Some of you may recall that a Christian fellow named Robert Deidrick visited the chapel a few weeks ago. In addition to leaving several comments on a post entitled, Bullshit About Death and Heaven, Robert struck up a conversation with me on my About Me page. The following excerpt is from one of his comments:
Do you think that you may have never been a believer in Christ and were just deceived? Some would say that you never had a true faith anyway. Or you may have and you backslid.
My response to Robert was the typical former believer’s response, “yes, I believed just as devoutly as you and other Christians believe….” Looking back now, I think my answer, while not wrong, was incomplete. In addition to being incomplete, it attacked the question from the wrong angle. I want to address both of those weaknesses in this post.
First, I will reiterate that I once was a true believer in the Christian God. That is no longer the case. I no longer believe in Bible-God, and I no longer believe that Jesus, if he existed, was a deity, or the son of a deity. I think the Jesus-legend was based on someone real, but many of the attributes and feats ascribed to him are legendary rather than factual. Moreover, I don’t believe that any of the other deities that humans have described – Allah, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, Thor, etc. – exist or ever have existed. While I can’t rule out the possibility that some entity that people would consider godlike exists, but is currently unknown to us, or possibly unknowable by us, I don’t believe there actually is such a being.
Next, I want to address the issue of deception. When Christians ask people like me if we were deceived, what they often mean is, “Were you deceived by Satan?” In the interests of thoroughness and clarity, I’ll state that I do not believe in Satan. Why would I? The Satan-myth is part of the Christian God-myth package. If I reject the God component, it follows that I also would reject the Satan component. So, the answer to Bob’s question is, no, I was not deceived by Satan. Nevertheless, I certainly was deceived.
I was deceived by believers.
The people who taught me to believe in God, Jesus, Satan, the Bible, etc., are the ones who deceived me. They didn’t do it out of malice. Their intentions were pure – they thought they were doing me a favor by teaching me that the myths in which they believed were real. Nevertheless, they were wrong and I was deceived.
And now, I come to the main point of this post. Christians who say that I never was saved are right – I never was saved. But, they’re right for the wrong reason. They think I never was saved because Satan deceived me, or because God didn’t elect me, or because I didn’t believe the right stuff, or because I didn’t believe in the right way, or because I backslid into a life of degenerate sinfulness and sloth. All of those suppositions are wrong. What Christians don’t realize is this: I never was saved because the state of salvation doesn’t exist; it’s nothing more than a figment of believers’ imaginations. Since Bible-God doesn’t exist, and since Jesus’ death on the cross (assuming that part of the myth is factual) did not reconcile humankind with a non-existent deity, there is no such thing as salvation through atonement. Therefore, Christians are not saved from sin either. They believe they are, but they’re not. Their state of salvation is no more real than mine was – all of it is in their heads.
The good news is that Christians are no more sinful than I am, either. They haven’t offended Bible-God, they don’t deserve eternal punishment and they don’t need to be saved from the consequences of their so-called sins against a non-existent deity. The only sins that people commit are the wrongs we do to each other and other living beings. Those sins often require recompense or retribution, but they never require eternal damnation and torment. Salvation and sin (with regard to deities) are two sides of a coin. If one is false, so is the other. Humankind is neither inherently sinful nor in need of salvation from sin; both conditions – sinfulness and salvation – are fictitious rather than real states of being.
Given all of the above, I’ve decided that when Christians question whether I was ever saved, I won’t answer by saying, “I was just as saved as you are.” It’s a true answer, but they won’t grok why it’s true. Instead, I will offer a more forthright answer; I’ll say, “No, I never was saved. And, neither are you.”
– the chaplain
atimetorend
September 24, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Hey, that’s taking the bull by the horns, nice job turning the question around.
“The good news is that Christians are no more sinful than I am, either. They haven’t offended Bible-God, they don’t deserve eternal punishment and they don’t need to be saved from the consequences of their so-called sins against a non-existent deity.”
The funny thing is, that is not good news to Christians, it’s bad news that you’re saying it. Ironic!
cl
September 24, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Bravo..
And yourself. Certainly, you bear some culpability, too, don’t you think?
Bah… Just when I was buying into the build-up and thinking you were gonna drop a real intellectual bomb on us, we get – your opinion – stated as fact. No offense, but it’s kind of a let-down by people who aren’t persuaded by opinion (i.e. rationalists).
Again, your opinion, stated as fact, when in reality neither you nor myself nor anyone else here knows for certain. I’m sure most of your readers will like the post though. Hopefully ildi will show impartiality by also accosting you for parading an opinion as fact.
