a lot of these podcast episodes that I've done with Boyd and there was a an episode we did with Steven Freeland to chemo that they're more recently as well, where the point is made. It's not that it's a God of the gaps. I'm not using it as an explanation of things. It's more it's a sense of awe, there's this awe in looking at the stuff under a microscope or at the end of a telescope, and just being in awe and just feeling that there's something bigger out there. I have no evidence that there is no God, I don't have evidence that there is a God, this is not my evidence for God, when I look through the microscope, I don't say, well, that's proof that there's a God, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, there's an awe that there's something bigger called the life force, a creative force. And it just makes more sense to believe that, that there's this creative life force, rather than this is just a cosmic accident. That's where I stand on that whole idea.

It just makes believing certain things make more sense. For me, it's more intellectually satisfying. Again, it's not proof. For God. It's not proof that we exist for a purpose. But I also don't have definitive proof that there's no God or that we don't have a purpose. If you're going to be adamant on this, you have to acknowledge that. In this case, you're you're making a choice. I don't know that anybody has proof that there is no God or that we're not here for a reason. They don't have that proof. They just, I would say that they should acknowledge that they're making a choice to believe that and I just choose to believe that there is something bigger out there, and that we do exist here for a purpose for purpose that there is meaning to our existence. And I know that some believers will, will have problems with me referring to God as a creative life force. But here's the thing. I've moved past the idea of God is a personal God. A personal Buddy, He's not someone more closer to me than my neighbor or even than my wife, he's not a personal Buddy, he is he so I'm using, I'm using pronouns he, as if God is a person, and that's again, something that boy and I've talked a lot about in our podcast, God is not a person, he's not a he or a she or an IT, he's, he's it God is way beyond personification. And, and certainly I would call God a life force or credibly force in a lot of other things.

David Ames  45:29  
You know, it's interesting, I just want to jump in here. If you're if you ever get a chance, go back and listen to marriage Simka a, I did a an interview with an Orthodox Jewish person. And, man, the language you're using right now sounds almost exactly for what he was talking, you know, the the kind of a, the core of being, that being itself kind of force of being as it were, I'm struggling to use the language, but it just what you just said really struck me as very similar to potentially Jewish thinking,

Luke J. Janssen  46:01  
right? So I hang on to this idea that there is something bigger out there. And if I find out, I'm wrong, I don't feel I've lost anything. And even as I say those words, I don't want thinking, I don't want people thinking that I'm just, you know, the Pascal's Wager idea, I'm not just choosing to believe because it's in the hopes of being right about getting into heaven, I'm quite comfortable with finding out that we only have our life here on earth, and that there's nothing more after that I don't need to have a reward of heaven. For making this choice. I just choose based on what I see and what it feels that there is something bigger out there. And well, I certainly don't believe in the whole health thing, that's for sure. I grew up with and believed in this idea for 50 years, the idea that God hates humans, because we're so sinful, and that there's nothing he can do but just burn us up or even worse, torturous for an eternity, I find that I can't believe that. I do believe that people can create their own hell here on Earth. And I'm working my way through parsing the words of Jesus, when he's talking about hell, that he's talking about people creating hell on earth. And it goes both ways, I think you can create Hell on Earth, you can also create heaven on earth, if we can just get it together, okay. And that's where this whole meaning making thing comes together, I just choose to play in a team that's all about making meaning, making a difference, learning how to get along, learning how to love learning how to make things better, that's just a choice I made to be on a team. And if there's an afterlife, and there's a heaven, that's great, but I don't need that to make this choice.

David Ames  47:31  
So it's really interesting, Luke, because I use a lot of the same language without the underlying metaphysics. And I'm not trying to argue here, I just want you to understand where I come from, from my perspective that human beings are meaning makers, we make meaning that is part of what it means to be human. And this concept that we talked about on the podcast of secular grace is that human beings need to be accepted, we need to be known, we have a deep seated needs to be known by one another. We are social creatures. And this idea of secular grace is a proactive love, call it agape if you want. But just that that is the attitudinal direction that we should be facing is loving one another. I know that's not original, I appreciate that I'm stealing that. But that, from my perspective, there's no underlying transcendence necessary for all of that to remain true. That all is a human experience, that that all of these things can be natural. So it's fascinating how close you and I are, is what I think you're a great guest. This is this has been this is a great conversation. So I really appreciate it.

