I was never constructed to begin with


You’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see my latest video, “An Un-Deconstructed Atheist”.

Unless you’re a Patreon subscriber, in which case you can watch it right now.

Hey, friends:

I’ve been watching some atheist youtubers, and I’ve noticed a trend — an obvious trend that leaves me out in the cold. I feel like the most popular atheist youtubers are people who have considerable knowledge of the specifics of a religion. You know what I mean: a person sits and fields questions from believers, or responds to theistic videos, and they use their deep knowledge of a holy book to point out their contradictions with their own beliefs or the purported words of their god. It’s all very entertaining. It’s also frustrating, because the religious fools are consistently beaten down, but they don’t realize it; they use their poor logic to contrive rationalizations, and they run away whining.
I’ve also learned a new word: deconstruction. Well, an old word. I thought I knew what it meant, but it seems to have been shifting a bit.

A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings.

In the world of youtube theology, though, it seems to be more about the process of losing one’s religion, becoming aware of the failings of holy texts, and applying more critical interpretations to hermeneutics. There’s hardly ever a mention of Derrida or other aspects of literary criticism, and that’s fine. People are conscious of how their faith is falling away, and that’s a good thing.

But I feel like a Martian when I listen to these fascinating videos. I never “deconstructed”. I was brought up in a nominally Christian home, but everything I learned about religion repelled me. My grandparents tried to teach me prayers. This is the first one I was taught.

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my Soul to keep
If I should die before I ‘wake,
I pray the Lord my Soul to take.

What kind of monsters were these people? I didn’t want to be “taken” at all. Are you telling me I could die in my sleep and some ghost would swoop in and snatch me?

I don’t think I’ve ever prayed. Not once. I thought of prayer as reciting horrible stories.

They taught me the Lord’s Prayer, too. I asked too many questions.

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Who is this father? Where does he live? He delivers bread?

I realized years later that I was probably somewhere on the spectrum and was taking everything too literally, but the damage was done. I have a strong aversion to prayer — it would feel like I’m talking to myself and asking favors for myself, and I know I don’t have magical powers.

I went to church and Sunday school, and was also a member of the church choir, which you might say meant I was pretty deep in the culture of Christianity. I wasn’t. I was the oldest in a family of six kids, and figured out early on that the reason I was going to church and escorting a flock of little kids there was to protect my mother’s sanity. Church was a free babysitter.

My parents did not go to church at all, which does kind of undermine the whole idea that attendance was for the purposes of salvation. My grandparents were even worse — I don’t recall ever seeing them in church, but they were also the ones who gifted me an engraved Bible and made me read Bible verses aloud every Christmas. As soon as I learned to read, they’d prop me up in front of my brothers and sisters, my parents, my grandparents, my great-grandparents, and I had to read aloud. Luke 2. 364 days a year, I would never crack open a bible, but this one day I was a performing monkey. I hated it, but I loved my grandparents, so I’d do it for them.

It was indoctrination. I could see that from the first day I was dropped off at Sunday School, and indoctrination doesn’t work if you’re well aware that it is indoctrination, were repulsed by the clumsiness of it all, and spent your spare time working on subverting the effort. It all came to a head when I turned 12 and was expected to attend confirmation classes every week, for two years. This is where religion became overt, and I was expected to testify to my belief in the dogma of the faith.

At the end of my first year, I had a one-on-one meeting with the pastor, who asked me to recite the Nicene Creed, which I’d memorized. I was very good at memorization.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.

Then he made a mistake. He asked me if I BELIEVED in the creed.

“No,” I said, “I don’t believe in god.”

He looked mildly surprised. He said, “If you don’t accept that, then you aren’t a Christian.”

I was happy to be told that. I thought he was saying I didn’t have to go to church anymore.

“Do you believe any of it?” He asked.

“No.”

“Then you aren’t a Lutheran.”

At the time, I thought he was letting me off the hook, affirming what I already knew. Looking back on it, though, I’m thinking now that it was more of a passive-aggressive rebuke. This was a church full of Scandinavian-Americans from Minnesota who had emigrated to Washington state, so maybe this was my first exposure to Minnesota Nice, and I was so naive I didn’t notice.

Anyway, I took it as being recognized as an atheist, and receiving permission to never go to church again. And I didn’t! The result of my Lutheran confirmation was that I failed the Christianity test and was instead officially confirmed as an atheist.

Unfortunately, that means that, unlike so many well-educated atheist youtubers, you can totally stump me with Bible quotes. I won’t be able to hurl Biblical contradictions back at you, or wrestle with your sophisticated theology. I’ve got no grounding in religious hermeneutics or apologetics — I’m as helpless as a baby before your verses and quotes from church fathers and Bible college philosophy.

That’s not permission for the Bible-thumpers to declare open season on this one weird godless person. It also means I’m totally, blissfully impervious to their arguments. Since I don’t recognize the existence of their deity and don’t care about the authority of their holy book, they might as well be yelling at me in Greek.

