Any Atheists Ever Had A "Spiritual" Experience?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Nonsense. Better information doesn't deny free will. An obvious choice is not the same as no choice.

If you KNOW God exists, you know, at the very least, that It's looking over your shoulder at everything you do. You're saying that wouldn't influence people's moral choices?

Also, you do realize that one implication of your position that there is no evidence for God is that you're condemning your own god-belief as utterly irrational, don't you?

I thought I was pretty clear--there's no evidence for or against God, which includes the universe. And that begs the question of the cause of the Big Bang, since we have absolutely no evidence for what preceded it. That, along with Planck space-time limit to the divisibility of the fabric of the universe (the ether), and the evident periphery of the universe where it becomes "invisible" to us as the expansion of space goes super-luminal, are our big three information fire walls.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you KNOW God exists, you know, at the very least, that It's looking over your shoulder at everything you do. You're saying that wouldn't influence people's moral choices?

Please actually read my posts if you're going to reply to them.

ANY relevant information will influence a person's moral choices. The existence or non-existence of God is just one more piece of information.

Maybe the existence of God would mean that our free choice has an obvious best option, but that doesn't mean that our choice isn't free.

Do you understand the difference between freely choosing the obviously best option and not choosing at all?

I thought I was pretty clear--there's no evidence for or against God, which includes the universe.

IOW, God is both unjustified and unfalsifiable. Like I said: belief in such a god is utterly irrational.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I am an atheist who believes that spirits are entirely possible. I don't believe in any deity as literally existing because it's a hard thing to prove, and too large a topic to pinpoint to any one convincing argument. Spirits are easier; there are scientific findings of electromagnetic "auras" around humans, and explanations for energy fields possibly interacting with other objects in their vicinity. These are very primitive findings and largely interpreted examples, but these can be taken as proof for spirits with more certainty than the age old argument involving the beauty of the stars. Maybe the God many Christian/Jewish/Islam followers talk about is a collection of energy scattered across the earth. But these interpretations are extremely individualistic and wide open. "Atheist" doesn't mean "spiritless". A spirit is not a god until you start to worship it. An atheist believes that worship in the supernatural is not useful, mostly for themselves. It doesn't mean they have to reject spirituality all together, however. I can feel the spiritual peace of a forest, but I can't believe that it is a god. I just think it's part of our normal world.

 

[hispanicmormon]

And I don't see God's hand anywhere. How do you reconcile these two viewpoints?

Here's how I do it:

- I take this to mean that when you approach life with the presumption that God is involved in everything, your expectations closely match reality.

- However, I also recognize that my own expectations - that make no reference to any gods at all - also closely match reality.

- I take this to mean that the question of whether or not a person accepts the difference between our worldviews - i.e God - has no bearing on how good our expectations agree with reality.

- Since God doesn't have an impact on how well our expectations agree with reality, God is irrelevant to the things that we see, perceive and experience in the world.

What's your approach to this problem? If you really think that signs of God can be seen everywhere, how do you reconcile this with the fact that many, many people don't see these signs at all?

I don't believe God is necessarily involved in everything like he is always divinely intervening in the affairs of our planet. I just think that his original, supreme intelligence is evident in not only nature but in the inventions of humans. If man can do it, God has already done it. Like computers with amazing capabilities and molding new life through genetic engineering, human's accomplishments mirror God's ancient accomplishments.

My religion teaches that we are in what is called a "mortal probation." We're supposed to be taking a vacation from God in this life. Just like a recent high-school grad moves out of his or her parent's house and lives on their own, mankind is living life without our Heavenly Father to have our faith tested. So we're not supposed to be able to know for certain that there is a God. Which is why some people simply don't expect to see evidence of God and why many people just don't believe in a God.

Our different expectations, or worldviews concerning God, lead to different systematic understandings of our surroundings. Atheists can understand the aspect of our "mortal probation" that basically takes God out of the picture, like a college freshman moving into a dorm, to some degree, takes their parents out of his or her picture. To some degree, they have advantages in living their mortal lives. But only by believing in God and praying to Him, like a college student calling up his parents on the weekends, can someone gain eternal advantages that will bless them endlessly.

