Religion often serves as a vital source of support and psychological comfort, and for some, the decision to leave their religious faith can have profound implications, potentially doing more harm than good. In recent decades, there has been a noticeable trend of individuals disassociating themselves from their religious affiliations. These departures can stem from personal revelations, natural growth, or, more distressingly, experiences of religious trauma that accumulate and ultimately become a catalyst for change.
It's important to note that, for the most part, the journey of deconversion is a deeply personal one, often undertaken without significant external interventions. Some atheists who have undergone this transformative process, recognize the difficulties and challenges that accompany it. While they can provide empathetic support, the decision to change one's beliefs must come from within; it cannot be imposed from the outside.
However, deconversion rarely occurs in isolation. It often materializes through exposure, as believers grapple with cultural clashes or encounter thought-provoking critiques of Christianity, for instance. The catalyst for change is frequently curiosity, shifting societal norms, or even the algorithms of social media platforms. Rarely does a straightforward question like, "Have you considered atheism?" serve as the impetus for this transformation. For the purposes of this blog, the terms "atheism," "agnosticism," and "non-believer" will be used interchangeably, but "atheism" is employed here for its widespread recognition.
Before we dive into the question of whether atheists should actively engage in attempts to persuade Christians to change their beliefs, it is essential to examine the concepts of evangelism and religious autonomy. By understanding the distinctions between Christianity and atheism, we can better contextualize the diversity of religious beliefs that exist.
Atheists engage in behaviors reminiscent of evangelism, although it's often implicit and unconscious. Instead of extending invitations to church services, they invite friends to social gatherings over the weekends. Rather than promoting worship, they suggest attending their favorite singer's concert. It's somewhat misleading to label this as evangelism because there's no explicit intention to spread atheism. Instead, the aim is to foster education and rationalism, with atheism often emerging as a byproduct of critical thinking. The primary goal is not to sway someone's religious perspective.
This distinction highlights why it's inaccurate for Christians to characterize atheism as a religion. Atheism encourages diversity in worldviews, whereas Abrahamic religions like Christianity tend to adhere to dogmatic, narrow perspectives. While Christians might draw parallels between their religious practices and atheism, such as likening concert venues to places of worship or Sam Harris to atheism's clergy, these comparisons do not equate to atheism being a religion. The crux of the difference lies in our capacity to embrace diversity and autonomy.
What sets atheism apart is our commitment to recognizing and respecting autonomy. While progressive Christians may claim to be open and non-coercive in their religious beliefs, the fundamental tenets of Christianity still lean towards an "us vs. others" mentality, where dissenters potentially face hell or God's absence. Even if Christians argue that this judgment is nuanced and compassionate, it fundamentally hinges on whether a person believes in God, rather than whether they uphold a basic principle like the golden rule. Salvation, in this context, relies on subjective beliefs.
In the most generous interpretation of Christian salvation, one might argue that it includes good works. However, the prerequisite of believing in Jesus as our savior remains non-negotiable. Other sects within Christianity may assert that salvation is predetermined by God's grace, rendering good deeds or personal merits ineffectual. Some may require baptism. Irrespective of the denomination, adherence to a specific, subjective belief is essential. This leaves little room for diversity of religious opinion within the Christian framework.
One might argue that there should be consequences for holding certain beliefs. While this notion has merit, the belief that Jesus is our savior is, at its core, a subjective opinion. Subjective opinions can indeed exist, but imposing them with the threat of eternal suffering raises ethical concerns. Even if one believes that history and science align with Christian beliefs, it remains problematic to punish those who do not subscribe to this faith. Autonomy must be respected, and penalizing someone for choosing a different belief, especially when it doesn't directly harm others, runs counter to the principles of respect and compassion.
A person's non-belief in Christ, in and of itself, does not inflict harm upon others. While some Christians may express concerns about what they perceive as the potential contagion of moral decline, it's essential to distinguish between actions stemming from beliefs and the beliefs themselves. There exists a layer of separation between belief and behavior. If one were confined to a room with their belief, it would have no direct impact on others. It's possible that some Christians argue that non-believers may inflict psychological harm upon themselves through their disbelief. However, we must uphold the principle of allowing individuals to exercise their freedom of (dis)belief. We should neither explicitly nor implicitly compel people to change because we subjectively believe it would be for their own good.
An effective counselor may present various options to clients but should never coerce them through the fear of eternal punishment. Some Christians might contend that society can impose limitations on individual self-determination to prevent self-harm. However, this typically refers to physical harm and is not directly relevant to the current discussion. Even if we were to concede this point, we must still acknowledge that individuals have the right to make choices about their own lives. While it might not always be the right decision at a particular moment, the option must exist. Moreover, it is of utmost importance that social workers and individuals, in general, uphold the right of others to be free from the threat of violence.
Christianity can espouse the values of autonomy and freedom, but it often accompanies these values with a caveat or disclaimer that dissenting opinions will lead to infinite suffering or dire consequences. While the threat of suffering in hell is not a direct incitement of violence, it is offensive rhetoric that detracts from healthy and respectful discourse.
The issue is exacerbated when such rhetoric is disseminated in a society rife with power imbalances. When Western missionaries engage in humanitarian efforts in developing nations, even if their religious message remains implicit, it can amplify to significant proportions when a power imbalance exists. Missionary work is a conspicuous example, but the influence extends to virtually every facet of life, underscoring the importance of separating church from state in many societies.
Atheists, conversely, promote the diversity of beliefs. While some atheists may reserve personal judgments, they generally do not view differing opinions as moral deviations or issues requiring correction. Certainly, there are atheists who believe that individuals should relinquish their religious beliefs. However, as a collective, atheists are inclined to recognize that individuals are free to believe in any religion they choose without moral consequences.
Returning to the original question of whether atheists should actively engage in deconverting Christians, the answer is a resounding no. As we've explored, atheists and Christians diverge significantly in their acceptance of diverse beliefs. This distinction does not imply a reluctance to promote skepticism or engage in critical discussions about religion. Rather, it underscores the recognition that religion often occupies a fundamental and irreplaceable role in people's lives.
The act of severing ties with one's religion can have profound and far-reaching consequences. It may result in the loss of social networks, the dissolution of friendships, and, in the most distressing cases, the estrangement from family members. The stakes are undeniably high, and regrettably, secular society does not always offer comprehensive alternatives to the support systems provided by religious institutions and communities.
Moreover, the psychological impact of deconversion can be significant, potentially leading individuals into a state of nihilism and hopelessness. Brittney Hartley, from nonsensespirituality, has aptly pointed out the ethical concern of removing someone's religious beliefs without offering the necessary tools for recovery. She underscores the importance of being "tough on bad ideas, tough on theology, tough on theocracy, tough on religious reviews, but soft on people."
While we can undoubtedly extend our assistance to Christians who may be suffering due to toxic churches or emotionally manipulative fundamentalist family members, the ultimate decision to leave Christianity must remain theirs. What atheists can do is ease the transition and provide compassion, understanding, and a supportive environment for those who choose to deconstruct.
For additional resources on this topic, consider watching Theraminetree's video, "When Saviors Go Bad."