Alden Swan dot com

I would guess that most people know someone who has, at some point in their life, made a major change in their belief system, such as from atheism to Christianity, or vice versa. You may have made such a change yourself.

I’ve known several people who have for a time professed one belief system (sometimes adamantly) only to abandon their beliefs at some point. One of my high school classmates, an extremely intelligent girl, was a hard-core atheist well into her college years, became a Christian. There were many friends of mine who “got saved” during the Jesus Movement, only to drift off into ambivalence (not necessarily a change in belief systems, but definitely a change in level of enthusiasm).

One friend lost his faith in God after a series of very hurtful incidents, including being shunned by his father for no apparent reason, and then divorced by his wife. He decided God couldn’t exist, based on his personal experience. He suffered from clinical depression, and eventually committed suicide (not because of atheism, mind you). Another guy I know left Christianity in favor of Judaism, and eventually became an atheist (he was also mentally unstable, as he suffered a rare form of brain cancer). However, I have known others who have left Christianity for atheism or other philosophies (Buddhism, for example), who are (as far as I know) rational, intelligent people, and who are no more depressed than I am.

What makes someone abandon one belief system for another? It’s an interesting question, and due in part to the people mentioned above and others I have not mentioned, something that I’ve occasionally pondered. The New Testament does speak – although not to any great length – of those who seemingly abandon the faith. What are we to make of this?

Scot McKnight, author, teacher and blogger, is just starting an interesting blog series called Finding Faith / Losing Faith, which should prove both interesting and enlightening. While I have, as I said, pondered the past and present spiritual status of those who have left Christianity, I have not done any serious study on the issue. I look forward to hearing what McKnight will have to say on the issue.

As I have said before, I have wondered, reading The God Delusion, whether Richard Dawkins is ignorant, delusional, or intentionally deceptive. I am presuming that he is not unintelligent and that he understands basic logic, which is what has confused me as I’ve read through the book. I would have expected something more polished and well-argued, something to actually make people think, and perhaps doubt. This, however, is not the case.

Today I followed a Telic Thoughts link to a May 12 article by Dawkins on TimesOnline entitled “How dare you call me a fundamentalist” where he, in that winning way that he has, attempts to rebut some critics of his book. It is an interesting read, and if you haven’t read any Dawkins in the past, this is perhaps all the Dawkins you will ever need.

He starts by responding to criticism by other atheists that he uses “shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language,” then moves on to criticism that he is ignorant of the religions he criticizes. As in the book itself, his response to this 2nd question is nothing but rhetoric, and then he avoids having to make any real response by sending folks to read “‘Courtier’s Reply’ on P. Z. Myers’s splendid Pharyngula website” which he says “he cannot better.” If he cannot do better than “Courtier’s Reply,” then he should probably just give up; it is nothing but an attempt to justify Dawkins’ repeated straw man arguments, and it’s just ridiculous. Of course, Dawkins has no valid rebuttal and no excuse for failing to understand things he attacks. Saying things like “[t]here is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents” and “[m]ost believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini” can only be attributed to either ignorance or lying (and these quotes are from his rebuttal!).

He also objects to being called a fundamentalist, and tries to draw a distinction between passion and fundamentalism (fundamentalists apparently don’t change their minds). As a scientist, of course, he will change his mind if confronted with evidence. Of course, he doesn’t mention that fundamentally he believes that only evidence that can be scientifically verified can be considered.

Last week I was leaning toward the conclusion that Dawkins’ use of bad logic, mis-characterization and outright fiction was intentional. However, after reading this rebuttal, I’m starting to believe that he is, after all, simply delusional.

I still see the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case bandied about, usually to make the point that ID (Intelligent Design) is Creationism in disguise. It is a stupid argument for a number of reasons, the main reason being that a court of law has no authority in realms of science, philosophy, or truth, for that matter. What courts rule on are the applicability of laws to a specific set of facts; even then the rulings are often limited in scope (in fact, this particular ruling is only authoritative in the Middle District of Pennsylvania).

Kitzmiller v. Dover (usually referred to as Kitzmiller or Dover), is of course the now infamous court case dealing with a school board’s attempt to mandate the teaching of ID in the school’s science program. The case is often misunderstood and often inaccurately presented. The case was a “bench” trial, meaning there was no jury; the full text of the Judge’s decision can be found here. While the decision is poorly reasoned, it can be an interesting read, as it give a little insight into the case and the evidence that the Judge considered. Judge Jones, by the way, prior to being appointed by President Bush to the Federal Bench in 2002, was chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and who, among other things, reportedly banned a micro-brew beer because he was offended by the label. Before that, he made a failed attempt to get into politics, and worked as co-chair of Tom Ridge’s transition team. It could be argued that his qualifications were more in the political realm than in his legal abilities or experience. He still is a fairly inexperienced judge, as judges go, having served only 3 years before hearing the Dover case.

None of this, however, has any bearing on whether his decision in the Dover case was either accurate or well-reasoned. For that, we need to look at the case and the decision itself. In May 2007, the Montana Law Review published an article which discusses some of the background of the case, the failings of the School Board, the failings of the Judge, and what the decision does or does not mean. Note, however, that the authors are connected with the much-hated Discovery Institute, which – as with Judge Jones’ background – should have no bearing on the merits of their paper; however, I wanted to make this point up front rather than have the article dismissed purely on that basis.

The article is an interesting look at the case, for those who really want to understand why this particular case went the way it did. There is a minor plug for ID at the very end, but overall the article sticks to the factual and legal issues what should be a forgettable case. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Dover continues to be as referenced and as misunderstood as the Scopes trial.