Teleprompter
September 24, 2009 at 9:48 pm
cl, I hope the next time I go into church, I’ll be fortunate enough to hear sermons like “As Far As I Know, Jesus Died For Your Sins”.
All people present arguments in a form that they believe to be true.
Yes, most of us understand that these statements are opinions, but it is part of the argument that they are stated as firm beliefs.
Please don’t let your concern for clarity unravel into meaningless obfuscation.
Vinny
September 24, 2009 at 9:56 pm
My take on the question is a little different. When I was a senior in high school, some thirty-five years ago, I had a born again experience. After a couple of years, I came to the conclusion that the world just didn’t work the way that my Christian friends said it did and I abandoned my faith.
Given my short tenure, I cannot deny the possibility that I didn’t really believe in things the way that I was supposed to. Maybe I didn’t say the right words. Maybe I did not feel the right sense of repentance. BUT I THOUGHT I DID! I prayed about it. I talked to more experienced believers than myself about it. I looked for wisdom in the scriptures. I was confident that I was saved.
My question for the believer who questions the sincerity of my experience would be “Why in the world should I ever give it another chance?” For me, much of the appeal of evangelical Christianity was the possibility of certainty. I could be sure that I was saved. I could be sure of God’s will for my life. I could be sure that my prayers would be answered. If it turns out that I can’t ever be certain that I have jumped through the hoops necessary to have certainty, what’s the point?
Ebonmuse
September 24, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Clearly, there’s a subset of Christians who are tremendously threatened by the idea that anyone who sincerely and honestly believed might have changed her mind. That raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions about their own beliefs, including the possibility that subjective personal conviction might not be a totally reliable guide to objective truth about the universe. It’s far easier and more reassuring for them to decide that anyone who’s now an atheist never was a Christian in the first place!, which excuses them from having to critically evaluate their own beliefs in light of another’s deconversion.
the chaplain
September 24, 2009 at 10:08 pm
CL:
I agree that I bear responsibility for swallowing the kool-aid for as long as I did. No excuses – I just did.
Now, to move on to where I disagree with you. There’s nothing wrong with the fact that this post expresses my opinion. People formulate opinions, points of view, etc., by a) assembling and b) interpreting data/facts. That is a significant part of what it means to think rationally. I stated my premises (presuppositions, as you’ll likely prefer) up front and built a case from there. I’m not “parading” opinion as fact; I’m saying, “given these premises, this follows.” People who don’t accept the premises won’t accept the conclusion either. You’re simply one of many who would fall into that camp. But, there are many who will accept both my premises and conclusion. The different camps will disagree. I can live with that, and I hope that you can, too.
There is almost nothing that anyone knows for certain. Almost all the “knowledge” we deal with is based on probabilistic reasoning. That being the case, there’s always a chance that what we “know” today will be proved wrong tomorrow. If so, then we switch gears and move forward.
As I see it, you often lean toward proclaiming agnosticism. There’s nothing wrong with that. I lean toward proclaiming provisional acceptance of atheistic positions. Rather than accepting my positions as provisional, however, you often portray or interpret me as stating a higher degree of certitude than is actually the case. I’m not going to preface every remark with something insipid like, “this may be the case,” or “I’m not sure, but I think that….” Readers are smart enough to know where to mentally insert those phrases. They know that nothing I write is gospel truth, that it’s just my current provisional understanding. I’d like to think you’re smart enough to do the same, but every time you raise these types of objections, it’s harder to do so.
As for my contentions that Bible-God doesn’t exist, that salvation is an imaginary state of being, etc., I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that I’m probably right about those things. Otherwise, I’d still be a believer. Yes, I could be wrong, but I’m reasonably certain that I’m right. Yes, that’s my opinion, but it’s based on my understanding of a lot of facts. You’ve looked at a lot of the same facts, plus perhaps some others, and come to a different conclusion. That’s okay with me. Is it okay with you?
PhillyChief
September 24, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Backslid? I’d say you climbed up and forward out of the muck.
Look, belief is supposed to be the best thing ever, right? I mean, how could anyone give up the best thing ever? CLEARLY there’s something wrong with you. That’s what they have to tell themselves, especially if you appear to be a successful, decent person with a good life, and I’ll bet it’s even more true if their life blows in any way. There has to be a reason for all that, right?
It’s really sad when you try and picture it from their point of view, those pathetic Salieri fools.
Rock me, Amadeus
the chaplain
September 24, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Teleprompter:
What a great idea for a sermon! That would raise a few eyebrows in the congregation, I’m sure.
