Jump to content

Talk:Lee Strobel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Former Atheist

I think its important to note that Lee Strobel is a former atheist. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add that he is a self-proclaimed former atheist, with an appropriate citation, of course.--Ducio1234 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Can anybody find reference to Strobel's atheism from before he became a Christian? I can see no indication that Strobel was a self-proclaimed atheist, only that he is a self-proclaimed former atheist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • AE: then cite the most authoritiative/independent of these sources in the article (i.e. not Strobel himself, preferably not an explicitly Christian news source or a student newspaper). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This assertion is still problematic. Some people have expressed suspicion (e.g., here) that his former status as an atheist has been exagerated. We need a reliable independent source for this, otherwise the assertion should be excised or ammended to say that he's a self-proclaimed former atheist. Bob A (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. My concern is that it is in Strobel’s interests to overstate or embellish his beliefs before his career as a Christian apologist because it strengthens his claims as a Christian. Strobel was certainly not a “out spoken atheist,” as far as we know, he was not a member of any atheist association, and he did nothing to promote atheism. Unless we can find an independent source that says Strobel was an atheist dating before his apologetics career, I think we should include something along the lines that he is a self-proclaimed former atheist, since it’s impossible to know how sincere his atheists beliefs were.--Ducio1234 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Daylightatheism.org appears to be a small atheist blog without any reliability and just is wacky theories. All atheism means is to believe God does not exist. Before becoming a Christian, he has said many times he did not believe in [a] God, and therefore was an atheist. There is many reliable sources to back this up, so this discussion is meaningless. American Eagle (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide some of them? Bob A (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm... I gave ten above. Published, reliable sources carry much more verifiable weight than a small atheism-bias blog. If we acceptable this, I could found a blog saying, "I don't think atheists really believe there is no God, they just won't admit it," and we'd change all articles to say "John Doe claims to once be an atheist," etc. We go by the sources which are published, verifiable and reliable, not by the personal opinions of a blog. American Eagle (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I was hardly using that blog as a source. None of the sources which you gave are reliable, as they only repeat Strobel's unverifiable claims. We need a source that confirms that Strobel was an atheist before he started his career as an apologist. Bob A (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
That is impossible. Being a theist, atheist, or anything similar to that is a belief, and it is not an event to report. For example, suppose I was famous for creating hot air balloons. What if the media wanted to know what color balloons I liked creating the most. Could they know this watching how many balloons I created with each color? Well, no, it would only show what balloons I created. It wouldn't show which colors I liked personally. The same is true with believing in God. There is no way to know what a person actually believes. Sure, if he said he didn't believe in God then, or went to anti-God events and such, that would show us some things, but it wouldn't show his true belief. The only way for people to know his belief is if he says so. You say his belief is "unverifiable", but what other way is there verify it? To ask him yourself? His statements, and the reporting of reliable sources, in enough. American Eagle (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In this case, Strobel himself is unreliable by reason of a conflict of interest. An example of a verifiable source would be one establishing that Strobel self-identified as an atheist. Bob A (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that "believe God does not exist" ≠ "did not believe in [a] God" (as the latter would be inclusive of agnosticism). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Hrafn, yes, that is what I meant. Bob A, so... you're saying he isn't a reliable source in this case, as he has a conflict of interest, but it would be reliable if he "self-identifies"? What is the difference between saying he was an atheist, than identifying as an atheist? Both are a conflict of interest, but in the same way neither one are. It is, if reported by reliable sources to establish it, the only thing that can be used. It's not like there's a news organization which reads peoples' minds. They report what he claims, and he claims he was an atheist. That is enough. American Eagle (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between "X claims that X did Y" and "X claimed that X did Y"? The latter represents the relevant pattern in this context. Bob A (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I fully understand that, it is a matter of tenses. But there is just no way to determine that - it is something only he knew (or knows), and he claims (or claimed) he indeed was an atheist. I propose we move on from this discussion, as Bob A's desired outcome is one which cannot be achieved, and this is going nowhere. American Eagle (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we shouldn't even mention his former atheism in the article then, if we can agree there's no way to determine what his previsous beliefs were and since his own claims as a former atheist are a conflict of interest. He is notable as a Christian, not an atheist, after all. Either way, it shouldn't be mentioned first in the lead paragraph.--Ducio1234 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a sourced notable fact. Bob A, please don't remove sourced information without consensus. American Eagle (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
