What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

[RedJamaX]

So we have all heard, read, watched, or experienced for ourselves, the stories of people who have converted to, and/or from, being an athiest, and sometimes back again. To be honest, the first time I heard of an atheist converting to theism, I was baffled... I had converted from thiesm to atheism my self, and I coulndn't possibly fathom how I could ever switch back. I thought it was just some theistic manipulation of the truth in order to provide more "prais to the glory of god". But I think I understand what's really going on. Based on all of the stories I have heard (or otherwise), I have a general hypothesis about atheists who convert to, or back to theism.

I think that almost all atheists who convert to theism were not atheist due to a rational, in-depth analysis of theism. I'm not supposing what may have been their source for being atheist, just that it was NOT a concious and deliberate decision against being a theist due to a rational, in depth approach to theism. I am making a point to say "in-depth approach" because... a theist who used to be an atheist, but their atheism was simply because they were raised in an atheist family and was always told "there is no evidence for god", could claim a "rational approach". While that claim "is" rational, it's no where near the same level as a fomer theist who was raised theist, and battled with the cognative dissonance for years while examining the scriptures, evidence, history, etc... and finally coming to the conclusion that their belief in god is unsubstantiated.

Agree, disagree? Does my hypothesis make sense?

EDITED:

I also wanted to add, that MOST of the "Atheist to Theist" conversions I have heard of involved some sort of traumatic event in their life. Possibly suggesting their conversion was emotional... out of fear or a need for comfort??

EDITED AGAIN:

It seems that I need to place a more defined description on the type of atheist that I believe would be highly unlikely to be converted to a theist...
An atheist who I think would not be converted is one who makes observations in our world with a rational approach, has a confidence based in sciences, and was not an atheist for any emotional reason, but one who's lack of belief in a god was solely based on rational analysis of the natural world. (this would include the aforementioned analysis of religion as it could be included in sciences since it falls under anthropology and that relation to ancient civilizations)

 

[LuisDantas]

It does make sense and brings intriguing ideas to mind.

Maybe some people are pressured into Atheism much like so many others are pressured into their parents' faith?

Boggles the mind a bit, but I have noticed that some people are in fact naturally Theists. And I can pay testimony of how some parents just will not respect their children's beliefs or lack of same...

So yes, I suppose it is quite possible, if somewhat rare, for a natural Theist to have his or her vocation unencouraged or even all-out repressed, consciously or otherwise, by a family that does not care enough to perceive how important that might be.

Come to think of it, it is not all that different from having some other vocation that the family opposes.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well a lot of people who claim Atheism were really just in a time of doubt and then relapsed into theism.

And then there is no shortage of theists who have lied and said they were atheists. I have personally never seen someone who was an Atheist because of logic and reason fall into theism.

 

[ChristineES]

An atheist who converts over the theist is an atheist who changed his/her mind. Just like a theist who becomes an atheist also changed his or her mind.

Edited to add: I think your theory may be true for some atheists who switch over.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So we have all heard, read, watched, or experienced for ourselves, the stories of people who have converted to, and/or from, being an athiest, and sometimes back again. To be honest, the first time I heard of an atheist converting to theism, I was baffled... I had converted from thiesm to atheism my self, and I coulndn't possibly fathom how I could ever switch back. I thought it was just some theistic manipulation of the truth in order to provide more "prais to the glory of god". But I think I understand what's really going on. Based on all of the stories I have heard (or otherwise), I have a general hypothesis about atheists who convert to, or back to theism.

I think that almost all atheists who convert to theism were not atheist due to a rational, in-depth analysis of theism. I'm not supposing what may have been their source for being atheist, just that it was NOT a concious and deliberate decision against being a theist due to a rational, in depth approach to theism. I am making a point to say "in-depth approach" because... a theist who used to be an atheist, but their atheism was simply because they were raised in an atheist family and was always told "there is no evidence for god", could claim a "rational approach". While that claim "is" rational, it's no where near the same level as a fomer theist who was raised theist, and battled with the cognative dissonance for years while examining the scriptures, evidence, history, etc... and finally coming to the conclusion that their belief in god is unsubstantiated.