 

[hispanicmormon]

I am an atheist who believes that spirits are entirely possible. I don't believe in any deity as literally existing because it's a hard thing to prove, and too large a topic to pinpoint to any one convincing argument. Spirits are easier; there are scientific findings of electromagnetic "auras" around humans, and explanations for energy fields possibly interacting with other objects in their vicinity. These are very primitive findings and largely interpreted examples, but these can be taken as proof for spirits with more certainty than the age old argument involving the beauty of the stars. Maybe the God many Christian/Jewish/Islam followers talk about is a collection of energy scattered across the earth. But these interpretations are extremely individualistic and wide open. "Atheist" doesn't mean "spiritless". A spirit is not a god until you start to worship it. An atheist believes that worship in the supernatural is not useful, mostly for themselves. It doesn't mean they have to reject spirituality all together, however. I can feel the spiritual peace of a forest, but I can't believe that it is a god. I just think it's part of our normal world.

You are very lucky if you haven't encountered any proof for the existence of gods as they have the power to totally f up your life!

 

[hispanicmormon]

Please actually read my posts if you're going to reply to them.

ANY relevant information will influence a person's moral choices. The existence or non-existence of God is just one more piece of information.

Maybe the existence of God would mean that our free choice has an obvious best option, but that doesn't mean that our choice isn't free.

Do you understand the difference between freely choosing the obviously best option and not choosing at all?


IOW, God is both unjustified and unfalsifiable. Like I said: belief in such a god is utterly irrational.

I think knowing for certain that there is a God is utterly irrational as even my own religion teaches that we're not supposed to know God in this life like we knew him when we lived with Him or like we will know him when we return to live with Him. But it is not utterly irrational to see the necessity of a supreme, intelligent designer in the grand scheme of this universe's creation. Life on this planet, for example, acts as an ecosystem where plants and animals had to be created at the same time in order for them to both exist. Man's inventions also reveal God's ancient creations for if man can do it the supreme, intelligent designer once did it. Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution and all that -- God learned to make simpler life forms before he learned to make more complex life forms. But if every PC has a manufacturer, how can one rationally guess that all the species on the face of the Earth don't also have a manufacturer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe God is necessarily involved in everything like he is always divinely intervening in the affairs of our planet.

And I wasn't suggesting that this was your position.

I just think that his original, supreme intelligence is evident in not only nature but in the inventions of humans.

Right: like you said, you see the "hand of God" everywhere. I didn't assume that you meant that God is directly manipulating everything we see around us; I took it more to mean that you believe God's "fingerprints" are on everything.

In any case, it seems to me that you think you see such overwhelming evidence for God that his existence is obvious, while I see nothing that even suggests that God exists.

Our different expectations, or worldviews concerning God, lead to different systematic understandings of our surroundings. Atheists can understand the aspect of our "mortal probation" that basically takes God out of the picture, like a college freshman moving into a dorm, to some degree, takes their parents out of his or her picture. To some degree, they have advantages in living their mortal lives. But only by believing in God and praying to Him, like a college student calling up his parents on the weekends, can someone gain eternal advantages that will bless them endlessly.

Even a student who lives on his own will run into logical problems and inconsistencies if he tries to operate from the assumption that his parents don't exist at all. But in our case, my worldview doesn't run into any problems with the expectations implied by it being violated and (I assume) neither does yours.

You compare prayer to talking on the phone with your parents. If it was actually two-way communication like that - i.e. if God really did talk back in a way that was clearly identifiable as God - then you would have evidence that was incompatible with my worldview. Instead, I'd say that your communication with God is a lot more one-way... like a letter, but instead of getting actual letters back, you see significance in other things ("I wrote my Dad and told him how I'm low on money but have a craving for tacos, and look at this! He sent me a page of Taco Bell coupons! I know there's no return address on them and they're in with all the other flyers, but he must have sent them").