Vinny:
The apparent certainty of evangelical Christianity is alluring in a culture where rapid, radical changes are the norm.
Ebonmuse:
I think you’re right that a lot of Christians need to distinguish their faith from the faith of former believers. It’s frightening to think, “there but for – the grace of God? chance? slightly different circumstances? – go I.”
Philly:
I agree that I moved forward rather than backwards. As for the “best thing ever” idea, a “relationship with Jesus” is supposed to be the best thing in the world except, maybe, for sex with one’s spouse (never sex with anyone other than a duly married spouse – of the opposite gender, of course). No, it’s supposed to be better than married sex, too (but it isn’t). Believers really do have a hard time understanding how someone could stop believing. It’s very sad.
Eshu
September 25, 2009 at 5:50 am
Chappie,
This is an idea many of us are familiar with, but you’ve articulated it particularly well. Also as it aligns exactly with my own feelings, I’ll be marking this as a post to quote or direct theists to when they inevitably ask the same old question.
Back in April on Fallen & Flawed, commenter al accused Lorena and myself of never having been “real” Christians.
My take is that it means they have no way of knowing if any Christian is truly in a relationship with Christ.
the chaplain
September 25, 2009 at 6:10 am
atimetorend:
I apologize for not acknowledging your comment earlier. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that Christians should take comfort in my suggestion that totally depravity, inherent sinfulness, etc., is not a real condition, but I suspect that you’re right – many of them would read that and take a hot shower to wash off the atheist cooties.
Eshu:
Your take take on the ultimate uncertainty of anyone’s state of salvation, notwithstanding doctrines of eternal security, prevenient and preserving grace, etc., occurred to me, too. A question I have for believers (if one accepts their premises for argument’s sake) is, if it’s possible to be deceived about whether one is saved, then how does one distinguish between the genuine and the ersatz?
Sarge
September 25, 2009 at 6:59 am
What I see in the conservative to fundy outfits is an almost manic certainty in some, they are white-knuckling their way because without it, who knows what might happen? They might run at large (or others who are not as restrained as their august selves) doing horrible things with “no brake”.
Or, even worse, they might not! The world would simply continue as it always has.
And the certainty of this is the way it is, this is the truth of my childhood/situation which required such a belief, I just won’t think of it anymore, it IS.
My father died knowing he was “saved”…well, actually not as he had gone into dementia shortly before his death, but close enough, I guess. He was certain because he NEEDED a savior. Was glad there WAS a savior. What was on his conscience I have no idea, maybe just the thought of facing the music for the high crime of having been born. How I never saw what he saw so clearly was just beyond him. And a lot of people.
My poor cuz-in-law and dear friend, the preacher, has lost her faith. She has gone over to the UU, but one day, she just said, “I can’t pray. There’s nothing there, is there”? And it’s been kind of tough on her to think of the years she spent.
People ask, “What happened to you”??!!
She says, “It’s like I woke up”.
Her problem is, she doesn’t really know HOW she should feel. She’s coping, though.
the chaplain
September 25, 2009 at 8:57 am
Sarge:
You’ve written about your cousin-in-law in other comments. When did she lose her faith? I empathize with the feelings of wasted time and waking up. As for how she should feel – I don’t think there’s a right answer. Most de-converts eventually get to a point of feeling liberated. She’ll probably get there over time, but don’t be surprised if she goes through a grieving process before that happens. Losing faith is like a divorce or the death of a loved one. Both of those events have irrevocable effects on people, but they adjust and move forward over time.
One change in the way I view my experience is that I now refer to it as my enlightenment rather than my de-conversion. That reference shows a shift in my attitude from having lost something to having gained. Over time, even though she’ll likely use different terminology, she’ll probably move past the sense of loss and be able to think about her experience in positive terms.
Lorena
September 25, 2009 at 9:25 am
The only sins that people commit are the wrongs we do to each other and other living beings.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. Pantheists, those who believe the universe is god, I think are somewhat correct. If we assume all humans are part of a greater reality that many call god, it is easy to see that when we wrong another person god “punishes” us, as in we pay for our misdeeds to other humans.
Personally, I think I wasted my entire life respecting, worshiping, and being afraid of the wrong thing (Bible God). Had I treated people the way I treated god my life would’ve been entirely different.
Cephus
September 25, 2009 at 11:43 am
This is something I’ve been saying for years. Unfortunately, you get Christians who insist “once saved, always saved” and therefore must also insist “not currently saved, never saved”. They cannot imagine anyone being able to come to their senses, if they acknowledge that people can stop believing in their religion, after having seriously and strongly believed, then they admit the possibility that they, themselves, have the potential to do the same and that scares them.
