Why Do My Arguments Not Convince Devout Believers?Apparently, Loftus is too dull to realize that was he is saying here is that his arguments are most persuasive when people are in a state of mind that is not calm and rational. You have to be afflicted by some sort of emotional turmoil -- at a time precisely when your critical thinking and objectivity is at its lowest -- to be convinced by what he says.
I merely offer up good arguments against their faith. That's all I can do. Devout believers (my target audience) won't seriously consider them until such time as they have some sort of crisis in their lives that cannot be adequately explained by a good God. They'll seriously consider them at that time. My arguments are like seeds of doubt ready to sprout if and when they experience that crisis. Since many believers do experience some kind of crisis in their lives there will be a certain percentage of believers who, having been previously exposed to my arguments, will leave their faith at that time. It's a waiting game.
Well, that's what we've been saying all along, isn't it?
Posts
Crystal Night, Atheists!
ReplyDeleteFINALE:
Have I said this before?
http://nostraamerica.atspace.com/
PULLING THE PLUG on atheism
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3228845133_3599f8108f.jpg
bye
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090126/as-indonesia-solar-eclipse/images/c52d9d50-7ca2-4c3a-b13c-c866836298c8.jpg
Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism...
*************************************
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ
*************************************
atheists deny their own life element...
LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?
********************************
***************************LIGHT*********
************************************
I think what John Loftus is saying is something more along the lines of . . .
ReplyDeletePeople who have a well developed world view are unlikely to relinquish it over night after running into puzzling questions concerning only a few of its aspects. All thinking people develop world views as ways of understanding both their personal world and the cosmos around them, and their worldview fits together for them and becomes an ingrained part of that person. Well worn ways of interpreting people and things around become so commonplace that people with well developed world views can reply to questions and counter-arguments without even having to consider their replies too much. Even their mental circuits become reflexive to a certain degree. And they are certain they are right.
There's two ways that a worldview can change after it is deeply ingrained:
1) It can die a slow death over time, a death of a thousand qualifications. The person adds qualifications and sub-qualifications whenever puzzling data is noted, or the person begins admitting that more and more remains a mystery. At some point the worldview itself may be ejected or liberalized considerably. And a search continues for another worldview, one more inclusive, perhaps more mysterious, or if the person turns toward atheism, mysterious in another sense a strictly naturalistic one, such as the sense of wonder at undiscovered questions and territories.
2) The second way in which a well developed, well worn worldview is jarred loose is via traumatic experiences or realizations. Such experiences or realizations can make a person "question everything they thought they once believed or knew," and make them want to "start from scratch" when it comes to holding a worldview.
And yes, such experiences can occur to both atheists and Christians. They can occur to people of different denominations and churches within Christianity as well, who may switch to other denominations or churches, or to other religions. See my online paper, "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience," and of course, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, but most of the testimonies found therein are of the first variety not the second.
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteLastly, a statistical study was made of converts to Evangelical Christianity by Starbucks. The study was mentioned in Christianity Today.
"In the late 1800s, Edwin Starbuck conducted ground-breaking studies on conversion to Christianity. Ever since then, scholars, attempting either to verify or disprove his findings, have repeatedly demonstrated them to be accurate. Most observers agree that what Starbuck observed is to a large extent still valid. From these studies we learn two significant things: the age at which conversion to Christianity most often occurs, and the motivational factors involved in conversion. Starbuck noted that the average age of a person experiencing a religious conversion was 15.6 years. Other
studies have produced similar results; as recently as 1979, Virgil Gillespie wrote that the average age of conversion in America is 16 years.
"Starbuck listed EIGHT PRIMARY MOTIVATING FACTORS:
(1) fears,
(2) other self-regarding motives,
(3) altruistic motives,
(4) following out a moral ideal,
(5) remorse for and conviction of sin,
(6) response to teaching,
(7) example and imitation, and
(8) urging and social pressure.
"Recent studies reveal that people still become Christians mainly for these
same reasons.
"What conclusions can be drawn from this information? First, the average age
of conversion is quite young. Postadolescent persons do not seem to find
Christianity as attractive as do persons in their teens. Indeed, for every
year the non-Christian grows older than 25, the odds increase exponentially
against his or her ever becoming a Christian.
"Second, the reasons people become Christians appear to have at least as
much to do with sociological factors as with purely 'religious' factors (for
example, conviction of sin)."
[SOURCE: CT Classic: The Adult Gospel: The average convert to Islam is 31
years old. Why does Christianity attract mostly teens? By Larry Poston]
As usual, Edski is well skilled at vomiting forth nothing but hot air using as many words as possible.
ReplyDelete"I think what John Loftus is saying is something more along the lines of . . . "
No, Edski, he's not saying ANY of that.
You're using eisegesis on John's words the same way you used to contrive rationalizations about what the Bible was saying when you were a Christian fundy rather than an atheist one.
As usual, you're too ignorant to deal in real arguments, so you bury yourself in distractions that have to do with motivations.
The arguments made by Ed and Starbuck's list
ReplyDelete""
"Starbuck listed EIGHT PRIMARY MOTIVATING FACTORS:
(1) fears,
(2) other self-regarding motives,
(3) altruistic motives,
(4) following out a moral ideal,
(5) remorse for and conviction of sin,
(6) response to teaching,
(7) example and imitation, and
(8) urging and social pressure.
""
are just as valid for conversion to atheism (yes, even point (5): some people deconvert not to deal with the responsibility of their actions)... and that goes for the age of 'deconversion' as well (atheists should take the outsider challenge as well).
So... even if Loftus is trying to make the point you are trying to make, in the end, what Holding said it's basically true: the only people that can be deconverted by Loftus arguments are either people ignorant of their own faith or people who are unstable.