 

[hispanicmormon]

...while I see nothing that even suggests that God exists.

If you found a bronze hatchet on the ground in a cave, would you assume that the hatchet formed by random processes or that an intelligent designer i.e. a human crafted it? This thought experiment undermines how I see nature and even man-made creations. I see something even as ugly as a fly or a weed and think, it didn't just create itself or form out of random happenings -- it had an intelligent designer. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, though.

Even a student who lives on his own will run into logical problems and inconsistencies if he tries to operate from the assumption that his parents don't exist at all. But in our case, my worldview doesn't run into any problems with the expectations implied by it being violated and (I assume) neither does yours.

But there are problems when someone attempts to assume that there is no God. They have no defense against a fear of death. And they tend to miss patterns in their lives. God-believers are more likely to notice patterns in their everyday life.

I once knew a schizophrenic that believed that the government was extracting their haploids from their sex organs in their sleep and spawning hundreds of babies they didn't know. And their sons and daughters would also be schizophrenic because the government was using mind-control machines to control her and her children's thoughts. However, she seemed to function normally besides the fact that when you asked her for simple answers as to what was going on around her she would start to elaborate on these delusions. Now, I'm not comparing an Atheist to a schizophrenic. Only 1 in 100 people are schizophrenic but about half of people are Atheist. But there is a parallel as far as Atheists saying things that seem nonsensical to a theist. For example, when you said you don't even see the "suggestion" of a God in nature or in humans. This schizophrenic person that I'm talking about didn't even see the "suggestion" that her beliefs were just a symptom of her mental illness.

You compare prayer to talking on the phone with your parents. If it was actually two-way communication like that - i.e. if God really did talk back in a way that was clearly identifiable as God - then you would have evidence that was incompatible with my worldview. Instead, I'd say that your communication with God is a lot more one-way... like a letter, but instead of getting actual letters back, you see significance in other things ("I wrote my Dad and told him how I'm low on money but have a craving for tacos, and look at this! He sent me a page of Taco Bell coupons! I know there's no return address on them and they're in with all the other flyers, but he must have sent them").

I must admit I'm schizophrenic myself but I do have brief moments of two-way communication with what I consider God. I mean, I hear many voices in my head: sometimes they claim to be psychic people, sometimes they claim to be spirits, and sometimes they admit they are just voices in my head. But sometimes I believe these voices are God. And sometimes I feel I can sense God communicating with me telepathically through all the voices in my head. I wouldn't say this evidence is "incompatible" with your worldview. I have insight into my medical condition and know that the brain is a very powerful organ that can produce what seems like communication with people or beings I cannot see and are not just me.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Please actually read my posts if you're going to reply to them.

This snark is wholly uncalled for. What did I ignore?

ANY relevant information will influence a person's moral choices. The existence or non-existence of God is just one more piece of information.

A knowledge, or even evidence, of a supernatural superbeing out there judging us on the free will exercise of our moral choices with consequences in the hereafter, would affect our choices without recouorse and undermine that free will.

Maybe the existence of God would mean that our free choice has an obvious best option, but that doesn't mean that our choice isn't free.

Making a moral free choice is the choice between being moral (honoring the inherent rights of another), or rationalizing the violation of those rights. Knowledge of a omnipresent God with universal judgement would severely limit that rationalization.

Do you understand the difference between freely choosing the obviously best option and not choosing at all?

Is there no end to your arrogant snark, on top of being wrong. The choice is between choosing to kill your neighbor, rape his wife and take his stuff, or not to. There is no "best" option, only a right and wrong option. Morality is the violation of our right to life, liberty, property and self-defense. All else is individual integrity, like whether to masturbate or not, the likes of which is where it appears your mind keeps going.

IOW, God is both unjustified and unfalsifiable. Like I said: belief in such a god is utterly irrational.

Atheism is also unjustified and unfalsifiable. "Belief" in either is not irrational, the universe is right here in front of us without explanation. But claiming that one of those ideas is certain, is.