Agree, disagree? Does my hypothesis make sense?

Because sometimes theists cannot fathom atheist logic and atheists cannot fathom theist logic - logic is subjective.

 

[Philomath]

I converted to theism because I found ample reason to believe in God once again.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because sometimes theists cannot fathom atheist logic and atheists cannot fathom theist logic - logic is subjective.

If it were, it would not be particularly useful, nor particularly definible as logic.

 

[George-ananda]

So we have all heard, read, watched, or experienced for ourselves, the stories of people who have converted to, and/or from, being an athiest, and sometimes back again. To be honest, the first time I heard of an atheist converting to theism, I was baffled... I had converted from thiesm to atheism my self, and I coulndn't possibly fathom how I could ever switch back. I thought it was just some theistic manipulation of the truth in order to provide more "prais to the glory of god". But I think I understand what's really going on. Based on all of the stories I have heard (or otherwise), I have a general hypothesis about atheists who convert to, or back to theism.

I think that almost all atheists who convert to theism were not atheist due to a rational, in-depth analysis of theism. I'm not supposing what may have been their source for being atheist, just that it was NOT a concious and deliberate decision against being a theist due to a rational, in depth approach to theism. I am making a point to say "in-depth approach" because... a theist who used to be an atheist, but their atheism was simply because they were raised in an atheist family and was always told "there is no evidence for god", could claim a "rational approach". While that claim "is" rational, it's no where near the same level as a fomer theist who was raised theist, and battled with the cognative dissonance for years while examining the scriptures, evidence, history, etc... and finally coming to the conclusion that their belief in god is unsubstantiated.

Agree, disagree? Does my hypothesis make sense?

I'm going to disagree.

The atheist could experience an event or hear new evidence or arguments that cause them to change their mind.

For example, a near-death experience has changed some atheist's beliefs. Many atheists who witnessed what they truly believe to be a miracle (i.e. like many atheists at the Fatima miracle) changed their views. I'm sure many were what you were describing; well thought-out atheists before the life-changing experience.

Or the most famous deeply thought-out atheist Antony Flew, revised his views after studying the complexity and improbability of DNA occurring through only naturalistic processes.

I would though rarely expect scriptures to change a thought-out atheist.

 

[nash8]

If it were, it would not be particularly useful, nor particularly definible as logic.

So you think logic is objective? If it is, why do so many philosophers and scientists who base the entirety of their thought proccess on logic, come to different conclusions?

 

[psychoslice]

I can't see how a true thinking atheist could turn to theism, its like realizing your teddy bear isn't real, and then pretending he is.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you think logic is objective?

I do indeed. If it were subjective, it would not even deserve that name. It would be just a flow of associations and ideas.

If it is, why do so many philosophers and scientists who base the entirety of their thought proccess on logic, come to different conclusions?

Lots of possible reasons. Among them:

1. Perhaps they are not being all that logical in the first place. Logic is a difficult thing for a human being to maintain.

2. Logical conclusions can hardly be more attuned to a reality than the premises and models that they adopt as a starting point. Different people choose different premises and models, often because they are simply in different positions with different perceptions.

3. The conclusions themselves may be expressed in ways that need adaptation to the destined public; or may be expressed in ways that appear different due to language or emphasis without necessarily disagreeing.

For good or worse, agreement is a poor indicator of logical reasoning.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't see how a true thinking atheist could turn to theism, its like realizing your teddy bear isn't real, and then pretending he is.

Not necessarily. While it is rare these days, some people may simply fail to be exposed to the concept despite having an affinity to it.

 

[psychoslice]

Not necessarily. While it is rare these days, some people may simply fail to be exposed to the concept despite having an affinity to it.

