Why does religious conversion seemingly ALWAYS precede scientific conversion?

[KerrMetric]

We keep being told that evolutionary scientists are leaving "evilutionism" behind and converting to creationism because of science and the scientific interpretation of evidence.




Where? Who? When?


If the evidence and use of scientific methodology really drove the conversion then why is this not seen? Isn't this direct evidence that such conversions not only do not occur but also that the evidence cannot foster such conversions since science and the evidence screams NO at creationism?





I have studied the creation/evolution debate for many years, have read literally (pun intended!) hundreds of bios of people in this area and have never seen any conversion on this issue in the direction creationists want us to think is happening all the time. What I have seen every single time is that a religious conversion occurs and lo and behold - the person is now a creationist. They then try to twist the science to fit their new found version of faith.






So where are the unequivocal cases of the science leading to creationism?





I say unequivocal since some people have said this was their direction of conversion after the fact though there never seems to be evidence of their prior position on the issues to see if this is true. Just like Lee Strobel being a converted atheist. I've never seen evidence for that claim either and it just seems a convenient ruse for book sales to me. As a side issue we are also told, and have been so for 5 decades, that these conversions are in droves. If so, why are there any evolution followers in science left? The worlds scientific community should be full of Creationists yet I personally know not a single Creationist in the scientific community out of several thousand scientists I know at some level through work, seminars and meetings.

 

[Deamiter]

At my university (Bethel university in Minnesota) we had a truly amazing physics program with at least two creationist professors. My personal observation was that they tended to support creationism based on evidence outside outside of their field like biology or geology. The school is very far from a YEC school though it is rather theologically conservative (the Biology department was fully evolutionist interestingly). We discussed the issues in class occasionally, but I learned the scientific method and things like radiometric dating very well without any attempts at indoctrination.

Of course these professors aren't what you're asking for. They're very smart, and great physics teachers and scientists but they were YEC theologically their entire lives.

Some YEC leaders see the issue as a propaganda war and they're the ones saying that evolution is dying and that scientists are converting in droves. They've been saying it since before Darwin (about the lack of evidence for the flood anyway). I dare say you'll never find a shred of statistical evidence for these claims, though statistics do show that the propaganda is working on the largely uneducated portion of the American population.

 

[shernren]

It's a good question. To explain it away, AiG resorts to an essentially fideist defense of their position: some parts of reality are unknowable, they say, and must be assumed a priori on philosophical grounds. But while "to believe is to see" might work for religion, how can we know that it might work for science?

 

[FranciscanJ]

Just like Lee Strobel being a converted atheist. I've never seen evidence for that claim either and it just seems a convenient ruse for book sales to me.

I agree with most of what you say except this. It is similar to the "once saved always saved" doctrine, only its "once an atheist always an atheist". Its basicly a claim that atheism is so uber intellectually powerful that nobody really ever leaves it. Why do you require extraordinary evidence for an atheist becoming a believer?

I went through an atheist/agnostic faze in high school (yes for me it was a faze). I became one for emotional, liberating reasons. I left it because I wanted more out of life, and the goodness of people in my life led me back to God. Now, whatever proof you require for this I could care less. It's not possible right? Once an atheist always an atheist. That is a belief with no evidence.

Anyway, sorry to be tangential.

 

[KerrMetric]

I agree with most of what you say except this. It is similar to the "once saved always saved" doctrine, only its "once an atheist always an atheist". Its basicly a claim that atheism is so uber intellectually powerful that nobody really ever leaves it. Why do you require extraordinary evidence for an atheist becoming a believer?

I went through an atheist/agnostic faze in high school (yes for me it was a faze). I became one for emotional, liberating reasons. I left it because I wanted more out of life, and the goodness of people in my life led me back to God. Now, whatever proof you require for this I could care less. It's not possible right? Once an atheist always an atheist. That is a belief with no evidence.

Anyway, sorry to be tangential.

You misunderstood my point. My Strobel reference was really specifically about him not whether you can be an atheist and switch. I personally know people who have done that - myself for instance. But Strobel's case always seems just a little too smug for want of a better word. It seems a classic case of "pretend to have once been on the other side and now I have seen the error of my ways" as a method of lending credibility. However - I have never seen a single shred of evidence that Strobel was on the other side so to speak.