I think my question that leaps out is, what is the Bible for you now? So there's a lot of deconstruction that's happened. You have this sense of the creative force. So what does that? What does that say about the Bible? What does it mean to you now?

Luke J. Janssen  49:02  
For me the Bible. So I use an analogy. And in fact, I'm trying remember we use it recently in an episode, but for the longest time, that's right, it was it was an episode we did with Peter ends. And I asked him, What do you think of this analogy? For although the longest time I had this idea of the Bible as the user's manual, you know, you've got the user's manual for your car or for your stereo system. It's a manual. It's written by the maker of the product that we're talking about. And it's written to the people who are going to buy this product and how this is how you use it. Here's what you do and that sort of thing. That's what I thought the Bible for decades. I thought that's what the Bible was written by God is, you know, I might have been had to admit, okay, yes, sure. There was a human holding the pen, but basically, God's moving his fingers God's whispering in his ear, or is putting the thoughts in his head. And it's a it's a book written by God giving given to us humans to tell us how to live. And I've since realized, that's not realized. I've since come to accept the fact that it's not a user. As manual, it's rather a diary or a notebook. The whole idea that humans for millennia for 1000s of years have been have been looking up at the sky, feeling that there is this bigger thing out there trying to make sense of it, writing down their notes, writing down the stories that they told. Some of those stories are intended to tell us, okay, here's what happens when you do things this way. And here's how you could look better. Some things are written to basically say, here's how we did it, because we thought we were right. And boy, were we wrong. Now, now they're not that boy, were we wrong is not even admitted implicitly in the story. There's a lot of stores in the Bible that people look at and go, How can that be in that Bible? And I think it's there because the people at the time, this is what they did. And you look, we can now stand back and look at what they didn't realize how it just goes, it just goes downhill from there. So a lot of words to say, I now see the Bible as much more if not, well, largely, you diary or a notebook written by humans. And we get to look at those diaries and notebooks and take some lessons from them. And, and to some extent, we're writing back into those books when we interpret those biblical books. I mean, let's face it, a lot of the things that are written in the Bible have been interpreted so, so hugely differently. And that's why we have so many Christian denominations, they take the same passages and personal differently. And that's what we're now doing. We're taking those scriptures, looking at what those people wrote down and how they saw things and we're now applying our meaning to what they wrote down as if that's what those people meant all along. That's a lot of words to say where I see the Bible now.

David Ames  51:36  
And it's okay if you I'd like to dig just one step further. In that do you see the Christian bible as special or different from say, the Koran or the Bhagavad Geeta, Geeta, or any of the other collections of human wisdom that are out there?

Luke J. Janssen  51:52  
Only special in that that's what I grew up with. Okay. It's full of strange stories. It's full of, of, of disturbing stories, and it's full of things that I'll call untruth. I have looked at pieces of the Bhagavad Gita pieces of the Quran. So I'm not an expert on those and my point. My point is this. They contain a lot of truths. They may contain a lot of untruth, I don't know what those are. So I'm not going to say that they do. But I'm led to believe that they contain some untruths, and some disturbing stories. And but then so does the Bible. I mean, I will never deny that the Bible has a lot of very disturbing stories and a lot of wrong ideas, to be honest. So here's an example of what I'm talking about. The Israelites, if you if you take this Bible at face value, it talks about the Israelites having just come out of Egypt, they've been wandering around for a while, they're now setting up a religious system in the desert, and they're looking forward to getting into Canaan. And we're given these laws, presumably from God. And one of the first things they ask about is, well, what do I do when I need to sell my kid into slavery? And there's some words there that talk about what they need to do when they sell to kids into slavery. What do you do with a raped woman? And the solution there, presumably from God was, well, you have to make that woman marry her rapist, and there's no opportunity for divorce. There were opportunities, opportunities for divorce and other situations. But here in this case of rape, no, there wasn't. How can I? I can't say that that was God speaking. I think that was a human speaking a male speaking, were a bunch of males speaking. And that would be an example of what I'm talking about. When I say that there are things that are wrong in the Bible. Okay. And I think the Bible is intended to force us to ask some really hard questions and begin to look past the words. And really, yeah, actually, that's not the best way to do things.