It does not mean I know nothing about their religion, though. It just means I was exposed to the antigens early, and lack the ability to empathize with their foolishness. I’m still fascinated by how people can fall for such obvious nonsense.

When I turned 18 and went off to college, I attended a small liberal arts college in the heart of Indiana, DePauw University. It was a good school, in a conservative area, and it was also the first time I was hit with a love bomb. I was alone, and the Christian group in my dorm were talking to me and dealing out all kinds of flattery, telling me about good books I should read and loaning me music. It was coming up on Spring Break, and they suggested I could go with them — they had a bus and were all going to help restore an old barn for some nice folks even deeper in the Indiana heartland. I had nothing better to do, so I spent a week on this farm.

It was actually a Bible camp, a commercial retreat for the true believers. I was drafted to work on repainting and repairing the buildings, so I spent my days with a brush and a bucket of paint — long days, most memorably painting the rafters and getting painfully sore. The evenings were spent around a campfire, reading bible verses (I didn’t know any) and everyone giving their Testimony (mine was telling them I was brought up Lutheran, but didn’t believe any of it). Then I’d get hours of being told Jesus loves me and that everyone there loved me, with more fervent singing and bible-quotin’. Yeah, they sang Kumbaya at me.

I just smiled and vibed with the group. Trust me, I am immune. I had a good time with some nice people and worked on a church camp, and that was it.

When we got back to college, I could tell the group leader was somewhat frustrated that I was so oblivious, and I think he decided to take an intellectual approach. He gave me an album to listen to: it was Leonard Bernstein’s Mass. Most people haven’t heard of it; it’s a musical theater piece, in the genre of “Jesus Christ Superstar” (but very different), composed by an American Jew and recounting the doubts and ultimate acceptance by the Celebrant in the context of the Catholic Mass. I guess he thought the nerd might appreciate it, and besides, Catholic, Lutheran, they’re kind of the same thing, aren’t they?

Surprise, I liked it. I’ve listened to it off and on again over the years, and it’s eclecticism is exactly what appeals to me. The religious message, though…whooosh, right past me, didn’t care. There is one bit, though, that did make a life-long impression, in a negative sense. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it musically, but man, the lyrics struck me as total nonsense.

Sing God a simple song
Lauda laude
Make it up, as you go along
Lauda laude
Sing, like you like to sing
God loves all simple things
For God, is the simplest of all

I’m going to have to credit Leonard Bernstein as setting me on the track of being against design and complexity arguments. I thought hard about that claim — I’d been hearing that “god is love” most of my life, and it was silly and a reductionist evasion of the magnitude of the claims believers were making. Love is a profound and complex emotion, so how can you say it’s simple? How can you claim this pan-galactic overlord who created all the complexity of the universe is simultaneously just a “simple” feeling? Now I’m no authority, but I rather doubt that the Bible makes such a ridiculous claim that their deity is “simple” or just “love”, so I have to approach this claim as a godless empiricist and reject it as an unfounded and contradictory claim that has no relationship to reality.

So that’s the kind of atheist I’ve become: dismissive of theistic arguments and contemptuous of the Abrahamic religions. I am not a “cultural Christian”. I am, at best, a “cultural un-Christian”, familiar enough with the Christian perspective to be heartily sick of it. The worth of my culture comes from those who were progressive and scientific in spite of the taint of this nonsense that soaks our civilization.

Now, please, if you disagree with me, don’t bother trying to bludgeon me with your Bible. I’m impervious to that. Try using material evidence, since that’s the language I speak. If you claim to have a big fish, I expect you to show me that fish.

Comments

  1. drew says

    “Deconstruction” is a term from Derrida (a postmodernist – the horror!). Christians, not understanding a damned thing about anything except their blood god, coopted the term to mean “deconversion,” but most often for “deconversion of the not-ever-actually-converted.”

    While I applaud people for leaving that religion, I definitely don’t see the need to love bomb them like a goddamned revival meeting for finally coming around.

    And before anyone asks, no, it is not in any way validating to have a soft-minded allegedly-former-Christian suddenly agree with me. Deprogramming is just another word for programming (similar to “flammable”/”inflammable”). And anyone who’s been through it recently should not be trusted. Give ’em time to settle into themselves before extending trust. Please do them a favor and help defend them from scammers while they’re in a sensitive state, though: they’re in a very fragile state.

  2. John Morales says

    If you put up a transcript, it will be just like a proper blog post!

    (And that image is… mildly disturbing)

  3. John Morales says

    What a load of wank, drew.

    And before anyone asks [wishful thinking on your part], no, it is not in any way validating to have a soft-minded allegedly-former-Christian [whoever that might be] suddenly agree with me [so, you are a patron and have seen the video content?]. Deprogramming is just another word for programming [no, it ain’t] (similar to “flammable”/”inflammable”) [nope]. And anyone who’s been through it recently should not be trusted [trust has many dimensions, and only focusing on this is weak as fuck]. Give ’em time to settle into themselves before extending trust. [whatever that may mean; everyone is themself!]

