Why does disbelief fit so well?

I think my root objection to Christian belief is that the premise “Christian beliefs are false” fits scarily well with reality, which my intuition says wouldn’t be the case if Christian beliefs were indeed true. By “Christian beliefs”, I mean the core supernatural claims of Christianity, namely that the three members of the Trinity exist, comprise “God”, and the Bible is their word. If these beliefs were false, there’d be several conditions that would have to be true. I will list some of them.

If Christian beliefs were false, these conditions would have to be true:

• Christians would have to believe in a god who is invisible, inaudible, and untouchable.
• Prayer would have to be statistically ineffective at treating disease, especially compared to medicine.
• Modern prophecy would have to be statistically no more accurate than normal prediction.
• Christians would have to be no safer from harm than others.
• No Christian could be able to demonstrate a miracle to a panel of scientists.
• The Christian “word of God” would have to have been written by humans, and contain normal human characteristics.
• The Christian “word of God” would have to not demonstrate any higher understanding of how the physical world works, beyond the primitive understanding of it’s ancient human authors.
• Christian belief would have to spread solely by human teaching, rather than be learnable directly from Jesus/God or nature. “Unreached” societies would have to not discover Jesus on their own.
• There'd have to be no outsider witness accounts of the grandiose miracles depicted in the Bible, such as the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
• Jesus would have to have lived a normal human lifespan on Earth.
• Jesus would have to have visited only a relatively small geographical area.
• The resurrection story would have to include an excuse as to why the resurrected Jesus isn’t available for viewing, such as “he flew away”.
• Jesus would have to have not returned, and we would have to be able to reconfirm that every day.

Again, if Christian beliefs were false, the preceding list of conditions would all have to be true. And as luck would have it, they all are true! Am I to believe this is purely coincidence, or buy into a fanciful theological explanation for each one? No, false belief accounts for the list too easily.

On a secondary level, if Christian beliefs were false, there are many conditions I would expect to be true. I consider them secondary because they wouldn't necessarily have to be true, but are intuitive expectations if Christian beliefs were indeed false.

If Christian beliefs were false, I'd expect these conditions to be likely true:

• I’d expect Christianity would emphasize qualities like “faith” and “belief” as highly virtuous.
• I’d expect Christian belief to include reasons why God doesn’t interact with us in clear/consistent/verifiable ways.
• I’d expect there to be a widespread problem of Christians having trouble establishing a “closeness with God.”
• I’d expect there to be a widespread problem of Christians having trouble understanding “what God wants to say to them” and “what God wants them to do.” 
• I’d expect there to be a widespread problem of Christians experiencing periodic doubt.
• I’d expect the study of geology to offer little/no support for the story of Noah’s global flood.
• I’d expect the study of geology/cosmology to offer little/no support for the Genesis creation account.
• I’d expect Christianity to be splintered over what God is saying/wanting today, how to interpret/understand what God supposedly said in the Bible, and theology in general.
• I’d expect Christian belief to have evolved the idea that any promises made to us in the Bible are guaranteed after we die, not necessarily in this life.
• I’d expect that Christians would not stand out as morally superior than the rest of mankind.
• I’d expect the most common reason for rejecting Christian belief to be intellectual rejection of the truthfulness of Christian belief, not some preference for bad behavior or a wish to oppose the forces of good.

Again, all these are intuitive, expected conditions on the premise that Christian belief is false. And indeed, every condition on the preceding list is true. The expected outcomes of false belief are fulfilled for Christianity.