But it's not a fact, Strobel claims it is a fact, and we have no way of verifying it. Normally someone's religious views do not need verification, but when Storbel profits by claiming he had a miraculous conversion, I think it needs to be questioned.--Ducio1234 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not he uses it for profit is his business. But it is widely covered by reliable sources, and that is all we need. American Eagle (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
But it isn't verifiable. Bob A (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The only way it would be possible to verify is his word. American Eagle (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case that we have a rough consensus. Bob A (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This isn't consensus. You have you and another user support some sort of change, and I strongly oppose it. Hrafn hasn't commented. If you want consensus, you need general agreement, not 2-1. American Eagle (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Bob A, please stop your edit warring. I didn't revert again, but this isn't consensus. American Eagle (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I do apologise, but the argument against the inclusion of the unqualified claim that Strobel was an atheist has been laid out quite clearly, and I don't understand what your objection is. Bob A (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Still, you don't force your opinion onto the article without thorough consensus. Please note, I really want not to debate this with you, and I'm sure you're a very good editor. =) But, you really haven't answered any of your own questions in this discussion. What to you is an ideal source? Do you think it's possible for a news report to know whether or not he was an atheist? Have you looked for sources? Please don't take this as incivility, but I'm wondering what you think the solution will be. Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
An ideal source would be one published before he became an apologist. Of course I think that it's possible for a news report to "know" if he's an atheist at a given time. I have not looked for sources. Bob A (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Bob A, I have another question. You said above "Some people have expressed suspicion (e.g., here [blog link]) that his former status as an atheist has been exaggerated," but you've given no reliable sources to back this up. We went through a similar issue with Kirk Cameron, who also claims he was an atheist. There are dozens of sources saying he has an atheist, and is it our job to decide that 'they all base their sources in his unverified claim'? Perhaps the reporter knew him before he became a Christian (etc.)? Similarly, do we remove sourced information because a blog link (or you, or another user) says they think he might be exaggerating? This seems like an unsourced fringe theory to me. American Eagle (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a fringe theory, but we're not saying that he wasn't an atheist. Bob A (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is not acceptable to add "former atheist" then at least "self-proclaimed former atheist" should be mentioned since his "former atheism" has been a topic he himself addresses frequently and also all the sources American Eagle has cited. The subject is very relevent to his article. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bob A (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that American Eagle has mentioned Kirk Cameron, that article seems to handle it well by saying "Cameron has stated he was once an atheist". Bob A (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Good, but it still needs to be incorporated into the article in a more natural manner. Bob A (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So there isnt going to be mention of his "self-proclaimed" former beliefs? I thought there was a compromise..--Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See here, the fact is in that section. American Eagle (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone claiming to be an athiest, then turning to religion, was never really an athiest in the first place. Rational thought would not allow this. True athiesm is the consistant seperation further and further away from religion, until religion is no longer a viable option. It is a long road to athiesm, and you just don't wake up one day and find yourself at the start of the road walking backwards. If Lee Strobel never finished the journey to athiesm, he never really was athiest, just undecided.Maniac 18:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashka (talk • contribs)



Why I remain highly sceptical about Strobel's claims of being a former atheist:
  • I've so far seen absolutely no sources affirming this claim which did not postdate Strobel's conversion and rise to fame as an apologist, not to mention essentially taking Strobel's own words as gospel (pun intended). All of the links posted so far seem to be of this type.
  • Strobel's own depiction of his atheism sounds far too similar to the "straw man atheist" of the more conservative/fundamentalist Christian apologists (i.e. what Strobel is now). These "straw man atheists" of apologist lore either know or suspect that God really exist, but they reject God basically to be able to sin freely. For instance, Strobel has described that he was only an atheist because: "I had a vested interest in the non-existence of God because I was living a rather immoral lifestyle and did not want to be held accountable for my behavior. To me, atheism opened up a world of hedonism that I knew wouldn’t be acceptable to God if he existed." (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/01/02/lee-strobel-answers-your-questions-part-1/)
Mojowiha (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
How is any of this evidence that he was never an atheist?--TMD Talk Page. 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Because Strobel's description of his former atheism fits the "I'm an atheist so I can sin freely"-stereotype (read: straw man) constructed by conservative Christian apologists a little too neatly. Think of an internet commenter who claims to be Jewish and then describes himself as being part of a global Jewish conspiracy secretly running the world. Another parallel would be the Christians who in the 1970s and '80s claimed to have been raised in Satanist cults only to find Jesus (all of the stories turned out to be manufactured). Combine Strobel's "convenient" description of his former atheism with the fact that none of Strobel's claims about it seems to pre-date him being born again, and you have a pretty good reason to be sceptical of the claim.