David Ames  53:40  
Where I think we agree is that I think the the collections of human wisdom are a particular group of people in a particular time writing about how they made sense of the world, how they interacted with one another. And what 21st century eyes, that can be horrifying. So yeah, I think from the anthropological point of view of just kind of having kind of a step back and saying, trying not to just judge it, but to recognize that's, that's what they thought at that time. And we can take what we we think is useful, and rejects critically, what we find to not fit in the 21st century anymore.

Luke, another topic that I was interested in, I heard you allude to it in relatively recent episodes of the podcast, but I was never able to go back to the the archives to hear the detail is that you wrote a book about the soul. And so I'd be really interested to hear what your perspective is on the concept of a soul.

Luke J. Janssen  54:43  
So that actually came out of my studies when I did this master's of theological studies. Again, I want to say that I didn't just decide to get an MTS, I first took a course in Genesis what to do with Genesis because I wasn't a scientist and I did not know what to do with that whole creation account. So I took that course and then another and another until it finally became a degree. Now during that time taking all those courses, one of the things I began to learn, it really became so blatantly obvious to me and certainly is now was how thinking developed over time, I used to have this mentality that, you know, the Old Testament people believed this way, if you can't see me in the, in the audio, but I'm holding my hands as if I'm holding a basketball. This is what the Old Testament believed about things. The Old Testament, the ancient Hebrews believed about things. And then there was a change in thinking when Christ came on the scene. And now the New Testament again, have their new basketball. And they see things differently. But I really saw how thinking changed over 1000s of years. And in particular, on this topic of the soul and the afterlife, I realized that the very ancient Hebrews had a very different view completely different than what you might read about later on in the Old Testament, or certainly the New Testament, and certainly compared to now. And what also became apparent was that the changes in the thinking coincide when you when you take into account when these different books of the Bible are written. Some are written well. So we can argue about exactly when they're written, but certainly some are written from the point of view of many, many 1000s of years ago, say 6000, or 4000 years ago. Some of them were written from a context that's more like say three or 4000 years ago. And when you look at the at the timing of the changes in the thinking, when different books, the Bible convey a whole new understanding of the soul and the afterlife. They coincided with when these ancient people, the ancient Hebrews were in one context or another, they spent 400 years in Egypt, for example, they had a certain view, let me back up even further. So before they were in Egypt, they were Babylonians. Abraham was a Babylonian and we know about what the Babylonians believed. And there's hints of what a Babylonian, a Hebrew wise Babylonian faith look like some things that Abraham did, and people around him talked about, you can see now this base Babylonian influence. And they very much had a Babylonian look on what the soul was like and what the afterlife was like, then they end up in Egypt, and they're there for four or 500 years 430 You can hear different numbers. But the bottom line is they're in there for for almost five centuries. And if you look at anybody today, who comes from an immigrant family, and they are second or third generation in a new country, like Canada, or the US, those second or third generation kids are so North American eyes compared to their parents and grandparents who are so old school from the old country. Yeah. And there's a complete difference in just the course of a couple generations. Now you'll look at these ancient Hebrews they've been in Egypt for for almost 500 years, they're completely Egyptian eyes. And you can see that now in what they talk about. When we're referring to the soul in the afterlife. Then there's this encounter with the Zorro, Zoroastrians, the Persian Empire, Daniel, Daniel sees a whole has a whole new perspective on the soul and the afterlife. And it's largely because of his his contact with the Persians and the Zoroastrian faith. And then you come certainly Greek Greek thinking absolutely changed the way the ancient biblical writers saw the soul and the afterlife, it became a very platonic view on the soul in the afterlife. And then then you come to Paul and Paul was a completely Hellenistic Jew, and sees things very differently. And now we're today 2000 years later see the soul in the afterlife completely different yet again? Yeah. So that was the that was the generation of that book. It was a lot of learning. It was not a particular course, it was certainly was not my thesis while I was doing that master's degree, but it was an accumulation of all kinds of examples that I came across where the thinking of the ancient biblical writers how that thinking on all kinds of issues just changed over hundreds or 1000s of years.

