You mean this John C. Wright? He was willing to change his lifelong belief (or lack of belief) when it was contradicted by evidence, as he saw it. I see it as extremely admirable and encouraging, not scary.
It is scary that someone can get such severe and convincing hallucinations at the drop of a ventricle. (Edit: on further review, he was taking atenolol during at least part of that period, which can cause hallucinations.)
I didn’t notice the philosophical buildup in the version of his conversion story that I read. It’s there, but brief. In this article, he plays up the significance of his personal religious experiences.
He was willing to change his lifelong belief (or lack of belief) when it was contradicted by evidence, as he saw it.
He describes it rather differently: “This was not a case of defense and prosecution laying out evidence for my reason to pick through: I was altered down to the root of my being.”
He later speaks of evidence, but what he takes as evidence is religious visions not further described. Whatever this experience was, on his own account no process of rationality played any role in his conversion.
“He later speaks of evidence, but what he takes as evidence is religious visions not further described. Whatever this experience was, on his own account no process of rationality played any role in his conversion.”
I am a theist in the process of (possibly) deconverting, and I wanted to chime in on this point. I obviously can’t speak for John C. Wright, but his evidence sounds quite reasonable to me.
One thing I am doing in my search for truth is praying for recognizable, repeated evidence that God exists. I am testing the hypothesis that God exists and is willing to communicate with me, and I have not ruled out prayer as a means of such communication. I have also given a time frame for this test. The type of evidence John Wright describes, if it actually happens to me within the time frame and happens often enough, will be enough to convince me that God is real. If I do not have any such experiences, I will conclude that either God does not exist or he does not place a high value on my belief in him.
To me, this seems quite rational; those kinds of experiences are far more likely to happen if God exists than if he doesn’t (although they are certainly not impossible if he doesn’t exist), so they will be strong evidence in favor of God’s existence if they actually happen. John Wright’s conversion seems logical to me, given his account of what happened.
What counts as evidence is open to dispute , and what evidence can bring to bear on that question? That is a much better reason for believing there are no universally compelling arguments.
You mean this John C. Wright? He was willing to change his lifelong belief (or lack of belief) when it was contradicted by evidence, as he saw it. I see it as extremely admirable and encouraging, not scary.
It is scary that someone can get such severe and convincing hallucinations at the drop of a ventricle. (Edit: on further review, he was taking atenolol during at least part of that period, which can cause hallucinations.)
I didn’t notice the philosophical buildup in the version of his conversion story that I read. It’s there, but brief. In this article, he plays up the significance of his personal religious experiences.
He describes it rather differently: “This was not a case of defense and prosecution laying out evidence for my reason to pick through: I was altered down to the root of my being.”
He later speaks of evidence, but what he takes as evidence is religious visions not further described. Whatever this experience was, on his own account no process of rationality played any role in his conversion.
“He later speaks of evidence, but what he takes as evidence is religious visions not further described. Whatever this experience was, on his own account no process of rationality played any role in his conversion.”
I am a theist in the process of (possibly) deconverting, and I wanted to chime in on this point. I obviously can’t speak for John C. Wright, but his evidence sounds quite reasonable to me.
One thing I am doing in my search for truth is praying for recognizable, repeated evidence that God exists. I am testing the hypothesis that God exists and is willing to communicate with me, and I have not ruled out prayer as a means of such communication. I have also given a time frame for this test. The type of evidence John Wright describes, if it actually happens to me within the time frame and happens often enough, will be enough to convince me that God is real. If I do not have any such experiences, I will conclude that either God does not exist or he does not place a high value on my belief in him.
To me, this seems quite rational; those kinds of experiences are far more likely to happen if God exists than if he doesn’t (although they are certainly not impossible if he doesn’t exist), so they will be strong evidence in favor of God’s existence if they actually happen. John Wright’s conversion seems logical to me, given his account of what happened.
What counts as evidence is open to dispute , and what evidence can bring to bear on that question? That is a much better reason for believing there are no universally compelling arguments.