The premise that Christian beliefs are true leaves the theologian stretching and inventing to explain why all the preceding conditions are true. On the other hand, the premise that Christian belief is false essentially guarantees that the preceding conditions would be true. I will be painfully thorough here:

• Christians believe in a god who is invisible, inaudible, and untouchable, because God doesn't really exist
• Prayer is statistically ineffective at treating disease because God doesn't really exist
• Modern prophecy is statistically no more accurate than normal prediction because God doesn't really exist.
• Christians are no safer from harm than others because God doesn't really exist.
• No Christian can demonstrate a miracle to a panel of scientists because God doesn't really exist.
• The Christian “word of God” was written by humans, and contains normal human characteristics because God doesn't really exist and therefore doesn't write books.
• The Christian “word of God” does not demonstrate any higher understanding of how the physical world works, beyond the primitive understanding of it’s ancient human authors, because God doesn't really exist.
• Christian belief spreads solely by human teaching, and “Unreached” societies do not discover Jesus on their own because God doesn't really exist.
• There are no outsider witness accounts of the grandiose miracles depicted in the Bible, such as the Feeding of the Five Thousand, because God doesn't really exist and therefore does not perform miracles.
• Jesus lived a normal human lifespan on Earth, because God doesn't really exist and therefore Jesus was not God.
• Jesus visited only a relatively small geographical area, because God doesn't really exist and therefore Jesus was not God.
• The resurrection story includes an excuse as to why the resurrected Jesus isn’t available for viewing, because Jesus was not really resurrected.
• Jesus has not returned, because Jesus is dead and is not going to return.
• Christianity emphasizes qualities like “faith” and “belief” as highly virtuous because God doesn't really exist.
• Christian beliefs include reasons why God doesn’t interact with us in clear/consistent/verifiable ways, because God doesn't really exist.
• There is a widespread problem of Christians having trouble establishing a “closeness with God" because God doesn't really exist.
• There is a widespread problem of Christians having trouble understanding “what God wants to say to them” and “what God wants them to do" because God doesn't really exist. 
• There is a widespread problem of Christians experiencing periodic doubt, because the truth is knocking at their door.
• The study of geology offers little/no support for the story of Noah’s global flood, because that story is fictitious.
• The study of geology/cosmology offers little/no support for the Genesis creation account, because that account is fictitious. 
• Christianity is splintered over what God is saying/wanting today, how to interpret/understand what God supposedly said in the Bible, and theology in general, because God doesn't really exist.
• Christian belief has evolved the idea that any promises made to us in the Bible are guaranteed after we die, not necessarily in this life, because God doesn't really exist and therefore cannot make or fulfill promises.
• Christians do not stand out as morally superior than the rest of mankind, because God doesn't really exist and therefore does not assist with morality.
• The most common reason for rejecting Christian belief is intellectual rejection of the truthfulness of Christian belief, because God's non-existence ensures that belief will be intellectually problematic for those who aren't prone to accepting false religious beliefs.

The list makes perfect sense now that we've explained each item with "because God doesn't really exist" (and the likes).

Another way of looking at the first two lists: If Christianity were true, alternative conditions would be much more intuitive/predictable. For example:

• “Unreached” societies might discover Jesus on their own. After all, God supposedly wants everyone to know Jesus.
• Jesus might have hung around for a few hundred/thousand years after his resurrection instead of flying off into the sky before too many people saw him. After all, Jesus is supposedly immortal and wants a relationship with everyone.
• The “word of God” might contain knowledge beyond the primitive human knowledge of the day, such as how to make penicillin. After all, God is supposedly omniscient and cares about us.

I could similarly go through each item, but enough thoroughness.

In conclusion, this is where I see the large gap in rationality between the believer and non-believer; the non-believer’s worldview perfectly predicts/explains so many conditions surrounding Christian beliefs, and with such a simple statement as "God doesn't really exist." Meanwhile, the believer's worldview stretches to explain each condition, writing countless books addressing each one, yielding an ever-increasing sea of theological literature, the whole of which is internally volatile and covers all spectrums of bizarre. I've swam through that sea long enough to know that I am intellectually drawn much stronger to "God doesn't really exist." Disbelief is considerably more rational to me, and thoroughly resonates within me as a vital step toward truth.

Is Morality Possible in the Absence of a Divine Law-giver

The following is the opening statement I prepared for a debate on the topic "Is morality possible in the absence of a divine law-giver?"