 

[Deamiter]

I've noticed that of Strobel too. I don't know why, but he tends to mention his conversion not just as a conversion story (that's commonly shared among Christians). The way he phrases it and the places he mentions it makes it seem like he's using it as support for his arguments for Christ.

I guess it makes little sense to me, and indeed to many of my friends (who tend to be scientists or at least people who question all aspects of life) that somebody's conversion from one faith to another would lead another to make the same conversion. When you hear of a Christian converting to atheism or Islam or anything really, do you immediately wonder if you should follow them? More likely you mentally note that it's sad they've been misguided.

My journey of faith is perhaps of interest to another Christian or even to somebody of another faith who is curious. It's pretty worthless as a tool to use to support my personal theological beliefs though!

 

[FranciscanJ]

You misunderstood my point. My Strobel reference was really specifically about him not whether you can be an atheist and switch. I personally know people who have done that - myself for instance. But Strobel's case always seems just a little too smug for want of a better word. It seems a classic case of "pretend to have once been on the other side and now I have seen the error of my ways" as a method of lending credibility. However - I have never seen a single shred of evidence that Strobel was on the other side so to speak.

Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What follows such an opening is nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic or – worse – suffused with a sort of exultant negativity. Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned

-Richard Dawkins
​

Do you guys agree with Dawkins on this point?
I'm sure some people might make it up. But why should we presume it to be so?
What is wrong with fellow believers expressing what challenges their minds went through during different stages of their lives?

I've noticed on forums that many atheists do not believe it's possible to switch from strong atheist to theist.

Why agree with atheists that they are soooooooooooo intelligent that only charlatans would pretend to have left this enlightened state. Why stroke their egos?

It is unfortunate that Lee Strobel wrote that pseudoscience book. He is after all, a journalist not a scientist.
But I see no reason to invent conspiracy theories about his conversion. If it turns out he is lying, then I will agree. Until then why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
​

 

[FranciscanJ]

To be fair though, I don't really care for the "I used to be an atheist" opening if it only leads to badly reasoned arguments or science.
Lee Strobel is a perfect example of this, since his overuse of it doesn't make his science any better as we TE's know.

Kenneth Miller sticks to the facts and doesn't need this sort of opener.

If someone's argument stinks, no amount of "I used to be" anything helps. In fact it probably just makes someone look more foolish.


OP:
No, I don't know anyone who started believing in YEC for scientific reason's before conversion. Maybe part of the problem is when new believers are taught ToE is bad, while YEC/ID is for "good" Christians.

Having not learned much else as a possibility, and most not being seriously educated in science, the new believers cave to YEC, or reject Christianity. Because it is made a question of their faith to accept it. This is one of the things that needs to change in some circles of the Christian community.

 

[Silent Enigma]

I've noticed that trend too. (I'm refering to how the scientists that turn YEC have pre-existing religious pressure for doing so.) It's something that's bothered me for years.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

But Strobel's case always seems just a little too smug for want of a better word. It seems a classic case of "pretend to have once been on the other side and now I have seen the error of my ways" as a method of lending credibility. However - I have never seen a single shred of evidence that Strobel was on the other side so to speak.

Strobel may seem smug to you because you disagree with his conclusions, and also because of the style of writing in his books. His books include more than just technical language, it also includes people's expressions and reactions on a more personal level. This will automatically put on the defensive people who are interested in purely the straight facts. However, Strobel's style makes it far more accessible to the every day person. Those readers may be the sort that find they don't understand the arguments as well as others, so in this book they can empathise with the people involved if not the arguments. Some people do not have the luxury of understanding the facts to the level needed to make an informed decision.

Why do you need proof of his former atheism? Do you have evidence that Lee's name really is Lee Strobel? Or do you take the default position of disbelieving until you see evidence? Do think he should write a book called "The Case for Lee Strobel", and present in that documentation and interviews with people from his life, proving he was once atheist? This to me sounds like a low shot, and a level of skepticism completely unecessary. A lot of people will come to believe that there is no God, and that religion is merely a crutch. And then they will go on to find that the reasons why they disbelieved God were poorly conceived, and re-evaluate their position. In fact, that is so believable (and the consequences of believing Lee is telling the truth so small), that I am happy to trust the statement of a Christian about his testimony of life before Christianity.