    (Of course, that’s opinion, not deconstruction]

  4. rietpluim says

    I fail to grasp the concept of a deconstructed atheist (and by extension that of a constructed or undeconstructed atheist). Is it really just ‘converted’ what they mean?

  5. cheerfulcharlie says

    I hereby proclaim September as Atheist Pride Month. Just because. My birthday is in September, that’s why. With all the right winged politicians peddling Christianity we need this.

  6. says

    The transcript will be posted here at 5pm my time.

    I do make a similar point to #1: this is not Derrida, and the term is actually being abused. But it’s OK, language is sloppy.

  7. StevoR says

    @1. drew : ““Deconstruction” is a term from Derrida (a postmodernist – the horror!).””

    I did some philosophy years ago including some stuff that I vaguely recall with “deconstruction”” meaning, off top of my head now the field or art or methodology of taking apart and analysing arguments carefully into their different parts eg premises and inferences, stuff about framing, biases, POVs, etc..

    Comnencted to Semiotics which I think – possibly mistaken and for fun of it haven’t just looked up – a field or sub-field area thingy connected to language and how its used? There was another French philospoher talking about associations and what things symbolise etc .. Barthes I think? Could be mistaken.

  8. StevoR says

    So I’ve just done a wikicheck & …

    In philosophy, deconstruction is a loosely-defined set of approaches to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. The concept of deconstruction was introduced by the philosopher Jacques Derrida, who described it as a turn away from Platonism’s ideas of “true” forms and essences which are valued above appearances.[additional citation(s) needed][1]

    Since the 1980s, these proposals of language’s fluidity instead of being ideally static and discernible have inspired a range of studies in the humanities..

    Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

    Plus :

    Semiotics (/ˌsɛmiˈɒtɪks/ SEM-ee-OT-iks) is the systematic study of sign processes and the communication of meaning. In semiotics, a sign is defined as anything that communicates intentional and unintentional meaning or feelings to the sign’s interpreter.

    Semiosis is any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs. Signs often are communicated by verbal language, but also by gestures, or by other forms of language, e.g. artistic ones (music, painting, sculpture, etc.). Contemporary semiotics is a branch of science that generally studies meaning-making (whether communicated or not) and various types of knowledge.

    Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

    In addition to :

    Roland Gérard Barthes (/bɑːrt/;[2] French: [ʁɔlɑ̃ baʁt]; 12 November 1915 – 25 March 1980)[3] was a French literary theorist, essayist, philosopher, critic, and semiotician. His work engaged in the analysis of a variety of sign systems, mainly derived from Western popular culture.[4] His ideas explored a diverse range of fields and influenced the development of multiple schools of theory, including structuralism, anthropology, literary theory, and post-structuralism.

    Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes

    Ah, yes, that’s right Post-structralism. Similar to post-modernism but not quite identical with it memory serving..

    ironically* (?) the term “empty signifier” is ringing a bell for some reason..

    .* Now hearing that Ironic (but actually kinda not – bad examples – isn’;t it ironic , no but maybe the fact you failed english class is? Although technically I guess she was asking not saying those were examples of irony so the answers are – often? No,) Alanis Morrisette song in my head.

  9. KG says

    The concept of deconstruction was introduced by the philosopher Jacques Derrida, who described it as a turn away from Platonism’s ideas of “true” forms and essences which are valued above appearances. – StevoR@9 quoting wikipedia

    Gosh, no-one ever cast doubt on Plato’s forms/essences in the nearly 2 1/2 millennia between him and Derrida!? Mr.Darwin would like a word with Prof. Derrida.

  10. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    I first saw the atheist use in exvangelical circles maybe a decade ago, referring not to deconversion but reexamining internalized beliefs long afterward. Maybe both, but with emphasis on it not ending at atheism. Discovering opinions they’d taken for granted but no longer had religious justification for. Particularly conservative politics, gender roles, and abetting abuse.

    Wikipedia – Faith deconstruction

    a process during which religious believers reexamine and question their beliefs. It originated in American evangelicalism […] The term rose in popularity in connection with the exvangelical movement, which began in 2016. It is sometimes called the deconstruction movement.
    […]
    people doubt their beliefs, identity, and practices. They may struggle and experience anxiety. Some eventually modify their beliefs into something more satisfactory to the believer. This results in a rejection of religion for some, and a revised or renewed faith for others.

    The term takes its name from Jacques Derrida’s philosophical concept of deconstruction, although it has only a loose relationship to that concept.
    […]
    The term can have a range of meanings. Alisa Childers defines deconstruction as “the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with”. […] Alan Jamieson [says] each component of their faith is critiqued on the basis of whether the individual will appropriate it as part of their own personal belief or value system.

    /r/Exvangelical – Can someone describe “deconstruction” to me?

Leave a Reply