One of the great difficulties in this question lays in our definition of the word morality. Consulting several dictionaries, I found this common definition of morality: behavioral conformity to a standard of good. Given that definition, we could say the answer to our question is clearly yes; behavioral conformity to “a” standard of good is possible in the absence of a divine lawgiver. But this is hardly satisfactory, because how do we know that standard of good is correct, and not just some arbitrary standard?

I personally think that this is the root issue, and that a common goal for both teams in this debate is to be able to say that our moral precepts are not merely arbitrary. If moral precepts are arbitrary, why should we really follow them?

Using said definition of morality, and splitting the original question into two separate questions, the answers become much clearer:

1)      Is behavioral conformity to a divine standard of good possible in the absence of a divine lawgiver?

a.       The answer is of course no.

2)      Is behavioral conformity to a non-divine standard of good possible in the absence of a divine lawgiver?

a.       The answer is of course yes.

So my question is, which standard of good is less arbitrary? The divine standard, or the non-divine standard?

The theistic side maintains that if morality is not divinely given, then all we have is a bunch of people’s opinions on how to behave, which seems completely arbitrary. I share the theists’ conviction that morality must be more than arbitrary, and more than people’s opinions, but I disagree that a divine standard of good is the solution.

On the theistic view, God’s nature is that divine standard of good, therefore moral precepts are non-arbitrary because they conform to that standard. But a challenging question arises: why is God’s nature considered good? Is God’s nature good simply because it matches God’s nature, or is God’s nature good by some other standard of good? This, in essence, was Euthyphro’s dilemma 2400 years ago, and it continues to be a controversial issue. The dilemma has two “horns”, as they’re commonly called.

Starting with the second horn, if God’s nature is good by some other standard of good, then God’s nature is not actually the ultimate standard of good. For example, is God’s nature good because it promotes well-being? Then well-being is the ultimate standard of good. Is God’s nature good because it forbids murder? Then forbidding murder is the ultimate standard of good. If the ultimate standards of good are external to God’s nature, then we don’t need God on these matters.

And now on the first horn, if God’s nature is good by no external standard, but simply because it matches God’s nature, we’ve run into a circular definition. What is God’s nature? Good. What is good? That which matches God’s nature. What we end up with, on the first horn, is that it’s actually arbitrary to label God’s nature good, as all we’re really saying is that God’s nature is God’s nature, a meaningless statement. The consequence is that every other characteristic or behavior of God becomes good by definition, regardless of what those characteristics are, or how they affect the well-being of others. If God’s nature happens to accommodate murder and rape, then those things are arbitrarily good by definition. And any command that God gives as a result of his nature becomes arbitrarily good by definition, even a command to kill children.

Most Christians I’ve encountered find the second horn (that the ultimate standard of good is external to God) to be utterly incompatible with Christian theology, and so choose to do theological battle with the first horn’s problem of moral arbitrariness.

The way I see it, labeling anything as good is completely meaningless unless we have a context of what that thing is good for. For example, I could say that this microphone is good. But what do I mean by that? Is it good for combing my hair? Is it good for removing stains from my shirt? No, it’s actually quite bad at those things. Is it good for converting audio signals into electrical signals? Yes, it’s very good in that context! But to simply label this microphone as good, without a context of what it’s good for, is an arbitrary, meaningless statement. I believe the theistic worldview often unknowingly lacks this context when discussing theology. What is God’s nature good for? If we can’t answer that question, then good has lost any meaning.

This brings me to discussing my personal view of morality.

Lists of behavioral precepts have evolved dramatically throughout the millennia. What is the standard of good that the greater trajectory of human morality seems to be aimed at, revising itself toward? As best I can tell, it is the standard of things which are good for humans, ie human well-being, health, happiness, minimizing suffering, etc.

And, contrary to some theistic assertions, the things which are good/bad for humans are absolute facts, built into our biological makeup. For example,

1)      Drinking bleach is not good for humans

2)      Drinking water is good for humans

3)      Murder is bad for humans

4)      Saving a life is good for humans

5)      Societies which permit theft/lying/slavery/rape/cocaine-use/etc are chaotically worse places for humans to live than societies which forbid such behavior.