David Ames  59:02  
And for you, personally, what was what would your position be on the soul?

Luke J. Janssen  59:07  
So that's what the book is about. And we did a number of episodes on that. And I'm just actually editing right now, as we speak. I'm editing an episode that will come out in a number of weeks where we talked about that. For me, the soul is an emergent property of the brain. Now, what is an emergent property? Basically, it's it's, it's a property that emerges out of basic constituents that you would not have seen those things there if you just looked at those basic constituents. So for example, I'm going to just try to quickly come up with analogies. You look at artificial intelligence or virtual reality. You can play virtual reality and you feel you're in a whole new virtual, you're in a whole new reality. But that's only because of a lot of circuits, a lot of software, a lot of electrons, and all the things are coming together to produce a whole new experience. And out of that emerges of unexperienced you can't it's a lot potential, if you don't have words for people will talk with civilizations that a civilization is based on people, people are built on organs. Organs involve chemicals, chemicals involve protons and electrons. And at each of those stages, you can't predict a civilization when you just look at the electrons and protons, neutrons. You can even predict the molecules. And then once you have molecules, you can predict the civilization all these things are emergent properties of, of the basic constituents. So the brain, the soul is an emergent property of a whole lot of nerves, a whole lot of reflex pathways, a whole lot of neural processing. And from that is an experience of what it what's going on around you who am I, I see myself immersed in a world where I am situated in a, in a social setting, I'm a member of a family and a social group, and a country all have these things feed into my personal experience of what is real to me. And that's to me, what the soul is all about the soul is what defines you, it defines your hopes, your fears, it defines your memories, all of these things, and we can route those in. The neural processing is an emergent property of that neural processing.

David Ames  1:01:24  
One more question on this. I didn't I didn't see us going this direction. But I'm really you're just you just make me very curious. To me, you've just described consciousness. So are those synonyms for you? And I guess the ultimate question is at death, does the soul continue on for you?

Luke J. Janssen  1:01:42  
Okay. First of all, no, I would not call consciousness and soul or mind or personality, the same thing, consciousness is just an awareness. And so even bacteria will have an awareness of a chemical gradient, for example, or light source, they have that conscious awareness. And so that would be consciousness. Now, soul and mind and personality certainly would include consciousness. It's one of those fundamental ingredients, they lead to a personality and a mind and a soul.

David Ames  1:02:11  
Can I Can I jump in and just correct? How about sentience? Is that a better word?

Luke J. Janssen  1:02:16  
Okay, so I haven't thought about that. So sentience, and and sentience is, you know what? I have to think about that that day, because sentence would be I think, it is a property, but I'm thinking more it's like a, it's an action of some kind of like, it's more of an action word to me, whereas soul to me is an experience. It's a it's a property. Okay. So there's overlap, I'd have to think about that one day.

David Ames  1:02:42  
Okay, great. Yeah. Hey, I succeeded. I got you to think.