In my own case, did I believe I was saved? Absolutely. Was there anything I needed salvation from? Nope. Was there anything that had the potential to save me? Not that I can find.
About the only thing I’ve been saved from, and it was done through the power of the intellect and rational thinking, was Christianity. Hallelujah for that.
Postman
September 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Excellent, Chappie. I’d add that there is no such thing as “sin”, either. It’s just a societal concept we came up with. Like “money” or “justice”.
the chaplain
September 25, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Lorena:
Interesting thought. Who knows how many opportunities we lost to connect with people because we were vainly trying to connect with God.
Cephus:
Ramen, brother. Preach it.
Postie
Sin is not an offense against deities and, as I noted in the post, people are not born inherently sinful and totally depraved (what a paltry view of humankind!). Nevertheless, stripped of its religious applications, sin may still be a useful social concept. We can sin against each other by harming each other, and the harmful deeds we do against humankind and nature can be considered sins.
Ironically, religion has stripped the word “sin” of its power by applying it to misdeeds of all shapes and sizes. If almost anything “wrong” is sin, then the word is virtually meaningless. In my view, the word “sin” would apply to major wrongs – rape, murder, wanton slaughter of animals, paying little heed to their possible extinction at our hands, etc. – and other words would be used to describe minor misdeeds – little lies, swiping a pen from the office, etc. If we make such distinctions, then the word “sin” has some bite. Without such a distinction, “sin” is reduced to nothing of consequence.
jim
September 25, 2009 at 9:27 pm
cl:
“Bah… Just when I was buying into the build-up and thinking you were gonna drop a real intellectual bomb on us, we get – your opinion – stated as fact. No offense, but it’s kind of a let-down by people who aren’t persuaded by opinion (i.e. rationalists).”
Double bah! This is – your opinion – stated as fact. I’m not persuaded.
“Again, your opinion, stated as fact, when in reality neither you nor myself nor anyone else here knows for certain. I’m sure most of your readers will like the post though. Hopefully ildi will show impartiality by also accosting you for parading an opinion as fact.”
Again, YOUR opinion, stated as fact, when in reality you don’t know if what the chaplain said is factual or not for certain, by your own admission. That’s just your opinion, right? Why are you stating opinion as fact?
Back onto the path of the N.O. then?
Chaplain:
Good article. I usually just tell Christians that I once believed in Jesus, but I don’t anymore. They’re going to interpret it along the lines of whatever doctrine they’re involved with, anyway.
ildi
September 26, 2009 at 12:43 am
jim: I just read your N.O. post – very well written (I am envious). Bookmarked.
jim
September 26, 2009 at 1:13 am
Thanks, Ildi. My point is that this ‘that’s not fact, just your opinion’ game can be played with absolutely ANY proposition, or even casual remark. Ultimately, in conversation it comes down to simple agreement. To me, the notion that JFK was gunned down by Lee Harvey Oswald is a fact. Others most certainly disagree. However, what good does it do to water down each others’ ‘facts’ to the level of mere ‘opinions’? As far as I’m concerned, the conspiracy theorists are dead wrong. And they think the same thing of my ‘facts’.
The way I see it, this is just a way of trying to definitionally equalize each side’s viewpoints. “Hey, it’s all just opinion, right?” After that, ‘belief’ becomes justified as the newly lowered high-water mark. Meanwhile, as teleprompter inferred, the so-called ‘belief’ will go on being touted as ‘fact’ amongst the faithful.
The IDers are trying to pull the same thing. They know they don’t have the goods, so instead of raising the bridge, they just try and lower the river. “In the end, it’s all faith, people!” And we all know who the masters of faith are, don’t we?
PhillyChief
September 26, 2009 at 5:54 am
On the bright side, attempting to drag something down is an acknowledgment of it’s superiority.
the chaplain
September 26, 2009 at 9:22 am
jim: Thanks for the link to your post on the N.O. I read it several weeks ago, but it’s worth revisiting from time to time. As you illustrated so clearly in your comment, most of what people write in blog posts and comments is opinion, not fact. Readers (at the blogs I read, at least) don’t need flashing emoticons saying:
They know how to make those distinctions and how to give appropriate weight to different statements.
ildi:
As noted above, I agree with your assessment of jim’s N.O. post. I also thank you for not “accosting” me for “parading an opinion as fact.” In addition to crediting readers with knowing how to distinguish facts from opinions, I credit them with knowing that some opinions are better supported by facts than others.
Philly:
Your bright side of things brightened my day.
heather
September 28, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Good post, as always. The idea of salvation is quite baffling. It could mean anything.