6)      Societies which encourage charity and generosity are better places for humans to live than societies which discourage such behavior.

7)      A planet teeming with diverse life-forms is a better place for humans to live than a barren planet.

These are all absolute facts. Throughout history, we see that behavioral precepts which meet this standard of human well-being tend to stick around, while behavioral precepts which don’t meet this standard tend to get weeded out. Take the following list of behavioral precepts from the Bible:

·         Don’t wear garments of two types of material

·         Don’t groom the edges of your hair or beard

·         Don’t have sex during menstruation

·         Don’t consume blood, fat, pork, or certain aquatic animals

·         Don’t cross dress

·         Don’t have tattoos

·         Put to death spiritual people of other belief systems, prostitutes, adulterers, those who curse their parents, girls who lie about virginity, those raped within city limits but not rescued, those who break the Sabbath, apostates, those who go near the tabernacle during transportation, those who strike their parents, those who ignore the verdict of a priest, and homosexuals.

What do all these behavioral precepts have in common? They all have little/no basis in terms of promoting human well-being. It turned out they weren’t really that good for humans. What else do all these behavioral precepts have in common? They’re all no longer in effect! They’ve been weeded out, regardless of what theological spin one attempts to place on it.

Now consider this additional list of behavioral precepts also found in the Bible:

·         Love your neighbor

·         Don’t murder

·         Don’t lie

·         Don’t steal

·         Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

·         Make peace

·         Look after orphans and widows

·         Help those in need

What do all these behavioral precepts have in common? They all have strong measurable basis in terms of promoting human well-being. What else do all these behavioral precepts have in common? They’re all still recognized, in effect in most advanced societies! Am I to believe that this is all purely coincidence, that promoting human well-being is not really what morality is aimed at?

And what standard of good could be less arbitrary for humans, than that which is good for humans? For me, appealing to a theoretical divine law-maker’s arbitrary nature makes morality more arbitrary and elusive than appealing to the biological, discoverable facts about what is good for humans. This gives meaning to the standard of good, because it answers what that standard is good for. The historical development of human behavioral precepts is pointing at this standard. This is a non-divine standard of good, which leads me to the conclusion that yes, morality is possible in the absence of a divine law-giver.

If Not Resurrection, What Happened?

The historical case for the Christian faith begins with several relatively uncontroversial facts which include:
- Jesus was crucified
- Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
- Two days later the tomb was reportedly found empty by some female followers
- The disciples subsequently believed they experienced literal appearances of the risen Jesus
- The disciples held these beliefs to martyrdom
- The church was born and grew out of this event

So naturally the question is: which theory best fits these facts? Or simply put, what happened? Usually several theories are listed, including:
- Wrong Tomb
- Hallucination
- Disciples stole body
- Authorities hid body
- Swoon
- Jesus' bodily resurrection

Christian apologists then state why each naturalistic theory conflicts with one or more of the historical facts, and conclude that the best theory is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. It is my contention that this case for Christian faith ignores what we know about psychology today, and that proper consideration of psychology reveals a different scenario, and a more promising question than "what happened?".

To have any shot at figuring out what happened, we must understand to our best abilities what we're dealing with. The setting is a battered people, the Jews, with a long history of slavery, desert wandering, exile, governmental chaos, now ruled and oppressed by the world power of Rome, ridden with disease, malnutrition, short life expectancy, and high childhood mortality. This people holds sacred a collection of writings which depict their history in conjunction with a monotheistic god who has made great promises, promises which have yet to be fulfilled after many centuries. Several key lines of these writings, notably of the most recently written book of Daniel, suggest a mysterious human-duality with this monotheistic god, leading many Jews to anticipate fulfillment of their god's promises through a human saviour. This saviour would physically overthrow the kingdoms oppressing the Jews and establish the reign of the kingdom of god in Judea. These expectations pertained to real kingdoms, not symbolic ones.