I don't believe God is necessarily involved in everything like he is always divinely intervening in the affairs of our planet.

The only rational possibility for God is one that has never interacted in this universe. All the so-called evidence otherwise, is 100% hearsay, most of which is ancient.

 

[hispanicmormon]

The only rational possibility for God is one that has never interacted in this universe. All the so-called evidence otherwise, is 100% hearsay, most of which is ancient.

That's not rational at all. If there was ever nothing, there would still be nothing. But we have a lot more than nothing in our universe. We have intelligent life. Just like humans can create electronic computers that can practically think, humans had to have an intelligent designer. The first man had to have been created by a God. Humans can pair up male and female and reproduce, but what about that first man or first woman? I'm not discrediting scientific theories like evolution as I believe that God learned to make simpler life forms before he learned how to make more complex life forms. But there was never nothing. There was always something.

Things in motion are put in motion by a mover. And that mover harnessed kinetic energy from a previous mover. And that mover was moved by a previous mover. But this cannot go back in time forever, as there would be no first mover and thus no subsequent movers. The fact that things are in motion proves that there had to be a first mover. And it is very logical to assume that this first mover is the God that is spoken of in nearly all religions. He always had to exist, because there was never nothing and He is the only thing that would have to have existed before anything we can see now was created.

Consider the big bang theory. How did all that matter happen to be ultra-condensed into such a tiny dot of space? Now consider this, how many big bangs had to have happened for their to be a universe with an Earth like the one we live in? There are so many coincidences in the history of our universe that led to such a perfect creation of our planet and human life as we know it. But even with an infinite amount of big bangs, Earth and human life would still not exist had there not been an intelligent designer guiding the big bang. That would be like saying that I can take a bag of letters, shake it, dump it out randomly on the floor, and out falls "A Wrinkle In Time" by Madeleine L'Engle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you found a bronze hatchet on the ground in a cave, would you assume that the hatchet formed by random processes or that an intelligent designer i.e. a human crafted it? This thought experiment undermines how I see nature and even man-made creations.

If we see a hatchet in a cave, we would assume that the hatchet is designed in a way that the cave is not. But here you are, claiming that both are designed.

I would assume that a hatchet is designed because I can identify methods by which it could be designed and made by a human being. You can go and watch people make traditional hatchets today; where can I go to watch a god make something in nature?

I see something even as ugly as a fly or a weed and think, it didn't just create itself or form out of random happenings -- it had an intelligent designer. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, though.

Until you provide a reasonable justification, I'm not going to accept your position, so it seems so.

But there are problems when someone attempts to assume that there is no God. They have no defense against a fear of death.

You're talking about consequences of belief; I'm talking about logical problems: "my godless worldview suggested _____ would happen, but it didn't, so this implies that my worldview is incorrect somehow."

And they tend to miss patterns in their lives. God-believers are more likely to notice patterns in their everyday life.

Sorry - I don't see "more paredolia" as a selling point for god-belief.

I once knew a schizophrenic that believed that the government was extracting their haploids from their sex organs in their sleep and spawning hundreds of babies they didn't know. And their sons and daughters would also be schizophrenic because the government was using mind-control machines to control her and her children's thoughts. However, she seemed to function normally besides the fact that when you asked her for simple answers as to what was going on around her she would start to elaborate on these delusions. Now, I'm not comparing an Atheist to a schizophrenic.

Hopefully you won't be too offended if I use your story to make an analogy with theism.

Consider the implications of your friend's belief: what would she expect to see in the world that would be different from what you expect to see?

- neither of you would expect to see "government agents extracting haploids": your friend because they think this is happening while they sleep, you because you don't think the agents are real.

- neither of you would expect to see this person's "sons and daughters": your friend because they believe the government has hidden them somewhere, you because you don't think they're real.

- neither of you would expect to see government mind control machines: your friend because (I assume) they thought the government agents were hiding, you because you don't think the mind control machines are real.