Luke J. Janssen  1:02:47  
Now, you said, What does that mean for the afterlife? So Christians will talk about the resurrection, but he'll talk about the resurrection. And I firmly believe if you're going to believe in the resurrection, I don't know that there is I don't know that there's an afterlife, I really don't know. I honestly don't know that there's an afterlife, I believe it's possible, I have no idea what it looks like. But if there is they talked about this resurrection body, that body can look like anything. It doesn't have to be this physical body that I currently own today, which is a completely different body than they had 20 years ago. And let alone 40 years ago, I've had many bodies, and they've all looked very different. I know, we all grew up and by the you had five is not what you had 15 or 30. You get the idea. Yeah. So. So this emergent property that I call the soul works in the body that I now have, the nerves that I have, and the pathways that are ingrained in my brain. But in theory, those could be embodied in something else. People today talk about being embodied in a computer when you talk about transhumanism and, and being loaded up into the where they call it the metaverse, they talked about that. And it's something that actually they actually could believe would be possible. And in theory, if they could upload all your memories, all of your experiences, your preferences, the laws, you grew up with the values, you held all these different things. I would I would struggle to say that's not me that was embodied up there. If they had all those qualities and all those things of me, it'd be hard to say, well, that's not me. And then of course, that raises all kinds of other weird philosophical questions. So I think I've answered your question, David. Yeah, the afterlife could be a reimbursement in something doesn't have to be this biological body and probably wouldn't be a computer but who knows what it could look like.

David Ames  1:04:39  
I lied to you just a second ago. I've got one more question along this line. Because and I'll set the context for so for me personally. The last two things to go were the concept of a soul, my soul, specifically mine. Right, not just not just theoretically, but the idea that I have something that that will transcend to death. went for me. And the second are the really the truly the last thing for me was the resurrection of Jesus himself as a literal event. So I'm curious if you believe that Jesus was physically, literally resurrected from death, true death.

Luke J. Janssen  1:05:16  
Right. Okay, so I will take both of those. Let me start with the first one, though. So I think people will struggle with the idea that I talked with the soldiers being just an emergent property, especially the Christian believers amongst your listeners, and who here this will struggle with that whole idea. And yet, all you need is a brain injury, and you become a different person. There's stories, and people always pull out the story of Phineas Gage, people have a grandmother who's got Alzheimer's, and all that really is is a brain injury. And they recognize that that person is becoming less of who they once were. And sometimes they become a different person, they suddenly start acting and doing things that are completely different. Lots of stories of people having other forms of brain injury and becoming a whole different person. It's just bizarre. And the point is, if there really was a separate thing called Soul, write a thing called the soul that was writing in your body, you could have a brain injury, and that soul should still be there. But it's not. It's totally dependent on the brain, the machinery. So that's, we could go on at length about why I hold this view. But okay, so enough on that, yeah. Now back to the Jesus resurrection thing. Again, I don't know, I'm still wrestling through where I stand on who God is, whether he's an interventionist God. Certainly, to me, God represents a whole lot of moral values, good and love and that sort of thing. But whether he's an interventionist I don't know, if he were, if I could somehow be convinced that he were, I could see him looking down on these humans and saying, You know what, they could do things better here, I know this, the I have a better will for them. I'm going to send someone down there. Now, before I go any further, this is not I'm not going down the path where I'm going to send somebody down there. So I can rip him apart and spill his blood and pay for since that's not what I'm getting at. I think rather, if he were an interventionist God, he could send somebody in and say, Hey, guys, there's a better way. And here's how you do it. Get along, forgive, you know, that kind of thing, all the values that Jesus stood for, and which is why he was killed. And if that were the case, if this Jesus was either, you know, well, if this Jesus was there for that reason, and was killed for that reason, I could also imagine an interventionist God saying, You know what, now they've killed them, they've really done it, I'm going to bring them back, partly to put a spotlight on this guy, this guy is not just another guy who died from some good values. Here's a guy who stood for the values that I want these humans to finally get into their heads. And I'll put a spotlight on that. I would believe that such an interventionist God could conceivably be raising from the dead. So I haven't answered your question. I can't say yep, I believe that that's what happened is consistent with. I'm obviously not done wrestling through those questions. But I want to be honest with myself, and on the one hand, say, okay, look, I can't say that. I know that that's what happened that there was this interventionist God who did raise Jesus after Jesus made the point. Hey, guys, here's how to live. I'm not going to say I absolutely believe that. But on the other hand, I can't say well, I'm not going to say, it's not it's not possible because even as a scientist, I'm going to know that there are things that are now possible that were not possible. 100 years ago, we do things now today that are routine. We bring people back to life. We resuscitate, we don't we don't resurrect we resuscitate people, we do all kinds of things that are that were impossible. And now we realize, well, we just didn't know all the rules. We didn't know all the physical laws. And so I'm not going to deny that it's entirely possible. I can't say no, it's impossible. I just don't know how to say yes, it happened beyond saying, Well, I want to believe that it did.