Now zoom in further to a handful of lower-class Jews who have left their menial jobs to follow around an unpopular religious teacher whose unique claim is rather bizarre but supposedly of the most gargantuan importance the world has ever known. The term we use to describe such a group today, and the term used by Pliny to describe Christianity in 112 AD, is "cult". In order to understand what was going through the disciples minds, we have to understand the psychology of cults.

Take the famous 1950's study by Leon Festinger, who infiltrated a Chicago cult led by one Dorothy Martin. Martin predicted the world would end in a great flood on Dec 21, 1954, and claimed to have received the information from aliens. The aliens promised to save the faithful believers by picking them up in their spaceship at midnight on Dec 20. Many of Martin's followers had taken drastic steps of devotion, including quitting school and jobs, dispersing savings and possessions, and leaving spouses. The believers sat awaiting their alien saviours that night, but midnight came and went. Now confronted by this devastating, disconfirming event, the believers had two options: stop believing and face their embarrassing stupidity, or find a way to continue believing. Fascinatingly, the latter occurred (as Festinger had predicted). A new story emerged that their faithfulness had inspired god to save the planet from doom. The cult began an aggressive campaign to convert as many people as possible, calling newspapers and taking to the streets to proclaim the miracle their faith had brought about.

So this is something we know today, that cult believers, especially those who have sacrificed much for their beliefs, can become even more fervent and aggressive after experiencing disconfirming events such as failed prophecy. A much larger example of this is the Jehovah Witness church. But lets return to our ancient Judean cult. Having left most everything behind, the followers had been following this religious teacher for a couple years now, a man who claimed to be the saviour that the Jews (some of them) expected. Their expectation was that their leader would overthrow the Roman kingdom, establish god's kingdom, and finally fulfill god's promises to Israel. Instead, their leader is executed by the Romans and their own Jewish people, as an ignominious criminal. Confronted by this devastating, disconfirming event, the Jesus followers were faced with the same two options the Martin followers faced: stop believing and face their embarrassing stupidity, or find a way to continue believing. And like the Martin followers, they too continued believing, a miraculous story emerged, and they began an aggressive campaign to convert people.

Christian apologists will say, "If they knew Jesus was really dead, why would they die for a lie? They were motivated by the truth of what they'd seen!" But modern psychology exposes a different motive, to defend beliefs that one has sacrificed greatly for. Because of this, a believer's mind is capable of developing new, even more bizarre beliefs and stories to defend prior beliefs that have been disconfirmed. And they do so with sincerity.

The Jesus cult and the Martin cult both reacted to their disconfirming event by developing a new miraculous story and aggressively proselytizing. It is my opinion that these similarities are not coincidental, but attributable to a common psychological pressure, and the stories are fictitious reactions to preserve a disconfirmed belief.

So then, what happened in the historical events which gave birth to Christian belief, if Jesus didn't really resurrect from the dead? This question, posed by apologists, is as promising as trying to determine what Socrates did for a living. The events are simply not reconstructable, buried in time. What happened to Linda Napolitano and the eye-witnesses if she wasn't really abducted by aliens? Who knows. The more promising question is: Is the outcome of the story predictable? In the case of Jesus' followers, the answer is yes. Their bizarre miraculous story is predicted by the psychological pressures they faced, exactly as the Martin cult.

Problems with Free Will Theology

Free Will and Suffering

Christians typically use the free-will argument to address the problem of suffering: Suffering exists because we humans have the free-will to sin and cause suffering; God gave us free-will so we wouldn't be mere robots, and can freely choose to follow or disobey God; It had to be one or the other, free-will or robots.

This argument is a decent attempt to shield God from being responsible for suffering, but most people, including several Christian philosophers I've read, acknowledge that it isn't a slam dunk. The problem of suffering remains a theological and philosophical problem.