That Frank Schaeffer (who’s he?) quote is genius.
the chaplain
September 28, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Heather:
Frank Schaeffer and his father, Francis Schaeffer were movers & shakers in the evangelical Christian world in the 80s. They played a significant role in the early formation of America’s Religious Right. I read several of Francis Schaeffer’s books when I was in college. Frank Schaeffer is still a Christian, but he’s rejected evangelical-right-wingnuttery. He wrote a book, Crazy for God, that is on my to-read list.
Spanish Inquisitor
September 28, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Isn’t he the guy that Rachael Maddow has on her show on occasion to give commentary on religious issues?
the chaplain
September 29, 2009 at 6:16 am
SI:
Yes, Schaeffer has appeared on Maddow’s show.
cl
September 29, 2009 at 4:58 pm
PhillyChief,
I agree. That’s why I’m always complimented by the intensity with which yourself and others often try to drag me down.
Teleprompter,
You’ve overlooked the metadebate. There was purpose beyond what you assume.
Chaplain,
I know, I understand; you missed the point(s). ildi accused me of not knowing the difference between opinion and fact in the last thread, because I answered your question regarding atheism and science. I was curious to see if ildi would be consistent.
I disagree, but see no need to argue about it.
I proclaim acceptance of theism, but ask all to remember their inherent epistemic disadvantages.
I understand the congeniality of conversation, and that certain things are implicit. I understand that this post wasn’t intended to be a cogent argument. My point was that I thought it was going to be, the way you were building up. And, I wanted to highlight the fact that ildi holds myself to different standards, for some reason.
Of course.
jim,
I’ll humor you in good spirit:
Not so. It is a FACT that people who are not persuaded by opinion are let down by opinion as sustenance for reasoning.
No; you’ve contradicted yourself. If I don’t know whether what the chaplain said is factual or not, and neither does she, then my categorization of her claim as opinion is not just an opinion, but a fact.
That was one of my biggest frustrations whenever we talked – how to convince you that such is not my approach to knowledge. It’s not all just opinion. All I’m saying here is that when we’re presenting cogent arguments, opinions don’t work. You know that, I know that, chaplain knows that, and so does everyone else worth debating with. Her post here was more a “nuanced reflection” than a cogent argument, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Vinny
September 29, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I know, I understand; you missed the point(s). ildi accused me of not knowing the difference between opinion and fact in the last thread, because I answered your question regarding atheism and science. I was curious to see if ildi would be consistent.
I also missed the point because I foolishly assumed that you were responding to the Chaplain’s current post rather than baiting some commenter from a previous post.
ildi
September 29, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Vinny:
cl doesn’t like it when commenters get tired of playing semantic games. Most of the time, there really isn’t a point to get. (Though, to be fair, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.) Lucky for cl, there’s always fresh blood out there…
cl
September 30, 2009 at 12:00 am
I sincerely apologize Vinny, no harm intended, although, I wouldn’t have made the assumption you did, if I saw a comment like mine on another website. I’ve learned enough about internet conversation to know that our assumptions are very often wrong. Also, know that I won’t judge you for not participating in the meta-debate, and in my defense, I’m entirely within my rights to point out inconsistency within the meta-debate.
ildi,
How ironic that you’d try to pull that played-out card, especially when in our last exchange I asked you to support your position without reference to your personal opinion of me, and you declined – preferring to curse me and bang a drum over cogency.
Your claim here is also ironic on another level: one reason I tend to comment a lot is because I’m hoping commenters will eventually get tired of any hindrance to the resolution of arguments, for example their negative opinions of other interlocutors. As an example, did you notice how I kept going in our last exchange, consistently deflecting your insults and sticking to my argument – and that you never defended your argument – and everyone just kind of forgot about it? That’s the reality here; how or why you feel inclined to proceed as if you’ve accomplished something eludes me, especially when procession by respect remains an option.
ildi
September 30, 2009 at 9:35 am
How’s that working for you, sweetie?
Vinny
September 30, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I’ve learned enough to know that I don’t have any “rights” when commenting on someone else’s blog. My comments are entirely subject to the discretion, whim, and/or caprice of the Chaplain.
I’ve also learned to avoid quasi-rational meta-debates with pseudo-intellectuals.
Temaskian
October 2, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Even if the bible were right that there is a salvation to be had, I doubt anyone is holy enough to qualify for the prize of salvation. Anyone would realise this if they bothered to read through all the terms and conditions, and not just those that sound nice, like faith alone will save you. Jesus was not so lenient.
So I agree with you, none of us were ever saved.