There probably isn't anything you would experience on a regular basis that couldn't be reconciled with that person's conspiracy theory worldview. So which worldview is better?

Adding all that stuff about government agents and mind control machines didn't improve the accuracy of their mental model of the world, so it's an unnecessary leap. The government agents aren't necessary to explain anything.

By the same token, if your mental model of the world is no more accurate than mine, then the extra stuff you assume - i.e. God - isn't necessary to explain anything.

Only 1 in 100 people are schizophrenic but about half of people are Atheist. But there is a parallel as far as Atheists saying things that seem nonsensical to a theist. For example, when you said you don't even see the "suggestion" of a God in nature or in humans. This schizophrenic person that I'm talking about didn't even see the "suggestion" that her beliefs were just a symptom of her mental illness.

And I feel like theism is nonsensical. How do we resolve this? I've already told you how I do it.

I must admit I'm schizophrenic myself but I do have brief moments of two-way communication with what I consider God. I mean, I hear many voices in my head: sometimes they claim to be psychic people, sometimes they claim to be spirits, and sometimes they admit they are just voices in my head. But sometimes I believe these voices are God. And sometimes I feel I can sense God communicating with me telepathically through all the voices in my head. I wouldn't say this evidence is "incompatible" with your worldview. I have insight into my medical condition and know that the brain is a very powerful organ that can produce what seems like communication with people or beings I cannot see and are not just me.

And I would say that if a schizophrenic hears voices, it's explained well enough by the schizophrenia. Assuming a god to explain it is unnecessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This snark is wholly uncalled for. What did I ignore?

Your paraphrase of what I said ("You're saying that wouldn't influence people's moral choices?") has no bearing at all on what I actually said.

A knowledge, or even evidence, of a supernatural superbeing out there judging us on the free will exercise of our moral choices with consequences in the hereafter, would affect our choices without recouorse and undermine that free will.

AFFECT our choices. Not REMOVE our ability to choose.

Making a moral free choice is the choice between being moral (honoring the inherent rights of another), or rationalizing the violation of those rights. Knowledge of a omnipresent God with universal judgement would severely limit that rationalization.

It would be a very important factor to consider when making a free choice.

Atheism is also unjustified and unfalsifiable.

No, it isn't. Atheism is merely being unconvinced that any gods exist.

"Belief" in either is not irrational, the universe is right here in front of us without explanation. But claiming that one of those ideas is certain, is.

Unjustified belief is irrational. Your argument implies that belief in God is unjustified; this makes it irrational.

The only rational possibility for God is one that has never interacted in this universe. All the so-called evidence otherwise, is 100% hearsay, most of which is ancient.

If you have no evidence for God, then you have no justification for belief in God. Belief in a non-interventionist God is irrational.

At least with interventionist gods, we could dream up scenarios where they could be demonstrated. Your position, OTOH, implies that there can never be justification for belief in your god.

Edit: with plenty of theists, I can see a logical pathway to belief in their gods if I accept their premises. I don't accept their premises, but at least we can have a reasonable debate about whether their premises are true or not. In the case of Deism, though, there's a more fundamental irrationality: you're missing the logical pathway from your premises (i.e. that there's no evidence for any gods) to your conclusion (i.e. that it's justified to believe that a god exists).

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If you have no evidence for God, then you have no justification for belief in God.

Nothing except the beginning of the universe.

Belief in a non-interventionist God is irrational.

A non-interventionist God is the only God that is rational based on the 100% natural evidence presented to us in this universe. And I'm in good company here:

Richard Dawkins
Lawrence Krauss
Victor Stenger
Steven Hawking (kicking and screaming)
Fred Hoyle
Carl Sagen
Albert Einstein
Isaac Asimov
Charles Darwin;
All pretty much skeptics who had to admit that a laissez faire God can't be ruled out. It's either that or atheism.

At least with interventionist gods, we could dream up scenarios where they could be demonstrated. Your position, OTOH, implies that there can never be justification for belief in your god.

Belief is not, or shouldn't be, a statement of certainty. But for clarification, it would be better to use the phrase "reasonable hope"--which usually sends atheists into orbit.