The main problem is that the free-will argument includes a rule: there can either be free-will or robotic humans. If God had to operate within this rule then he is not ultimately God, because he is subject to some external rule outside himself. If God did not have to operate within this rule, then he could have created infinite alternative rules which do not result in so much needless suffering.

Along the same lines, the apologists cosmological argument states God is the beginning of all things, the first uncaused cause. God existed "before" anything else material or non-material existed, including evil. Then God acted, performing the first cause from which all subsequent causes and effects trace. This first act eventually resulted in, among everything else, a new thing called evil. If God's original act of creation is the ultimate first cause of everything, it is necessarily the ultimate first cause of evil. To conclude that free-will caused evil is to neglect the question of what caused free-will, and specifically our particular brand of free-will.

If God is the first-cause, then everything, including evil, must causally trace back to God.


Free Will and Salvation

Christianity claims that the paramount decision facing all humans is whether or not to follow Jesus, upon which our salvation depends, and we have free-will to make that decision. The problem with this claim is that it's unclear whether Jesus really exists, which makes it unclear whether "following" him is really the right thing to do. So the decision to follow Jesus is actually a secondary issue, wholly contingent upon a guess as to whether Jesus exists. This could be forgiven were Jesus' existence largely the more rational guess, but most of the world finds the opposite is the case. Most of the world is sincerely guessing that Jesus doesn't exist, not because they will to do what is wrong, but because they will to do what is right!

Because of this, I find that "free-guess" is more applicable to the Christian view of salvation than "free-will". Let me elaborate with an analogy.

It would be like God placed all humans in a grove in the middle of an enormous forest. To exit the forest, there are a thousand paths radiating outward from the grove, each traversing different terrain, each presenting different challenges and rewards, some of which intersect other paths at various points. Each path takes a lifetime to traverse. At the end of each path is a unique exit door from the forest, which we must enter upon arrival. Nobody can see what's on the other side of the door until they themselves enter. The catch is that one of these doors leads to eternal Paradise, all the others lead to eternal Prison, and God has not clearly marked the paths.

Rather, the humans instinctively congregate into numerous feuding factions with competing ideas about which path leads to the door of Paradise, many claiming to have received this information from God. Now, it would be silly to say that God has given them free-will to choose Paradise or Prison, because he's concealed these outcomes behind a barrier of mystery and unknowing. Rather than choosing between Paradise and Prison, God has left them to guess which path goes were. If a human cries out, "Lord, I choose Paradise, no matter the sacrafice!" God responds (if not verbally, then through silence), "That's not how it works, now guess a path." and leaves him/her subject to the pursuasive power of the numerous factions. Not suprisingly, the majority of the humans end up picking the wrong path, mostly by an unlucky guess.

When an unlucky souls open a door to eternal Prison, is God to say, "This was your choice, you should have chosen Paradise. Now face the consequences of your decision"? That doesn't make any sense. The vast majority willed to choose Paradise with all their hearts, they simply didn't know which path to take and were forced to guess.

In order to have free-will rather than free-guessing in the forest analogy, the paths must be marked. Not by other fallible humans on the same journey, but by God, who alone has knowledge of where each trail ultimately leads. We must understand the decision in front of us and choose our fate accordingly. Knowing then which path leads to Paradise, we can choose to either follow that path no matter how treacherous and painful the journey, or we can choose take an alternative path because it looks temporarily easier or self-gratifying. That would be true free-will.

Despite the countless man-made signs screaming out "This Way! God Told Me!", God has not marked the path. Salvation, if there be such a thing, wouldn't plausibly depend on an ill-informed guess. The concept of free-will doesn't add much rationality to the Christian view of salvation, because the Christian view of salvation depends ultimately on a free-guess.


Free Will and the Bible

Free will is used to defend the Bible-based theory that there exists a good, omniscient, omnipotent god. In order to explain the apparent lack of this god's intervention in the world today (especially with regard to suffering), Free Will is argued. However, the Bible is a collection of stories which depict God heavily intervening in the world, thereby interfering with human Free Will. So Free Will, while used to support the Bible's theory that god exists, doesn't have much ground in the Bible's depiction of that god.

