Reflections after reading The End of Christianity

I recently finished John Loftus’s The End of Christianity and I wanted to jot down some thoughts. This isn’t so much of a review as it is a debrief after reading the book. The strange thing about The End of Christianity is that it actually made me care less about atheism. But it’s not what you think. Let me explain.

Similar to his earlier book The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Loftus assembles a group of counterapologetic heavy hitters to really dismantle Christianity in every possible. The collection of essays feel like they’re’s written for academics, so I felt that some of the parts were kinda dry… like reading a boring technical manual. In fact, that’s exactly what I felt when I read the first chapter, by David Eller. My sincerest apologies to him as a person, but I normally find his work dull and unengaging.  Eller focuses a lot about the cultural aspects of Christianity, that it looks so much like any other culture that it’s probably just any other culture. Rather than, you know, being true.

Towards the end of his chapter though, things started picking up. This was specifically when he starts writing about how Christianity evolved and adapted when it came to America and beyond. It was probably more relatable for me. I get really bored with the history geekouts. But as I closed out Chapter 1 and started in Chapter 2, something in me died.

That something was the Power that Christianity had over my emotions. The end of Chapter 1 made Christianity feel not just “more false”, but blindingly, painfully, bluntly, and ridiculously more false.  And as I went through the next chapters, this Power continued to wither and fade.

Since becoming an atheist, I felt it important to actually keep an open mind… to have an idea of what I’d anticipate seeing  to change my mind. And while I still think it’s important to actually keep an open mind (and not just say the words), I’d be lying if I said that my anticipation came with a lot of emotions.

What were those emotions? It’s kinda that “on guard” feeling we in the psychology biz call “fight for flight”. It’s like a defensiveness… but more so. It’s trying to simultaneously stay open for a genuinely new correct information, while being prepared to catch nonsense, while being ready to respond in an adult and assertive manner. All that… stuff takes energy and is quite draining.

I also need to admit that a huge part of those emotions are the “what if they’re right” worries.

I mean, I “know” in my head that Christianity has been false for quite some time, but there’s always been that bit of emotional “what if”. I think it has to do with the effects of conformity:  the natural impulse to think and act everyone else. So many people in my life are Christians, that it takes a lot of effort to combat that those effects. But it’s easier when more atheists are around. And after reading The End of Christianity, it kinda feels like the conformity effects are mostly gone.

Hmm… that didn’t occur to me until I typed it just now. The End of Christianity made Christianity so absurd that it took away the emotional distress of not confirming to it. Christianity isn’t just wildly improbable, it isn’t even remotely possible.

In fairness to my other life experiences. I wasn probably headed that way already and this book just took it over the top

Terror management theory predicts that I’ll be a more passionate atheist the more my worldview is threatened. Christianity doesn’t feel like a threat to me, so I don’t care as much.

I’m still an atheist, but I’ve definitely noticed that my rant blog is harder to write for. Thanks John, et al.

- – - – - – - -

Some other quick notes. My favorite chapters were the ones by Dr. Valerie Tarico on god psychology and Dr Victor Stenger on near death experiences and the afterlife. Richard Carrier’s stuff was good too, although his intelligent design chapter was a bit hard to follow. The biggest surprise for me was Robert Price. I’ve listened to him on atheist podcasts and utterly can’t stand the way he talks. His phrases are way too densely packed with references and quotes. He writes exactly how he talks and I was quite shocked to see how much better his communication style is on paper than on the radio. Same content, same style, night and day difference.

Advertisement