Edit: with plenty of theists, I can see a logical pathway to belief in their gods if I accept their premises.

What premises, a claim of the certain existence of God based on 2000 year old hearsay dealing with supernatural events and revelations? And for them to say they aren't certain is to lack faith.

I don't accept their premises, but at least we can have a reasonable debate about whether their premises are true or not. In the case of Deism, though, there's a more fundamental irrationality: you're missing the logical pathway from your premises (i.e. that there's no evidence for any gods) to your conclusion (i.e. that it's justified to believe that a god exists).

Believe or hope, not claim certainty. Are you certain there is no God? There is massive evidence against an interactive God and none for, except the aforementioned hearsay--which can all be discounted.

And omnipotent God could have done anything but create beings with independent moral free will, instantly. That is the ostensible sole purpose for the universe. Otherwise, why not just create umptapatrillion angels with the snap of It's fingers and pronounce that they all have free will. But they can't have free will because God isn't hidden from them. They know God knows what they do.

Some would say, well God could make it appear the It doesn't exist, which would be to suggest that God would fabricate a lie.

 

[hispanicmormon]

If we see a hatchet in a cave, we would assume that the hatchet is designed in a way that the cave is not. But here you are, claiming that both are designed.

I would assume that a hatchet is designed because I can identify methods by which it could be designed and made by a human being. You can go and watch people make traditional hatchets today; where can I go to watch a god make something in nature?


Until you provide a reasonable justification, I'm not going to accept your position, so it seems so.


You're talking about consequences of belief; I'm talking about logical problems: "my godless worldview suggested _____ would happen, but it didn't, so this implies that my worldview is incorrect somehow."


Sorry - I don't see "more paredolia" as a selling point for god-belief.


Hopefully you won't be too offended if I use your story to make an analogy with theism.

Consider the implications of your friend's belief: what would she expect to see in the world that would be different from what you expect to see?

- neither of you would expect to see "government agents extracting haploids": your friend because they think this is happening while they sleep, you because you don't think the agents are real.

- neither of you would expect to see this person's "sons and daughters": your friend because they believe the government has hidden them somewhere, you because you don't think they're real.

- neither of you would expect to see government mind control machines: your friend because (I assume) they thought the government agents were hiding, you because you don't think the mind control machines are real.

There probably isn't anything you would experience on a regular basis that couldn't be reconciled with that person's conspiracy theory worldview. So which worldview is better?

Adding all that stuff about government agents and mind control machines didn't improve the accuracy of their mental model of the world, so it's an unnecessary leap. The government agents aren't necessary to explain anything.

By the same token, if your mental model of the world is no more accurate than mine, then the extra stuff you assume - i.e. God - isn't necessary to explain anything.


And I feel like theism is nonsensical. How do we resolve this? I've already told you how I do it.


And I would say that if a schizophrenic hears voices, it's explained well enough by the schizophrenia. Assuming a god to explain it is unnecessary.

Pretty smart. You think both theism and atheism lead to unfulfilled expectations just like the person stuck in the schizophrenia and the outside observer won't find any evidence of their contradicting theories as to the cause of the delusions.

I still have to disagree on the hatchet theory because one day we just might be able to see God make another Big Bang. Just because we haven't seen it before doesn't mean we're not capable or are not going to get to see it. I honestly have never seen someone make a hatchet before, but I still believe that if I see something that stands out in a cave as not part of the cave and has some sort of intelligent function that it must've been crafted by an intelligent designer. Yes, both nature and man were God-made, just like buildings and computers were both equally made by mankind.

 

[janesix]

I'm wondering if any other atheists here have ever had a "spiritual" experience. I've put the word "spiritual" in quotes because as atheists, we don't tend to believe in spirits. But, I don't know of another word to describe the feeling or experience that I mean.