Consider just about any Bible story, such as Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, the prophets, the Ten Commandments, Jesus' miracles, etc. They all depict an all-powerful god intervening in our world, obstructing human free-will in some manner.

Today when Christians attempt to explain horrible realities such as Sierra Lamar's tragic abduction, they'll often say "Well, God gave her abductor Free Will." There are currently thousands of people praying that Sierra Lamar turns up alive. If, tragically, the police's suspicions prove correct and she has been murdered, many Christians will probably use similar Free Will arguments to help explain why God didn't answer their prayers, intervening and saving the young girl from her captor.

But again the Bible is full of stories of God doing exactly so: freeing the Israelites from Egypt, giving Sampson supernatural powers over his enemies, freeing Peter from prison, handing over numerous enemies in battle, promising that enemies will be crushed.

It seems unreasonable to use Free Will to defend the apparent lack of intervention of the god depicted in the Bible, when that god is depicted as intervening over and over again in dramatic visible ways.

Death - Motivation for Belief

A year has passed since my deconversion, and I feel I'm beginning to better understand the motivation for belief in Jesus. For many people, belief must provide something that non-belief doesn't offer. Until recently, I'd always believed and so couldn't make the comparison.

My latest understanding has come through contemplating death, which can be very depressing. If death is the end, then the following brief list is true:

Upon death,
* I can no longer enjoy the people I love and cherish. I'm unaware of them, thoroughly severed from them forever. I am dead to them and they are dead to me.
* I cannot participate in the lives of my descendants, whom I've worked so hard for. I can't share in their hopes, joys, successes, or struggles.
* Everything that matters to me will no longer matter to me.
* Everything I've worked for will be gone from me.
* I have not even memories to ponder.
* All experience ceases. There is no me. I don't exist and have no awareness that I ever did.

If that's the truth, I don't blame anyone for saying "fuck the truth."
If that's the truth, it may still be better to believe something else.

The above list is unacceptable to many people's minds, and understandably so. It's bleak. It's at odds with the innate optimism that countless studies have identified in the human species.

Optimism gives us motivation to put forth effort and take potentially beneficial risks. Optimism not only improves our health, but has helped our species evolve. Optimism says my future will be better than my past. The list says that my future is ultimately void.

Optimism is a vital quality, and must be maintained. If the above list destroys my optimism, then I'm much better off rejecting the list regardless of whether or not it's true. Having decided that the list is unacceptable, what alternative belief should I replace it with? Well, I'd turn to a belief that offers hope, that motivates me to behave the way I think is right, a belief I can have in common with others, and a belief which values an intellectual basis rather than being unabashedly delusional. In this context, Christianity is a great option.

I'm convinced that rejection of the above list (or the likes) is the most common basis for turning to belief in Jesus, much more common than being won over intellectually by the arguments of Christian apologists. I am convinced that the primary effect of Christian apologetics is not to persuade non-believers, but to reassure believers that Christianity is not anti-intellectual. It is the fear of death and need for optimism which first motivates us to believe, and apologetics which help us feel like our belief is not a mere psychosis, especially given the intellectual attacks from the outside.

In the absence of such a motivation to believe, I don't think Christian apologetics alone would hold sway with many people. To those who aren't otherwise motivated to believe, the proposition of an ancient human deity sounds silly, and the supporting arguments offered are uncompelling. But given the motivation of rejecting the above list, the proposition is appealing. One can look for the merit in the argument rather than the loophole, and take the affirmative side: Yes, Jesus rose and gave us eternal life!

So it is not my mission deconvert people. Even if religion is simply the "opium of the masses", let's not forget that opium is a highly effective pain reliever. Death is a disease we all have, and knowledge of our impending death is a very painful symptom. Religion can be a great treatment. The tough part for me is balancing condoning religious belief and opposing the nastier effects of belief like bigotry and excessive absurdity.