Introducing Gunter Bechly: his change to belief (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 17, 2022, 18:32 (796 days ago) @ dhw

Günter Bechly

QUOTE: "I started with popular apologetics and then dove deep into the academic literature. I did not want to become a theist, but the overwhelming, cumulative power of the arguments, of which I have only mentioned a few, ultimately convinced me that theism must be true beyond reasonable doubt. There is a God!"

DAVID: A profound atheist converted himself. I was a soft agnostic who followed Bechly's approach. Lots of reading. I'm now a firm theist. Any non-theist, to test his position, should do the same reading.

dhw: You’ve mentioned him before, but what you have not mentioned is the fact that he is also now a devout Christian: “Ultimately, I reached a point where the evidence and arguments were so overwhelming, while most of my problems with Christianity could be resolved, that I had no choice but to surrender to the call of Christ.” Clearly you have not followed this approach to what he considers to be a logical conclusion – or have you now overcome your previous resistance to established religion and become a Christian? I mention this only to illustrate that “lots of reading” might lead different people to different conclusions, including yourself. And there are plenty of other folk who have moved in the opposite direction: from being theists to being atheists or agnostics. This is absolutely not to be taken as a rejection of all the evidence for design, or as any kind of attack on theism or on non-theism. The object of this forum is to consider all arguments for and against all kinds of beliefs, and in its way, it’s meant to be a short cut: nobody can be expected to have inside knowledge of every facet of our main subjects, or to read every book on every facet. For some time now, you and I have been virtually on our own, and so we are confined to our own spheres of knowledge (and I am most grateful for your huge input especially in the sphere of the sciences) – but that need not and does not stop us from analysing one another’s ideas. If our ideas are based on other people’s findings, it is up to us to defend them – not to issue a reading list.

For what it’s worth, I was brought up as a Jew, and was a devout theist until my early teens. The horrors of the OT sowed doubts in my mind, and these culminated not just in a rejection of the cruel and egocentric God of the OT, but a rejection of the whole concept. However, in my late teens, I looked to Darwin for confirmation of my scepticism, and was astonished to find that there was absolutely nothing in Origin to support atheism! On the contrary, in my (later) edition he even mentioned the Creator, and the fact that his theory did NOT deny the existence of God. I then discovered that he considered himself to be an agnostic. And the book itself brought home to me the astonishing complexities of life, raising the leading question of how it could actually have originated (Darwin expressly avoided dealing with that question). My thinking then was that if science couldn’t answer my questions, maybe philosophy would, and having just won a place at Cambridge to read Modern Languages, I decided to change subjects and study philosophy instead. But before granting permission, the very wise senior tutor asked me why, and when I told him, he gave me a reading list. Sadly I can no longer remember the titles. Then he told me to come back when I’d read the books, and if I still thought I would find the answers I was looking for, he would give me permission to study philosophy. I did not find the answers. And although I remain as fascinated as ever by all the questions we ask, I have never yet found any answers convincing enough to follow you or Bechly or Dawkins or Dennett.

Tnank you for this review of your past. I came from a Jewish family, went through an agnostic period and as I theist I still accept the one God concept. Bechly's acceptance of Trinitarian thought is something I cannot do.