I had the opportunity to go on a brief meditation retreat yesterday. It was 6 hours of varying types of meditation, all in silence. During one of the walking meditations, I became a little irritated. There I was on my day off of work walking through the grass barefoot on a cold afternoon, unable to speak, and unable to connect with my wife who was there as well. I wanted to walk with her. Then, it occurred to me that I really was walking with her. We just were not side-by-side nor were we communicating. But we were both walking, together in a way. And it occurred to me that I was walking with everyone at the retreat, and really everyone in the world. I began to feel a deep sense of connectedness. I thought of theists who describe their "walk with god," and it occurred to me that maybe I understood what they mean. I felt that I was walking on a spiritual journey with all of humankind, and really, all life and all concepts. It was a profoundly spiritual experience.

When I was an atheist, I had many spiritual experiences. Including experiences with God. Therefore I became a theist after a few months of these experiences.

 

[ChristineM]

When I was an atheist, I had many spiritual experiences. Including experiences with God. Therefore I became a theist after a few months of these experiences.

Then you were not an atheists because an atheist would not consider such experience involved a god. I would guess you were mildly agnostic.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Have you looked into the stories of staunch atheists who, while using the tools of their profession to discount or disprove deism, experienced something "spiritual" that was so impactful that they were forced to jettison their aetheistic stand? Lee Strobel (investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune), Jay Warner Wallace (a cold case homicide detective), and Francis Collins (geneticist, head of the National Insitutes of Health, head of the human genome project) are just a few.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Have you looked into the stories of staunch atheists who, while using the tools of their profession to discount or disprove deism, experienced something "spiritual" that was so impactful that they were forced to jettison their aetheistic stand? Lee Strobel (investigative journalist for the Chicago Tribune), Jay Warner Wallace (a cold case homicide detective), and Francis Collins (geneticist, head of the National Insitutes of Health, head of the human genome project) are just a few.

Strobel merely decided, "Hey, I can make a lot of money telling Christians what they want to hear." Yes, I'm cynical and I don't care if he's the least bit sincere or not. Sincerity is irrelevant when you're making a reasoned case for something. He hasn't made a case for anything but having a blind faith in divine revelation, and the 100% pure hearsay that's based on.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Strobel merely decided, "Hey, I can make a lot of money telling Christians what they want to hear." Yes, I'm cynical and I don't care if he's the least bit sincere or not. Sincerity is irrelevant when you're making a reasoned case for something. He hasn't made a case for anything but having a blind faith in divine revelation, and the 100% pure hearsay that's based on.

That's an interesting take. I'm curious about which of Strobel's works impressed you so. My take on his journey is somewhat different. Trained in law at Yale and an accomplished investigative journalist for a world-class paper, I am not certain that hearsay carries much weight in his calculus of much of anything, but I could be wrong. Faith certainly seems to be a force in his current life, but the investigative, informed, well reasoned approach that led him to that place seems far from blind (unless he has grossly misrepresented his application of the skill sets of his former trade to his spiritual search). All that said, if Strobel smacks of disingenuity, you may find more interest in the thought journeys of the other two gentlemen whom I mentioned (the cold case homicide detective and national-level geneticist). Of course, there are many others (Oxford and Cambridge professor C.S. Lewis being one of the more well known examples). The thought journey of Stephen Hawking in this regard is quite fascinating too.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That's an interesting take. I'm curious about which of Strobel's works impressed you so. My take on his journey is somewhat different. Trained in law at Yale...

Training in law only trains the next generation of lawyers to perpetuate the ajudication of the law however that is most expedient--regardless of the Truth or justice.

and an accomplished investigative journalist for a world-class paper,

Accomplished in the eyes of the Left for his ability to promote their agenda.

I am not certain that hearsay carries much weight in his calculus of much of anything, but I could be wrong.

Hearsay does not carry weight, it is what it is, a total absence of evidence or fact, and only promotes the interests of those who it best serves.

Faith certainly seems to be a force in his current life, but the investigative, informed, well reasoned approach that led him to that place

You're merely defending faith with the blindness of which it was born, and the absence of evidence which only bothers those with integrity and strength of character.