You say you were once an atheist - where's your proof? Or should I just trust your claim as I am tempted to, until given reasons not to?

Do you guys agree with Dawkins on this point?

​

Unless I missed it, Dawkins didn't really make a point worth noting. He just said to beware arguments that start with "I was once an atheist..." Atheists use that argument too, "I was once a Christian..." He warned people to be careful because they can be effective at persuading you that their current beliefs are superior.

It is unfortunate that Lee Strobel wrote that pseudoscience book. He is after all, a journalist not a scientist.
​

Why do you consider his book pseudoscience? (I assume we're speaking about Case for a Creator?)

To be fair though, I don't really care for the "I used to be an atheist" opening if it only leads to badly reasoned arguments or science.
Lee Strobel is a perfect example of this, since his overuse of it doesn't make his science any better as we TE's know.

Lee Strobel relies on the testimony/expertise of others, such as Jonathan Wells. Where do you think they erred in the book?

 

[KerrMetric]

Why do you need proof of his former atheism? Do you have evidence that Lee's name really is Lee Strobel? Or do you take the default position of disbelieving until you see evidence? Do think he should write a book called "The Case for Lee Strobel", and present in that documentation and interviews with people from his life, proving he was once atheist? This to me sounds like a low shot, and a level of skepticism completely unecessary.

My only comment about Strobel has to do with the fact that his supposed former atheism is seemingly the opening salvo in anything I ever see from him or his fans. It's up front immediately blared louder than any of his positions. I can only surmise a big reason for this is the sticker shock value of this claim more than it has anything to do with his positions or arguments.

That sets off my bs radar and why I think it needs spelling out clearer. It seems as classic case of "methinks he doth protest too much". It sounds like he's trying to convince not only the reader but himself that he was an atheist. Personally I'd err on the side it is made up for book sales purposes and an attempt to strengthen his position.

You say you were once an atheist - where's your proof? Or should I just trust your claim as I am tempted to, until given reasons not to?

The difference is I don't ever mention it OR use it as a crutch in an argument. In fact - I believe that post was the only time I have ever mentioned it in any context in over 2300 posts on here. Strobel bandies it around in every thing I ever see. I'm also not trying to fleece you out of a hard earned dollar either.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

That sets off my bs radar and why I think it needs spelling out clearer. It seems as classic case of "methinks he doth protest too much". It sounds like he's trying to convince not only the reader but himself that he was an atheist. Personally I'd err on the side it is made up for book sales purposes and an attempt to strengthen his position.

This sure is cynical - and it also casts doubts on the reputation of the people he interviews on his books (their ability to recognise a charleton). I think you're overreacting. He writes in a particular genre, which is very much like a testimony interspersed with technical interviews. And within a testimony, if you're describing how your beliefs changed, it is inevitable that you call attention to what you once were and why. This is especially appropriate in the Case for a Creator. Lee Strobel is directing his book towards non-Christians, and it is important that he empathise with their position (even if probably mostly Christians buy it). Testimonies are an important part of the Christian witness, and are even recommended in Scripture.

His language, especially his claims of his once being an atheist, are highly appropriate for the way he writes. And so I think you are being skeptical far beyond what the evidence demands. I've seen many atheists quick to draw attention to their once childhood Christian faith that they subsequently departed.

Does anyone else share your belief that Lee Strobel is a fake and/or a liar looking to earn a dollar from Christians? From my reading of his works, he does very well at representing the views of the people he interviews. In the Case for a Creator, for example, the chapters interviewing Jonathan Wells and William Craig very precisely reflect the writings of those two in other works of theirs. If he's a fake, then he's a fake who takes great care to represent his interviewees accurately.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe you guys could get together with the government, and insist that people swear that they believe in evolution. Maybe you could require this, you know, no one could graduate unless they believe. Maybe place a mark or something on them to indicate that they have accepted the theory........ Just a thought.