How Do People "Reason" Their Way Into Religion?

Recently I've talked to a number of Christians who say they are "thinking Christians" and that they have reasoned and researched their way into their religion. This is how I think it might happen. Let me be clear first, though. This isn't something that only people who buy into religion do. We all do something similar to this in our lives, unless we've really trained and become good at critical thinking.

1. Start with a need that isn’t being fulfilled. Often this is some variation of, “I can’t believe we just die and that’s it. I want to live forever.” It could also be seen as a general fear of the unknown, major life questions, a belief that religion is needed to be moral, or perhaps someone is leading a shallow life where they look for something deeper.

~I actually fell for the first one. After I realized gods were man-made, I still believed in reincarnation and a hodge-podge of other spiritual New Age claims. For me, it was harder to get rid of those beliefs than God himself. The realization that dead is dead just seems to really freak people out. Since the dawn of  humankind, people have buried their dead in hopes of eternal life, and they have created myths and religions that openly address the afterlife, often as a destination and a threat or reward.

~A lot of people incorrectly believe that morals come from religion. Humanists and nonbelievers everywhere are living proof that it isn’t true.

2. Look for easy answers down specific paths. Pick up a popular book that is written to sell you on a particular religion and read it, or start listening to someone who has strong views and arguments for what they are peddling. Usually you’ll pick something you already have an affinity for in some way.

I have to say that there are people out there who talk a good talk. Their arguments are slick and easy to digest. The logical fallacies are well crafted and very hard to point out if you have the unfulfilled need from step 1, and no training in how to think critically. If you don't know the material from other sides you will be easily duped. The twisted logic is extremely hard to notice. And the information is designed to answer tough questions and to be comforting in some way.

3. Once you’ve found the leader that you resonate with, start absorbing as much as possible from that source and anything they might recommend. This is your guru, your leader. He or she will probably also tell you who to avoid. This is important. He’s setting you up on a narrow path that isolates you from different views. Of course, he’s also given you very comforting answers in step 2 so this is easy. It seems reasonable.

Once you read or listen to something that you agree with, you'll seek out more of the same and keep confirming the bias you have already unconsciously formed. Your guru’s answers ring true to you, they feel good, they satisfy you in a way that you haven't felt before. This is emotional, not logical. Plus, almost all of us have never been trained to think logically and critically.

So when the person you like says that so and so is wrong, you believe him or her without even questioning it. Even if you go and read some of “the enemy”, you've already been carefully primed by your respected guru to discredit the new information.

Before you know it, you're a believer and you think you got there rationally. But instead you got there by rationalizing. There's a big difference.

Rational: consistent with or based on reason; logical.

Rationalizing: To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior. To justify (one's actions, especially discreditable actions, or beliefs) with plausible reasons, especially after the event.

What's Your 'Favorite' Pseudoscience?

First, what is pseudoscience? Pseudoscience: a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience Hallmarks:

• Experimental results are not reproducible or able to be verified by others, sometimes through lack of openness of data


• Lack of effective controls (not properly randomized or double blinded, as the case may be)


• The scientific method has not been rigorously adhered to


• Not falsifiable (the result can not be disproved)


• Not testable


• Often overturns established science and proven laws of nature


• Vague scientific claims, often lack specific measurements


• Failure to define the operational terms so that others can independently measure or test them


• Failure to use Occam's Razor (the explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions is usually the most accurate)


• Technical jargon or obscure language meant to confuse and sound like an authority in science


• Lack of boundary conditions (real science specifies limits where the predicted phenomena do and do not apply)


• Heavy reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence or personal experience


• Argument from ignorance (just because a claim hasn't been proven false, they say it must be true)


• Selection Bias (cherry picking the results to only use the hits and suppress the misses)


• Evades peer review before publicizing results

Replacing Everlasting Life

Yesterday my local atheists group met and talked about many different topics. One question a woman asked was something I think most people who give up god and the supernatural have to face. I will paraphrase:

If there is no god, no heaven, no life after death,  or no reincarnation what do you replace that with?

In other words there is a comfort that many people find in religion, that they will live after death in some fashion. But when you come to understand that there is no god, then soon after you have to give up this comfortable idea in life after death, that our consciousness survives death and lives on in some other way.

For me, I became an atheist but still believed in reincarnation and the idea that there was some part of us, our soul, that somehow lived on. I was a spiritual atheist. Over time I realized that there is no evidence for a soul or any kind of supernatural and eventually gave it all up. For me, giving up the comfort of the supernatural was much harder than giving up the fear of god. But I had to be honest with myself and rely on science instead of my own fanciful wishes. For me, I didn't really replace the idea of the supernatural and the soul with anything. I just gave it up. If there was an exchange it was reason and science that replaced wishful thinking.

Butch, my husband, was raised catholic. He read Revelations in the bible, about how 144,000 Jews' names are written in the book of life, so that was the limit for heaven. He assumed he'd go to hell. So when he gave up religion and god it was a relief more than anything else.

I know a few atheists that still believe in ghosts and the supernatural. I see the appeal, as I went through that stage myself, but I wonder why we feel the need to cling to such beliefs.

The woman at the meeting asked what do you replace the comfort of life after death with. So I am asking you, my nonbelieving friends. What process did you go through? How did you transition? What did you replace the soul with, if anything? Was it easy for you, or did you struggle?

If you want to reply and it's lengthy, you can email me or leave a comment, whichever you prefer. I'd love to hear your story.