Skip to main content

39

Three decades I have walked the Earth.  Almost four.  I have known what it is to be loved by good parents, to be alienated and abused by classmates, to be a failure at scholastic pursuits, to be a success at scholastic pursuits, to find a family apart from heredity, to know love with the joys and pains that brings, to be a father of three wonderful children, and to be a master craftsman at my profession.  I have seen the glory of man, and the failure of man.

When I was a young child, I gave my life to Christ.  I still remember the event, or at least I think I do.  Evergreen Baptist Church.  Vacation Bible School.  Altar call.  I was moved to move, to walk the path, to commit my life to Christ.  I have never had a burning passion for Christ, but I have held him in my heart.  In college I drifted away, as is the tendency.  When I became serious with my now wife, we agreed to walk the road of life together as a Christian family.  I have done this for the last 15 years.

I believe one should put forth the entirety of their intellect towards their worldview.  If that worldview includes evangelism, as it should for most Christians, one should not withdraw from exposure to criticisms of that worldview – for how can one evangelize if they are unfamiliar with the opposition they will face?  I have always enjoyed applying my intellect to apologetics.  For a long time, it was done in a much unstructured way.  When the opportunity would arise, I would engage in it.  But I did not seek it out.  Over the last few years, I have changed that approach.  I have tried to learn the arguments put forth for the Christian God by the more public apologists, and I have tried to learn the arguments put forth against that viewpoint.  I am far from an expert at either side, but I have actively tried to better my knowledge of both.

For a while, I experienced some growth in my faith in Christ from this.  But that did not last.  The more I consumed, the more it seemed that the better arguments were being made by those that were in opposition to the God of the Christian Bible.  The more I learned about human biology, human psychology, the more I came to see the formulaic nature of the Christian religion, at least the flavor of it that I am most exposed to.  I see it more as a method of control than as a pursuit of knowledge.  We seem to believe what we believe and then, after the fact, justify that belief.  I have searched, and have not found a sound, valid argument for belief in the Christian God.

I must be honest to myself, to those I love, and to those who trust me with their time and with their children.  I have come to accept that, in my heart, I am an atheistic agnostic.  This means that I do not believe that the core “truth of the world” is knowable by man (agnostic) and that my worldview does not include a deity (atheistic).  I do not assert that there are no deities, but I find no evidence to support there being any and I approach life from that perspective.

Most of my family and friends, at least outwardly, are Christians.  I have not felt comfortable talking with them about my concerns and doubts.  I have not, and do not, trust that this knowledge of me will not sour those relationships.  This has put me in some situations where I have portrayed myself as something I am not.  I believe in my heart that public knowledge of this part of me will bring pain to my wife.  This dishonesty was done in order to protect her from that pain, in the hope that I would again return to a Christian worldview.  I now accept that is very unlikely.  I cannot justify this behavior as anything other than dishonesty, so I must apologize to those around me who will feel like I have lied to them.  You are right, and I am sorry.  I did so out of fear of persecution and out of a desire to protect those that I love, but I still did so.  I have taken intentional steps to minimize my being in situations where I would be dishonest, but one can only be so successful at that.

Given the level of belief of those around me, I expect that many will want to fix me.  This is natural, and expected, and consistent with the Christian teachings.  I accept that.  Just know that I do not take this view lightly.  Do not assume that I have just not been exposed, and that if I just heard this argument or that, I would see the truth.  You should assume that I have heard it.  That I have weighed the evidence.  That I have found the Christian or Theistic side lacking.  Still, feel free to send me information in a written way, and I will respond in due time.  I am not interested in verbally debating those that I love on theism.  Well, I am interested in it, but I am not able.  I am angry about what I see as having spent a large portion of my life pursuing something I now see as invalid.  This manifests in spiteful ways when I talk about this, and I will at times lash out, which would strain those relationships.  I am open to discussing what I believe, but please, let us save technical debates for the written word.  I do not trust my ability to be fair in a verbal confrontation.

About the children…

Many of my friends and family are Christian.  I respect your authority over your children.  I will not make statements to them that I think you would not want.  I will not lie to them, but I will openly refuse to discuss certain things.  If you still see fit to have me in their lives, I am open to you putting some boundaries on that relationship.

Comments

Unknown said…
You are our son, whom we dearly love. Your search for truth will never subtract from that or reduce our respect for the wonderful man you have become. -- Dad and Mom
Unknown said…
Pat,

We love you, regardless of what you believe. You could be a Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, or worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That won't change the fact that we consider you a good friend and great family man.

I will also say that if you ever do want to discuss your feelings, I'm here. You're not going to say anything to offend or upset me. I will not take anything personally nor would I hold your beliefs against you. I've walked the road you're on while I was in college.

I'm horrible at sharing feelings but just know that we love you and we're here for you, no matter what you believe, what you do, or who you become.

- Jeremy and Alicia
Unknown said…
Thank you for the kind words of support. I did not expect anything other from either of you, or of most of our close friends.

And BTW: one who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is known as a Pastafarian.
Dean said…
Since you weighed the evidence and have rejected theism, what authors or books on the Christian side did you read and reject? Was it C. S. Lewis, William Dembski, David Robertson, Ravi Zacharias, Al Molher, John Lennox, Alister McGrath? I would be interested in knowing who the people were that you studied that were unconvincing.
Unknown said…
P.S. -- It's a Carbohydrovian
Unknown said…
@Dean - I'm not a big reader. I did read The Origin of Species mostly so I could say that I did, but generally I don't acquire knowledge through reading. I am a big listener though. I have probably listened to about 10 hours of discussion/debate a week for the last 3-4 years. Over the last 6 months, this has probably been more like 20-30 hours a week. I have heard a lot of discussion of C.S. Lewis, mostly in regards to Mere Christianity. I have heard Ravi Zacharias in several debates (and several sermons, he competes with you when Caraline is sleeping in the van during evening worship). The names Dembski, Molher, and Lennox seem familiar to me. I expect that I have heard in detail most of the points they raise. And it is the point, not who is raising it, that is of interest to me. I am always open to new sources of knowledge, I will research those authors to make sure they do not raise something I have not been exposed to.
Marc A. Criley said…
An excellent book on why Biblical inerrancy is untenable, and is not a New-Atheist-style assault on Christianity is Thom Stark's "The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong". The author in fact is a Biblical historian and Christian.

For one interested (in depth or in passing) in Biblical archaeology, ancient mideast cultures, and the evolution of religious thought and language, it's quite fascinating.

Spoiler: David did not kill Goliath--politicians just always take credit :-)

Popular posts from this blog

Critique: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3, Ken Ham and Roger Patterson

In reference to:  The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3 Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used. Abiogenesis and Evolution [Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom. ... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ... Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life.  This is incorrect.   Evolution  is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life.   Abiogenesis  is the development from life from non-life.  It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state.  It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct. Advocating Evolution as Religious An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolution and not creationism repre

Andy McIntosh - What about the Fossils - Part 8 (Stasis)

This is part 8 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUU9Wb8yzQ Stasis One of McIntosh's main points is the concept of stasis .  This means that things don't change for a long time (things like feathers and turtles).  It seems the point here is: "so evolution is wrong". He seems to be saying that either everything evolves by changing constantly, or his version of young earth creationism is true.  There are many other options of course. It could be that evolutionary theory can explain this.  It could be that aliens made life on earth.  If this were indeed evidence against the current theory of evolution, that would not make it evidence for young earth creationism.  Maybe if every species could be shown to be in u