David Ames  1:09:03  
I think that's very honest. So thank you for, for letting me dig deep there. I definitely want to spend some time though, on your podcast recovering evangelicals. So I want to begin that with how did that come about? What what was the impetus and and how did you avoid Connect?

Luke J. Janssen  1:09:22  
Okay, so again, I begin all those questions when I was in my 30s 40s, began a lot of questions. And eventually it became a blog site. And I started the blog, a lot of these questions, reaching into Plato's cave. And, and then that transformed into a podcast because one of the people that I had coffee with was this boy who happened to be at the time he was a no, not at the time. I knew him as a kid in the youth group. I was one of the helpers I used sponsor. I worked with our youth pastor and helped run the youth program with him. He did all the work. We were helpers, but boy was one of the kids in there and And, and then years later, I mean, I haven't even stopped to think how many years later, I then encountered Boyd again, that same youth leader brought the two of us together. Boyd and I, we had coffee he was there as well, we actually was a beer and french fries and that kind of thing, that scandal there. But that's where I had a good long chat with this boy. And he began to clarify a few things for me. And at the same time, at that particular time, I was wondering about doing a podcast. And it just turned out that, you know, the everything conversion, I began doing this podcast with this boy who I knew from long before, one of the reasons I wanted to work with Boyd said, he has a whole different background. Mine is very scientific with some little bit of religious an MTS degree. Whereas boys is very much philosophical and theological, he had that training. And he's a very sharp guy very quick in his mind. And I really thought, you know, this is the kind of guy that I can work with. So that's how the podcast started. So now I'm just going to very quickly do the blurb from my my podcast, so it's recovering evangelicals, I just want to point out to anyone who's trying to find it. We did start this podcast in January 2020, with that name recovering evangelicals. And just over half a year later, another group started with the same name on Facebook, recovering evangelicals. And then it was about a year later. So now, one year after I started, then another person started with a podcast called The New Evangelical, the new evangelicals, podcast, and the new evangelicals community. So a little bit of overlap there. And then another person came up with recovering evangelical podcast, she had the singular, we had the plural, but otherwise, it's the same name. So just want to call attention to the fact that there's at least four groups with very similar names. And we were there first.

David Ames  1:11:51  
Yeah, I'm giving you credit, then. Okay. So maybe just give my listeners overview of some of the topics you cover. And, and then we'll get into maybe who your audience is.

Luke J. Janssen  1:12:02  
Okay. So what we what the goal of the podcast is to just deal with questions that make it hard to believe it. And it's called recovering evangelicals, we've had a number of times a number, a number of episodes, where we explain why we call it that people who are trying to recover from evangelicalism, or even people who are trying to recover evangelicalism because we think evangelicalism is very, very broken today. So we're targeting those people who come from an evangelical background, or at least want to hear about that. And people who either have left behind, they've just given up on belief entirely, or people who are struggling with it. Maybe some people, some listeners are ones who are who are fully committed to the faith themselves, but they're working, they may be youth workers and working with kids who are asking these questions. So. So a lot of words to say, our goal in this podcast is to deal with those really tough questions. And we deal with ones like, you know, Original Sin and atonement theory, that personal relationship that I referred to earlier, we'd have a number of episodes to deal with that directly. Things like heaven and hell, or controversial things. young earth creationism for sure we deal with a lot, but things like intelligent design, religious trauma we have dealt with in the past, those are the kinds of topics that we have covered.

David Ames  1:13:17  
Yeah, great. And I'll just say that you guys tackle these issues with a high degree of rigor. So you come prepared, there's clearly research that has been done. I appreciate that you, you know, you bring the scientific perspective. And Boyd has the, the philosophical background as well. And you both have a theological background. And so it's, it's exceptionally well done, and I'll give you give you props for that. So.

