How not to reconvert an atheist

[essentialsaltes]

As I mentioned a couple years back, the LA Times' religion editor lost his faith and wrote a few articles about the experience. He's recently expanded these to a whole book, and he's gotten a lot of fan-mail from Christian readers helping to pull him back into the fold. Here's his response.

He remains a "reluctant" atheist and (as I said at the time) I never found his reason for giving up Christianity very compelling, but his essay still has an interesting perspective (and a few funny bits).

Comments

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

If I read that correctly, faith sounds like a genetic trait; either you're born with it or you're not, like homosexuality or blue eyes.

I don't think he's implying genetic determinism. Presumably, he was formerly able to make that leap, but now he cannot. So having or not having the gift of faith is not immutable.

I happen to think that believers choose to make a leap of faith, and non-believers don't.

Sure. Here I think the difference in the two views is almost semantic.

We can tell who has "the gift of faith" by who chooses to make the leap of faith.

[dustchick.livejournal.com]

I happen to think that believers choose to make a leap of faith, and non-believers don't.

I think that depends on when the choice is made. A child who is indoctrinated from birth didn't make the choice to believe. He or she may later choose NOT to believe. Choosing to continue believing changes nothing, especially when considering that not believing is more risky.

Did that make sense? I haven't had enough chocolate yet today.

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Choosing to continue believing changes nothing

Perhaps, but maybe that makes the person's faith explicit, when before it was implicit. It promotes it to 'real' faith as opposed to some ingrained reflexes taught to a receptive and uncritical child.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, I was just trying to show that Aaron's position and Lobdell's are not necessarily that far apart.