5 Comments

Really awesome to read how you thought about this!

Expand full comment

Very enjoyable and well worded articles. Like Mitch, I believe that many of us have gone through a similar process with varying degrees of "doubt" and "drifting." What was not a part of my process of making my faith my own was the general acceptance of Christianity's enormous positive influence on the world. Having received my secondary education from public schools in Austin by largely former hippies, I was proud of my savior and gladly would mark myself as a Christian in class discussions, but was largely ashamed of the general history of Christianity. I now know that this is because that my secular educators presented a fallacious story of the church. The inquisition, the crusades (the revisionist version), and the Salem witch trials were somehow indicative of Christian influence, but the creation of hospitals, limits on government, and the immense advances in science were somehow accidental or not taught as an outgrowth of the gospel.

Also, although not the main part of the articles, I enjoyed your summary of some of the major Christian denominations as well as your description of the old-style country Baptist church. We have lost much of the great stuff about that old church while many country churches have retained what made them problematic. My own experiences with multiple denominations in the last ten years and also the various denominations I have been through have resulted in a very nuanced theology, but has also left me unsatisfied with any one church.

Again, very enjoyable and thought provoking. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Thank you for articulating the process (I suppose)many of us have gone through. I’ve never read the critique of atheism included in your writing, but it matches perfectly with the bitter desperation of the Darwinist professors exhibited during my stint in the College of Natural Sciences. Also, you’re the only other person I know who read Hillbilly Elegy. I love you man!

Expand full comment

I don't understand why you think materialists have no purpose. To me there is a clear purpose: to survive and reproduce aka to be fruitful and multiply. That's what every life form on the planet is doing. That is the clear biological purpose of life (to me).

I live a life similar to conservative Christians because the straight and narrow path happens to be the path that leads to fruitfulness (in a long-term sense, high-investment parenting sense). I have attended and studied many of the Christian churches available to me in Los Angeles and the US. I had to stop because I just felt like a LARPer, but after studying so many (and reaching similar conclusions to yours) it seems to me that the best church is LDS. I wonder why you don't recommend that one?

Expand full comment

Glad you enjoyed the piece! I would repeat a lot of what I said in the essay in responding to you. In general, it seems materialism as a belief system does not lead to healthy behaviors at the population level, though there are exceptions among those, like yourself, who think very clearly about natural law. I would question whether this is durable as a worldview for a family across generations. Further, raising kids seems to require a community and peer group of people with similar worldviews, and the selection of broadly functional peer groups skews highly religious. It seems like most people need to know that there is an ultimate purpose other than a cosmic accident of self-organizing chemicals, and I think the argument from nature for the existence of a Creator is pretty convincing. For Christianity specifically, one must rely on some degree of faith, as it's only plausible objectively. Church attendance can make it more true subjectively through experience.

As for LDS, I have tons of respect for their culture, but did not include them in my list of churches with historical continuity given their very recent origins. The churches listed would broadly not consider LDS to be inside orthodoxy, and LDS considers itself to be the only true church, so both sides testify that it is a separate religion. Since my big filter is for large, historical universal religions as candidates for a Creator's interface with man, they are not part of the set I consider for being plausibly true.

Expand full comment