In the interview I linked to, Strobel also mentioned that the Miller-Urey experiment was part of his reasons for becoming an atheist. However, this is again a standard component of apologetic criticism of evolution, but rarely something brought up by atheists (or scientists dealing with evolution for that matter, since it was merely an early proof of a concept), except when the issue is raised by apologists.
Yet a third problem is that in the interview Strobel mainly portrays this atheism as a high school thing, but then mentions reading Anthony Flew's The Presumption of Atheism. However, this was only published in 1976, so he certainly couldn't have read it in high school (unless he was a 24-year old high school student...), and by November 8th, 1981, Strobel had already concluded that "the scientific evidence that points toward a Creator and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I came to the conclusion that it would have required more faith for me to maintain my atheism than to become a Christian." Considering that by this point Strobel claims to have been researching for two years, this leaves a very narrow time frame of no more than 3 years in which he could've read Flew's book during his "atheist period".Mojowiha (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems like Strobel didn't realize that he held to atheism for that reason until after he abandoned it. Self-deception is a common phenomenon. I have met drug addicts who had once thought that their drug habits were good for them, and then much later realizing that they were hiding behind excuses. You assume that no atheist holds to atheism for the reasons he says, and I don't see any reason why people can't be atheists in order to be hedonists. Miller-Urey was in 1953, which is plenty of time for it to reach the high schools. Regarding Flew's book, where did he state that he read that book in high school? And Flew's book was publish with plenty of time for Strobel to read it, and why couldn't he have read it during his 2 year research period? Does he claim that he read it before then? Again, none of this is evidence that he was never an atheist, unless you assume that nobody fits the atheist stereotype that you mention. I have personally met people who do.--TMD Talk Page. 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"It seems like Strobel didn't realize that he held to atheism for that reason until after he abandoned it. " I think you're rationalising Strobel's words here: He's not saying that this was a post-conversion insight, and in The Case for Chriest he makes this explicit: "But that's all I had ever really given the evidence: a cursory look. I had read just enough philosophy and history to find support for my skepticism - a fact here, a scientific theory there, a pithy quote, a clever argument. Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus." (p. xiv)
On the same page, Strobel ask a series of rhetorical questions to describe the reasons he was (supposedly) an atheist, but again using arguments that sound like they're coming from an apologist, rather than an atheist:
"“How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing in Him?" This is a question about God's nature, not whether God exists or not. It also seems to presume the validity of a lot of Christian dogma, at least indirectly.
"How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature?" A more likely atheist (not to mention sceptical, but I'll get back to that) question would be how/whether we can actually know that miracles happened. Asking the question this way at least indirectly assumes that miracles actually happened.
"Didn’t evolution satisfactorily explain how life originated?" This is exactly the way creationists straw man/misunderstand evolution (by conflating it with abiogenesis). It's arguably one of the most jarring of Strobel's "atheist questions", because only a creationist would ask it.
"Doesn’t scientific reasoning dispel belief in the supernatural?”" A weird question to ask - if you're already an atheist.
Also, bar solid documentation that he was a believer (say, a picture of him preaching in a church), how would you suggest to document that he was not an atheist (or, for that matter that the "I'm just an atheist so I can sin"-caricature doesn't exist somewhere)?
I'm arguing that while it may be possible that Strobel was a "caricature atheist" who just happened to convert to the kind of Christianity that promotes this same stereotype when depicting atheists, I don't find that scenario very plausible. It's like Strobel's claim to be a sceptic; yet despite this touted scepticism, he only interviews Evangelicals for his "evidence" in The Case for Christ, and seems never to seriously consider any objections to their explanations. Even worse than his claims about his former atheism (which we so far can't definitely verify one way or another), Strobel's claim to be a sceptic is directly contradicted by his actual writing. Mojowiha (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Strobel/Archive_2&oldid=1136263024"