Who do you see as your audience who are the people who are listening?

Luke J. Janssen  1:13:55  
Well, I kind of alluded to that. So there are people who have moved from one version of Christian belief into another, or they moved out of Christianity into an entirely different religion. We've I've heard from them as well. Some people who see themselves as agnostics, and some who are outright atheists, one of the most recent while this goes back, I'm going to take a guess. Five or 10 episodes. So to go we had somebody in particular who has just moved on from the Christian faith. A great guy I loved doing that episode with him. He and Redfern is his name.

David Ames  1:14:26  
He has been on the podcast I love him. Yeah.

Luke J. Janssen  1:14:31  
And and so we want to reach out to those people as well. Some of those people just we use this phrase scratching the itch. These people who even though they've left behind, they haven't left behind. They still come back whether they're aware of it or not. Well, the fact that they're listening to our podcast means that they aren't coming back to it. But they're just often finding themselves thinking these questions, they come back to scratch the itch. And so those are the people that we're talking to.

David Ames  1:14:58  
Luke, this has been An amazing conversation, I think you and I could talk for hours upon end. If ever we are in the same town at the same time, I would love to have coffee or beer or whatever, so that we could chat and spend a few hours. I hope this isn't the last time that we work together. But thank you so much. I do want to give you just one last chance to you how can people reach out to you? Where can they find the podcasts, that kind of thing?

Luke J. Janssen  1:15:21  
Well, they can email me at lukejjanssen@gmail.com. Or go to the podcast, which is at Luke J. jensen.wordpress.com. Excellent. Didn't do that too fast. They can find me on Facebook, of course. And we have a private discussion group which people can join. We do ask a couple questions, three questions, and a lot of people asked to join and they don't ask questions, well, then they don't get in. So we just want to know a few things about these people, we

David Ames  1:15:47  
do something very similar. I appreciate. Luke, thank you so much for telling your story. Good to be here.

Final thoughts on the episode. As you can hear, Luke is a really interesting person who has lived on that edge of science versus faith for all of his life. I've said this before, I really find it fascinating the number of people who have a young earth creationism as a part of their primary faith tradition. So here I mean, you know, Luke talks about not being fully committed as a younger person, and then eventually making a personal commitment, but having that be a foundational part of one's theology, and a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible. Between those two things really are the main cracks that happen, that as a person tries to hold on to the inerrancy of Scripture and a young earth creationism, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, begins that process of deconstruction for many, many people. I appreciated Luke's honesty and talking about his younger years and not being entirely in and his description of his deconstruction of letting go of that inerrancy letting go of young earth creationism, as well as his honesty in still believing in something that he cannot look at the complexity and the beauty of life and not have adhere. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but not have an author or a designer of some kind or another. As I mentioned, throughout my conversation with Luke, it was fascinating to me, how close he and I are. And yet, I am comfortably on the other side of deconversion. And he maintains faith. On some level, I don't know that he would call himself a Christian any longer, but he has some sense of the Divine, something transcendent. I appreciate the tone of the recovering evangelicals podcast that they are very much trying to do what I'm trying to do in being an open, safe place for people to land. I think I'm on one side of the fence, and they're on the other side of the fence. But we're really trying to do the same work. So I appreciate it very much. I want to recommend for those of you who are interested in some of the apologetic arguments and what that sounds like from people who still maintain some level of faith, but who have deconstructed and let go of an evangelical fundamentalist perspective on the Bible. It is very interesting. As I mentioned, it's very rigorously done with a lot of research and intelligence, with Luke bringing the scientific perspective and Boyd bringing a philosophical and theological perspective. And like some of my guests who are in deconstruction, but would not say that they are D converted. They are working it out. And they are working it out on Mike in public. And I think that's really fascinating and interesting to listen to. So I can't recommend enough the podcast recovering evangelicals. You can find them wherever you find your best podcasts. You can also find Luke at lukejjanssen.wordpress.com. That's lukejjanssen.wordpress.com. And of course, we'll have links in the show notes. I want to thank Luke for being on the podcast and for sharing his story with honesty and being willing to dig deep. There is a potential at some point in time for me and a few other people being on the recovering evangelicals podcast. We'll see if that pans out. But thank you Luke for being on the podcast. I really appreciate it you and your story. Secular Grace Thought of the Week is it is also okay to be d converted to be done. I think for those in my audience who have crossed that Rubicon and They call themselves non believer or non theist or, or even an atheist or what have you, it's less about knowing that there is no God, the way that Luke framed it, and more about being done trying to find evidence for something that no evidence has been found for yet. I've intentionally had a number of guests who are deconstructing who are not de converts, to hear that voice to hear that side of the conversation. But one of the primary reasons for this podcast is to provide cover for those of us who say there is no more, there is no baby in this bathwater, and I am done. That is okay. I completely respect the agnostic position and not being willing yet to make that call. I think a much larger proportion of people who begin deconstruction are in that space where it's much more of an agnostic point of view. But I just want to make clear that if you are a listener, and again, you don't have to use the word atheist, but you no longer believe that a god or transcendence or supernaturalism exists. You are not alone, and you are okay. Next week, we have Robert peoples of the affinis project, Robert has done a tremendous amount of work in moving secularism forward in Arizona. He is a humanist and has a secular Grace perspective on life. And I'm excited for you to hear his story. Until then, my name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. Join me and be graceful human.

