Nov 19 2007
Atheist Conversion or Religious De-conversion
“A secular country allows for religion to flourish, if it wants to. A secular country allows atheism to flourish if it wants to,” said Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, during a speech at University of Texas at Austin.
Barker is a former evangelical preacher who says he “de-converted” in 1984.
Recently I’ve noticed the term deconversion used to imply a shift away from religious belief to atheism, as well as the synonym expression, “conversion to atheism.”
Historically I’ve associated the term conversion with Christianity. Also, most dictionaries will list conversion in the religious context as, “an experience associated with the definite and decisive adoption of a religion.” (Merriam Webster, Your Dictionary, Wikipedia).
The concept of “decisive adoption” is very important when discussing religious conversion because most religions have in place a test of faith, by which they identify true conversion. Usually the test of faith encompasses both conviction as well as obedience and practicing of rites (outward expression of faith). Baptism is an essential rite in Christian conversion, for example.
So can one convert to atheism being that it is not a religion, does not require a test of faith, and does not require absolute allegiance to a set of rites? And can one deconvert from atheism?
As many atheists I attribute the supernatural a probability of existing so small that it’s insignificant. Be it a deity or a magical mist the supernatural belongs to fiction books. I don’t feel the need or pressure to prove my allegiance to atheism. I don’t have to deconvert or convert either. My atheism didn’t come about as a falling away from something else (though some may disagree with me, because they think I fell away from their “true church”). I don’t even have “strong feelings” about my experience that could be attributed to a conversion. If atheism came with mystical experiences it would indeed be a religion. To me being an atheist is about being practical, rational and skeptical.
So I’d say the term conversion to atheism or de-conversion from atheism would only apply as as a way of using familiar rhetoric of religious type to either be sarcastic or to create some commonality in terms when faced with a potentially religious audience. However as an atheist I would stay away from such rhetoric for fear of making my audience believe atheism is a religion. Had the term never been used with a religious connotation and truly mean what its Latin origins described, a move away from something, I would not oppose its accompanying the term atheism. As it is, there’s too much religious baggage behind it to allow it to taint discussion of atheism.
Fun fact, when asking google to define “religious conversion,” those at the Church of Google suggest that we look up “religious conversion and terrorism.”
6 responses so far
I think it is converting when a person becomes and atheist, not deconverting. After all, atheists have the stronger faith than any religious group that I know of in the entire world! To believe that there is no god, and therefore, no absolutes or meaning in the world is a cold hard fact is a frightening thing. Sure, we can create meaning in our lives… but when you really think about it, because there is no god, no absolutes, it is just made up “meaning” that is inherently meaningless because we created it in our own minds. It takes lots of faith to be an atheist, so why call it dereconversion? It is in fact a conversion to a different kind of faith.
Thank you for reading my comment,
-Dawn
http://www.livingwaters.com/good/
Dawn, can you give examples of atheist faith? I’m not exactly sure what you mean by faith, but your description of “no meaning in the world,” has nothing to do with faith or atheism. Atheists find much meaning in the world, especially in humans, their potential, human interactions, all that humans produce, such as art, literature, etc. Many atheists are involved in meaningful causes, environmental, science or education-based. Many atheists care deeply about liberty and justice.
Atheists don’t find meaning in a book of scripture, or in superstitions. Is this the meaningless meaning you’re talking about?
Meaningless meaning: you still die… you can’t take it with you… so whats the point? As Tolstoy said in “A Confession”(part 4) : “The truth was that life is meaningless. I had as it were lived, lived, and walked, walked, till I had come to a precipice and saw clearly that there was nothing ahead of me but destruction. It was impossible to stop, impossible to go back, and impossible to close my eyes or avoid seeing that there was nothing ahead but suffering and real death - complete annihilation.” You can read A Confession
by Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy here: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tolstoy/confession.html
Hope this helps,
-Dawn
Dawn, I could not agree less with your comments. Faith has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with religion. If we, as atheist, begin to create some dogma, doctrine, creed, etc., then we are just another religion. That is not the case.
And to the meaning of life…survival. I find great meaning everyday as I struggle to understand my environment and cohabitants on this earth. My life has meaning to me and to those whom I love and who return that love. I don’t need faith to accomplish that.
Interesting points… In my opinion, it is a matter of deconverting from a religion that ultimately leads one to atheism. It is the process of questioning one’s belief that leads them down the path of atheism. And, it doesn’t seem to be a simple step; it’s not merely a crossroad in which a person decides to go left or right. Instead, it is a series of winding, connecting roads that intersect at different points. For me, this “deconversion” was not a quick, easy process; it was not a light that just turned on. It was being raised an evangelical Christian, beginning to question the scripture as I learned of other religions and cultures, and then asking more philosophical questions about existence, equity, freedom, and equality among human beings. In order to see the world through an anthropological lens, I had to remove the cultural barriers that were placed upon me through religion. I had to let go of those things that I was taught were right and wrong according to my religion and see the world as a place where people, despite their shortcomings, frustrations, anger, jealosy, hatred, bigotry, etc., were trying to find happiness in their lives. Through time, I’ve learned that there is no one right way to find happiness.
In terms of faith, I feel that it requires more faith to believe in something that can’t be proven. Yet, the burden of proof is usually left in the hands of the agnostic/atheist who must somehow “prove” that God doesn’t really exist. The fact that an atheist would require evidence to prove the existence of God does not indicate that he or she has “faith”, but rather he or she has a “lack of faith”–as opposed to a religious person who is not likely to ask for evidence to support the claim that God exists. If this argument perplexes Christians, I challenge them to ask how a Christian can be so certain that Zeus is not the one true God? Or why Islam is not the one true religion? In a sense, they lack the faith required to believe in something that they feel is not real or true. Do they have “faith” that Zeus is not God? Just the opposite, they lack faith in Zeus; and, instead, claim their faith in the Christian God.
And yet, there is no way anyone could prove that Zeus doesn’t really exist; or that Islam is the true religion. Likewise, there is no way that anyone could prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist, or that Santa doesn’t really exist, or the Easter Bunny, and so on. Essentially, it becomes impossible to prove a negative. And so, this is why atheists are intrigued by science–not as if it was a God itself–but rather the logic that exists within it that begs the question: Can a claim be made about our world that could be proven false? If there is no way that it could be proven false, then one would be relying upon faith, which one would be at risk of believing in something that is not real. Combine the idea of celebrating an supreme being that could not be proven false with the idea that men and women have used this unprovable supreme being to ultimately dictate the lives of other men, women, and children. Regardless of what religion these people advocated, they were ALL used man-made, hand written religious scripture to tell people what to believe and what to do. If a follower were to ask that burdensome question, “WHY”, the answer is simple: “Because GOD says so, that’s why!! And with that, the believer accepts the answer and, feeling a bit embarrassed, is likely not to question these works of men.
Now this, my friends, requires extraordinary FAITH…
My perspective is that of a former Christian, raised in Lutheran schools and churches until my senior year of high school when I started questioning why I believed what I was being taught.
To me, the concept of de-conversion is less of a ritual, and more of a statement. Many Christians in my family believe that atheism is a “crisis of faith” or a “temptation” that is only temporary. To them, as an identifying atheist I still belong to the church because I have not joined any other, I have just strayed.
Of course, that’s not to say that we should allow atheism to become a de facto religion. That would go against the very basis of what it is. But when you’re constantly being told that “you’ll understand when you have kids” it’s damn tempting to throw a phrase like de-conversion in their faces.