May they enjoy cuddling their teddy.anda:

 

[nash8]

I do indeed. If it were subjective, it would not even deserve that name. It would be just a flow of associations and ideas.

If that is the case their can be only one true logic no? And if you are not following that particular thought pattern than you are not following logic. Objective logic would mean that it would be the same for everyone, so if you are not coming to the same conclusions based on the same evidence than one person would have to be logical, and the other person would have to be illogical no?

1. Perhaps they are not being all that logical in the first place. Logic is a difficult thing for a human being to maintain.

Who decides who's being logical, and whose not being logical? What is your criteria for who is logical and who is not? But I most definitely agree that logic is a difficult thing for a human being to maintain.

2. Logical conclusions can hardly be more attuned to a reality than the premises and models that they adopt as a starting point.

Which theory of quantum gravity is logical? Quantum loop gravity or string theory? Which model would you argue would be more attuned to reality? If logic is objective then one group would have to be illogical because the interpretations of the evidence have led them to adapt different models as a starting point.

Different people choose different premises and models, often because they are simply in different positions with different perceptions.

Indeed, but what makes the choice in premise and models illogical? In other words does logic change because your looking at something from a different angle than someone else?

3. The conclusions themselves may be expressed in ways that need adaptation to the destined public; or may be expressed in ways that appear different due to language or emphasis without necessarily disagreeing.

So logic is adapted for the public, and I don't think that language or emphasis can create a difference between string theory and quantum loop gravity as a explenation for quantum gravity, because if one of the theories is proven to be true than the other will not be true atleast in the application of quantum gravity, and I would argue that both of the groups of people studying these particular avenues would be logical.

[/quote]For good or worse, agreement is a poor indicator of logical reasoning.[/quote]

What is your definition of logic? Because I percieve that statement to indicate that logic is subjective.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Theism is actually intriguing. I suppose a person who was initially athiest at first might find theism an interesting experiment. A new experience.

 

[nash8]

Theism is actually intriguing. I suppose a person who was initially athiest at first might find theism an interesting experiment. A new experience.

You should check out Pan(en)diesm. I don't see how it can really be argued against, atleast conceptually.

 

[RedJamaX]

Because sometimes theists cannot fathom atheist logic and atheists cannot fathom theist logic - logic is subjective.

Logic is definitely not subjective... Otherwise it's useless.

 

[RedJamaX]

I'm going to disagree.

The atheist could experience an event or hear new evidence or arguments that cause them to change their mind.

For example, a near-death experience has changed some atheist's beliefs. Many atheists who witnessed what they truly believe to be a miracle (i.e. like many atheists at the Fatima miracle) changed their views. I'm sure many were what you were describing; well thought-out atheists before the life-changing experience.

Or the most famous deeply thought-out atheist Antony Flew, revised his views after studying the complexity and improbability of DNA occurring through only naturalistic processes.

I would though rarely expect scriptures to change a thought-out atheist.

I did say "almost all"... there's always going to be the exception. And, now that you mention it... I did forget to mention that MANY of those conversion stories I have read about included some sort of traumatic event... near death, terrible accident, loss of family... etc... This would suggest that the lean toward theism is based on the need for comfort, and/or the drive of fear.

Although, I'm willing to bet there are many many many more atheists who suffer a traumatic experience and do not convert to theism.

 

[RedJamaX]

I can't see how a true thinking atheist could turn to theism, its like realizing your teddy bear isn't real, and then pretending he is.

Exactly!! This is the best analogy of my own confusion for the situation. But again, I think this only applies to atheist who actually investigated religion. An atheist who was "rebelling" against his parents by denying their religion... that person could easily be converted to religion at some point in their life.

 

[9Westy9]

An atheist who converts over the theist is an atheist who changed his/her mind. Just like a theist who becomes an atheist also changed his or her mind.

Edited to add: I think your theory may be true for some atheists who switch over.

this.