20140329-212821.jpg

http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Immunization_-_Saves_Lives%22_-_NARA_-_514611.tif

According to various resources cited by J. Warner Wallace, any where from 60-80% of college freshmen who claim to be Christian will lose their faith by the time they’re seniors. These are sobering numbers. (1)

We could spend a lot of time exploring the reasons for this trend, but the following quote from a post by Jeff Laird illustrates an important point. When we as parents fail to engage the serious questions raised by our culture, and instead isolate our kids, rather than exposing them to those ideas in a safe environment, we’re not helping our young people develop a healthy immunity to conflicting worldviews. If they don’t see their parents wrestling with Christian answers to secular questions, they won’t be able to fend off the universal acid of atheism. We need to immunize our offspring to the caustic philosophies of our age.

“It’s critically important for our children to see that we, as believers, are not only aware of other views, but that we have considered and responded to them. It’s tragic to see so many children leave home, and their home church, only to have their first, probably catastrophic exposure to the myriad attacks against their Christian faith. No one would be surprised if a teen who had never been vaccinated contracted mumps soon after moving into a public dorm. Why should we, as Christians, be so surprised when a child, having never been exposed to conflicting ideas, assumes their parents and church never considered them?”

-Jeff Laird

via http://feedly.com/k/1m9fWtB

1. Wallace, J. Warner. “Are Young People Really Leaving Christianity?” Cold Case Christianity. J. Warner Wallace, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. “Why should we, as Christians, be so surprised when a child, having never been exposed to conflicting ideas, assumes their parents and church never considered them?”

    Especially when evidence shows that a lot of parents and churches have never considered them, only dismissed them.

    • Eric Adams says:

      It’s true, many Christians never deal with the rational aspects of their faith. They just assume the worldview of their parents, and attempt faith-by-osmosis.

      I did that myself for a number of years. When I finally began to examine my beliefs-because of the aberrant Word of Faith worldview I had assumed-I had a real crisis-of-faith moment. I worked my way through that minefield, and considered the real possibility that Christianity was an unrealistic worldview. I came to what I consider a rational conclusion. No other religious or agnostic worldview has a more cumulative evidential record to explain me, my world, my purpose, or my future than the historic, orthodox, Evangelically Reformed Christianity that has existed (sometimes almost invisibly) since the 1st century. I radically altered my belief system, which had led me to where I am today.

      I often wonder how many agnostics/atheists simply assume the naturalistic worldview that’s predominate today, and don’t consider other possibilities?

      Thank you for commenting. I appreciate your thoughts.

      • “I often wonder how many agnostics/atheists simply assume the naturalistic worldview that’s predominate today, and don’t consider other possibilities?”

        Some, certainly, but I wouldn’t guess it would be a large percentage. And I only say that because most American atheists were raised in some form of Christianity, and therefore had to do some consideration before coming to their position.

        I know that’s what I did.

      • Eric Adams says:

        I’m glad you did think it through. In my experience, many atheists leave Christianity because of an emotional response to Christians, and not based on the truth claims of the Faith.

        If I based my response to atheism based on my emotional reaction to many of the atheists I have encountered (present company excluded), I would never consider it a legitimate alternative worldview, worthy of engagement…just my opinion, of course.

      • And in my experience, many Christians don’t even know what atheism is. Which is the problem with anecdotal evidence…we have our valid experiences, but they don’t necessarily represent the whole.

  2. I think allot of the problem is that atheists are trying to pit science against religion. Unfortunately too many Christians are agreeing that they are in conflict, without really understanding the religion or the science.

    • And I think a lot of the problem is that Christians are trying to have their religion taught as science. Some are, anyway.

      • Yes. Scientific method is a specific method of finding truth about the natural world. It is very limited in its scope but it leads to results which can be duplicated. We should not believe that all knowledge comes from this method. Also we should not claim that knowledge comes from this method when it does not. As Christians we need to be committed to truth.

      • Eric Adams says:

        Ultimately, atheistic naturalism is going to have to make room for some form of Intelligent Design science. It is a plausible and possible conclusion. It is intellectually dishonest to refuse to entertain a supernatural origin to our universe, given the complexity of the fine-tuning of the universe and the irreducible complexity of certain biological systems. Unprovable presuppositions are at the root of both views. It doesn’t have to be argued from a Christian point of view. Many ID scientists are not very religious at all. Our starting philosophy colors how we interpret data. Theists are at least honest in this regard. You can’t just freeze out opposing views because you don’t like them.

      • ” It is a plausible and possible conclusion”

        So you say. I have seen no evidence to back this up, however.

        “It is intellectually dishonest to refuse to entertain a supernatural origin to our universe, given the complexity of the fine-tuning of the universe and the irreducible complexity of certain biological systems.”

        It is also intellectually dishonest to think that the supposed ‘fine tuning’ and ‘irreducible complexity’ are real things that pose a problem for science. They are not.

      • Eric Adams says:

        It’s interesting to watch the tables turn. For years, atheistic Darwinists railed against the “fundamentalists” (which means anyone holding to a theistic worldview accepting Intelligent Design), who they claimed refused to accept Macroevolution as the vehicle of life on earth. Now there is legitimate dissent by credible scientists (I.e. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org, and also the the outspoken chemist James M. Tour- http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ : who is no theist, by-the-way).

        Darwinism, and Neo-Darwinism is being challenged by scientists themselves, and it turns out that atheistic Darwinists are more obstinate fundamentalists than any backwoods-hick-ignorant Christian Fundy could be accused of.

        Fine-tuning and irreducible complexity are real concepts, and pose a very strong argument. It just proves that atheists have unprovable presuppositions, just like theists. Theists are just more honest about them.

        Many of these scientists who are dissenters from Darwinism are hostile to Christianity. At most, some could be labeled desists, and then only begrudgingly. You can’t just dismiss these people out-of-hand. They have legitimate questions and challenges.

        Atheism, it turns out, is every bit a religious conviction as theism-which is what theists have been saying for a very long time.

        Thank you, again, for the dialogue. I really do appreciate your thoughtful engagement. I don’t believe either of us are going to convince the other to change their views, but I like the dialogue Josey Wales had with Ten Bears in the Eastwood movie:

        Ten Bears: These things you say we will have, we already have.
        Josey Wales: That’s true. I ain’t promising you nothing extra. I’m just giving you life and you’re giving me life. And I’m saying that men can live together without butchering one another.
        Ten Bears: It’s sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. [It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life… or death. It shall be life.]-emphasis mine.

        So it shall be. It shall be life-haha.

        Thank you for challenging, but being respectful while doing it.

      • “Now there is legitimate dissent by credible scientists ”

        Sorry, but there really isn’t.

        There’s less than a percentage point of dissent.

      • Eric Adams says:

        There are rumblings in Darwinism. Denying its reality won’t change the trend.

        You and I will have to agree to disagree over whether that dissent is significant or not.

        It’s just interesting to see the shoe on the other foot, as it were. Objective scientific inquiry seems more difficult to achieve when you don’t even acknowledge the reality of the debate.

        Just something to think about.

      • “There are rumblings in Darwinism.”

        ‘Darwinism’ isn’t evolution. Darwinism has changed by leaps and bounds by science and scientists since Darwin first came up with it.

        “Objective scientific inquiry seems more difficult to achieve when you don’t even acknowledge the reality of the debate.”

        As there is no debate, you can say that and perhaps feel smug. But there isn’t one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s