Time for the footnotes. The beat is called waves for MCI beats, links will be in the show notes. If you'd like to support the podcast, you can promote it on your social media. You can subscribe to it in your favorite podcast application, and you can rate and review it on pod chaser.com. You can also support the podcast by clicking on the affiliate links for books on Bristol atheists.com. If you have podcast production experience and you would like to participate podcast, please get in touch with me. Have you gone through a faith transition? And do you need to tell your story? Reach out? If you are a creator, or work in the deconstruction deconversion or secular humanism spaces, and you'd like to be on the podcast? Just ask. If you'd like to financially support the podcast there's links in the show notes. To find me you can google graceful atheist. You can google deconversion you can google secular grace, you can send me an email graceful atheist@gmail.com or you can check out the website graceful atheist.com My name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist join me and be graceful human beings

this has been the graceful atheist podcast

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Book Review: Scout Mindset with Jimmy

Atheism, Book Review, Deconversion, Philosophy, Podcast, Secular Grace

Listen on Apple Podcasts

The tricky thing about motivated reasoning is that even though it’s easy to spot in other people, it doesn’t feel like motivated reasoning from the inside.

Julia Galef

My returning guest this week is Jimmy. Jimmy and I review Julia Galef’s book Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t. We explore the book from two lenses: Deconversion and Secular Grace. Jimmy brings an intense focus on humility, self-honesty and truth seeking to the conversation. The perfect complement to Julia’s book.

The best description of motivated reasoning I’ve ever seen comes from psychologist Tom Gilovich. When we want something to be true, he said, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe this?,” searching for an excuse to accept it. When we don’t want something to be true, we instead ask ourselves, “Must I believe this?,” searching for an excuse to reject it.

In contrast to directionally motivated reasoning, which evaluates ideas through the lenses of “Can I believe it?” and “Must I believe it?,” accuracy motivated reasoning evaluates ideas through the lens of “Is it true?”

Julia Galef

Links

Jimmy’s first appearance on the podcast
https://gracefulatheist.com/2020/09/20/jimmy-deconversion-anonymous/

Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t
https://amzn.to/3nFCKd9

Why Buddhism is True
https://amzn.to/3nGnXyM

Humanist Ten Commitments
https://americanhumanistcenterforeducation.org/ten-commitments

Daryl Davis, who attends KKK rallies and has helped many leave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

Books mentioned in the podcast

Interact

Deconversion
https://gracefulatheist.com/2017/12/03/deconversion-how-to/

Secular Grace
https://gracefulatheist.com/2016/10/21/secular-grace/

Support the podcast
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/gracefulatheist
Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Podchaser - Graceful Atheist Podcast

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats