Deconversion From Faith

An Analysis of deconversion and the nature of Ideas.

For 22 years of my life, I was raised with the Christian faith, more specifically, as a Dutch reformed, Calvinistic, protestant. While my story is nothing new on the horizon, I hope to dissect indoctrination and the complexities of beliefs. Providing some insights into what it is like from the perspective of an insider and now outsider. It is quite hard to convey how big of a deal a deconversion can be for someone and how much effort it takes to go through it.

The definition of indoctrination

Let’s first define what I mean by ‘indoctrination’. I see it as quite a universal aspect of childhood, I would say every idea that a child adopts from its surroundings is some form of indoctrination. The ideas brought into one's mind will vary quite a bit from the surroundings.

The nuances of indoctrination

The effects of indoctrination vary greatly from one individual to another. What feels limiting to some may be liberating to others, shaped by their unique circumstances and perspectives. In my own experience, the indoctrination I underwent left me feeling limited, while my siblings found it liberating. This divergence is significant, as it often leads to friction, particularly when both sides argue for their right.

Departing from the common norm is challenging, but that is not sufficient on its own will someone wants to maintain a good relationship with family. One must adopt a meta-perspective on both their own beliefs and those of others. This entails recognizing the limitations of one’s indoctrination and understanding the perspectives of those who adhere to different beliefs. Only by doing so can one effectively navigate the complexities of leaving the common norm behind while adapting to new beliefs. Exactly this allows one to detach from what is happening in reality, reflect on it, and change standpoints. People will try to get your attention and pull you back into the common norm.

The epistemology of indoctrination

On the nature of ideas

Humans hold ideas. Ideas are just thoughts coming and going in and out of experience. We value ideas and attach to them as they come, or reject them and let them go. Slowly constructing our ever-changing identity.

Is there a distinction between what is real and what is not? Can something truly be labeled as ‘unreal’? I posit that the concept of the ‘unreal’ is non-sensical. Everything, in its essence, possesses a form of reality. This reality, however, extends beyond the confines of the physical realm; it encompasses the conceptual as well. Or well conseptual is also physical as ultimately there can not be a difference in what is or is not. Let's be a bit more concrete. Any idea is a brain pattern that is 100% real and any of my perceptions of the world are in some sense equally real to me as the car I see driving past.

We humans hold our ideas very dearly and I think this is exactly where ontology gets mixed up and discussion becomes very hard. In some sense the fact that some people hold the prepositions of Jesus exists means he indeed exists in some conceptual form in the minds of those who think it. If you are around many people with similar mental constructs it becomes quite hard to see reality differently as the shared collective unconscious is a shared definition. I like the idea of the collective unconscious that Dr. Carl Jung spoke about however I like to think of it more in a shared cultural context that people learn rather than a physical thing in the genes.

On the nature of mental archetypes

In normal culture, watching movies, and reading books, about dragons, demons, monsters, and superheroes, romantic drama, is a normal thing to do. Even though all of them are fabrications of the minds of other people, people get emotionally invested in them, get defensive about certain movies or books, or spend lots of time consumed by them. Isn't it insane to think that people criticize or praise fake stories? Is it not similar to the stories that religious people think of being true? To some degree, it is, that we consume ideas in some forms and identify with them or reject them. My time in a Christian family taught me emotion and stories are one very powerful way of conveying messages and reasons. Also historically makes sense to memorize cultural truths. Dr. Carl Jung spoke about this phenomenon extensively and also combined religious and non-religious pop culture. The hero's journey, and the battle between good and evil, these archetypal elements that can be found in both religious and fictional narratives.

On the psychotic nature of man

I like to think of humans as being quite psychotic even though we think we are sensible creatures. We engage in ideas and start wandering around in them up to the degree that we think they are the Truth and defend them to death. Take the insane idea of a GOD incarnating into a human, being slaughtered for the sins of man, such that the same GOD can forgive the sins by killing Himself as an offer to Himself. Making humans engage in the holy sacrament of the Last Supper. Catholics engage in active cannibalism while protestants engage in spiritual cannibalism by consuming the body of Christ. Believing they eat the body of Christ such that they can become one with him. It is one of the many wacky ideas out there. I can not help then start to think of religious beliefs as an extreme form of this psychotic tendency of humans. Being detached from reality in their collective mental playground.

I don't think this way of thinking is strictly related to religious people. Sam Harris put this nicely that humans engage in visual and auditory self-talk all the time, having the same conversation with ourselves over and over again. If we do the same thing out loud people would start to think we are having some mental issues. One moment we work on something, another moment we are dreaming away in a constructed realm of thoughts. It's kind of interesting behavior that someone can validate with some meditation. And when we dream we go off into a fully custom-constructed reality where we forget we are even dreaming. Human thoughts are complicated and the ideas we hold are interesting. Why we attach so much value to some and others is a complicated discussion. I do not think this behavior of man is particularly wrong, I just find it fascinating a human can do this without asking questions about doing just that. Jumping into and out of psychotic episodes throughout the day. Of course, I'm using that word a little loosely here and not the definition in medical terms.

On the nature of ontology

As we can tell ideas are 100% real, and therefore Christianity is 100% real because ideas are. To me, it's equally real as an imaginary unicorn. Without our neural networks in the brain, Christianity nor the unicorn would exist. To take a step further, any sensory input we get through our sensors gets transformed into electrical signals that we then turn into a mental virtual reality. To some degree one can state the brain signals of a car passing by is the same as the belief in Jesus as God. And one can even be reasonable to some degree to state that there is no external reality at all just one being that is experiencing everything. Of course, a theist would argue there is deeper ontological evidence for an external fundamental deity that grounds an objective truth outside ourselves. Scientists would reason for an objective world outside our experience that we can observe through measurement. And that we can not measure Jesus being God objectively outside our mind. However, I have yet to find such evidence of a deity other than a general abstract logical argument of causality or cosmological arguments. I can with some plausibility state that the world I see with my senses is very skewed and simple compared to the full world that I see and am part of. One can even ask a more fundamental question, how can we define what ideas humans should or should not hold?

That very question of what ideas humans should or should not hold touches on lots of ethical considerations. Do we measure ideas by their provided value, harm, suffering, and death they cause? To me, there is no easy answer. One can judge by so many metrics.

On the topic of objective truths and subjective relativism

At this moment I think subjective relativism is the only way one can sensibly reason for anything. Naturally objective truths are hard to prove. Taking subjective realism seriously has big implications for what morality and ethics are. This means that any individual is an atom of society and has its partition/interpretation of the universe. To state any objective statements about ‘ethics’ or ‘ways to live’ is quite hard. Let's spice it up, there is no physics law preventing or enforcing a no-murder policy, or engaging in a terrorist act. There is no math formula stating that Hitler was wrong in his acts. Even if it is wiping out an entire race. In the universal grand scheme of things, the biggest star UY Scuti doesn't give a shit about any moral or ethical notions of us humans. Humans have only been around for such a small fraction of the entire universe and while self-awareness is a fascinating phenomenon it's a relatively new one. Taking that into account how can I justify saying that Christian indoctrination is wrong? Can I state someone should leave Christianity?

In my view, everyone needs to have the freedom to embrace or abandon any set of ideas. The concept of a belief system being universally right or wrong doesn’t hold much water for me. Rather, it’s up to the individual to discern whether a specific belief aligns with their values and life journey. This is a relativistic way of looking at things. It respects other sets of beliefs but also states oneself can have a valid set of beliefs. As long as a person finds happiness and isn’t oppressed by their beliefs, I see no issue with them holding ideas that might seem unconventional to others. For instance, the belief in a divine entity can offer immense comfort to many. My primary concern arises when individuals with strong convictions attempt to impose them on others, often leading to distress and conflict, which is unequivocally negative from my standpoint. I maintain a stance of non-interference until someone else’s belief system starts infringing upon my own space. In the realm of relativism, it’s necessary to acknowledge that people might subscribe to ideas that seem eccentric, without these necessarily being objectively right or wrong. Politics, much like religion, represents a complex landscape of diverse beliefs and convictions, making it a challenging domain to navigate. In my view, the orthodox communities I was part of prevented me from exploring the world and also questioning the relative framework of ideas. I got held back when doing so and it left me suppressed learning about the reality we live in. I think it should be a big right for anyone to discover the nature of reality even if that leads to more questions.

The effort it takes to escape

Anyone who is raised in an ultra-religious community can have a hard time leaving this community. It is hard to convey how big of a paradigm shift and deconversion it takes to leave a particular faith.

One must confront the daunting mental barrier of realizing that the vast majority of people they’ve known have embraced beliefs different from one’s own. It’s a big challenge to move away, especially when loved ones repeatedly assert that your doubts are unfounded and your beliefs misguided. And that doubts can be fixed by more intense religious practices.

Confronting this reality also means grappling with the implications of dissenting from the beliefs held dear by parents, siblings, cousins, grandparents, teachers, and friends. Belief isn’t merely an abstract concept — it shapes behavior, influencing rituals like funerals, marriages, and baptisms, where God plays a central role. Acknowledging that these rituals may hold no significance for you can feel like rejecting the very fabric of familial and communal ties.

One real example is looking one’s dying grandfather in the eye preaching the gospel while keeping up the smile, and not starting any debate while remaining to have a slight sense of skepticism of the words coming from the shaking voice. While thinking “I reject the premises of your belive and your foundation of the life you have lived with for the last 80 years”. Those are the moments that make deconversion especially hard.

Facing loved ones and asserting that their deeply held beliefs may be mistaken is an emotionally difficult journey. It requires questioning and untangling the web of beliefs woven since childhood — a process that takes time and considerable introspection for anyone striving to maintain sanity amidst the complexity of faith and doubt. It's easy for external people to say ‘I believe everyone should believe whatever you want.’. But being conscious about what your rejection of faith means is to state the people you care about are to some degree delusional.

My Story

My journey of deconversion spanned four years, beginning at the age of 17 and accumulating at 22 when I decided to leave the church and strike out on my own. Throughout this period, my fascination with computers and early exposure to the online world enabled me to explore a multitude of belief systems beyond the confines of my upbringing.

Over five years, I delved into various ideologies, including New Age spirituality, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Esotericism, Mysticism, the occult, and ultimately atheism. While recounting the intricacies of this journey would require much more time, it was a transformative experience that imparted invaluable lessons.

• All humans are biased.
• Therefore I am biased.

I questioned myself the most, being afraid to fall back into the ‘bias’ I once had. Not only the one I grew up with, but the tendency to seek answers from transcended sources was a repeating pattern. When I went through all those belive systems I found myself becoming passionate about them and obsessed. It took me 5 iterations of different belief systems to see how this behavior was a problem to define my new identity. How can I trust any ideas in my mind if I don’t know if they are correct or influence me in the long term? I became a skeptic of myself to the point I was not sure if there was a self, to begin with, or that I was the only self in existence which for some believe systems a basic premise. From the field research into religion, I slowly started to get: “Believe systems are relative and different people claim the same things about their systems”. This made me realize my whole worldview is relative and it gave me a position to go meta on myself and the family’s beliefs and start moving away and building an identity of my own.

Tips for those who feel trapped

Once someone says: “Stop thinking because XYZ” — think and research more.

On engaging in a wide dialog with various people

The trap I have seen many fall into is to seek guidance from those who are in your community. This is the first tip you will get from any community member. Of course, do not reject discussion — I had plenty, but ultimately they won’t help you to find the real answers to your questions, they of course answer from their own perspective. Neither will people from other types of communities that are alike. The thing you can do is talk with all kinds of people with varying backgrounds. And get a sense of how they think about things. It opens up your mind to new ways of seeing the world. Try to transcend to the meta-analysis when understanding ideas that people hold. We live in a beautiful world with many discord/reddit/youtube communities on every topic you can imagine. Use it!

On Investigating New Truths

You will find yourself many, many times, in a trap of trying to protect just discovered truths that you think are true, but eventually turn out to be just some other dogmas. Be mindful when this happens and try to pull up a red flag whenever you feel you defend a new belief.

On Reading Books

In my eyes, a really good solution to escaping the old world views is increasing literacy. One very important thing in my development was reading books. I read many books about science, logic, reason, religion, and philosophy. Every book I read expanded my vision of the potential truth and complexity of the world we live in. Complex as in, it is quite hard to have a solid fundamental belief system without holes in the narrative. Together with my investigation online I found myself more and more agreeing with a more atheistic worldview. While in the beginning I felt very wrong watching that content later I started to understand their objections more and more.

Accept your Limitations

You won't have all the answers to all the questions religious people can ask you. While you are constructing a new identity you will have holes, and when discussing with religious people they can point it out, and that’s fine. It shows you still have a long way to go. Prevent trying to talk from a place where you barely understand a topic or idea. Learning what you do and don't know is a humbling experience.

Accept that sometimes there are no answers yet

Religious people have answers to almost everything concerning their worldview. Communities know how to respond in very careful ways to their beliefs. If you instead enter the world of science it works the opposite way. You accept that you don't know something and test that something to get an observable answer. Similarly, there are many unanswered questions about the origin of life, the origin of the universe, and the definition of the Self. These are big questions that religious people will always keep pointing out. You have to realize it's fine that some questions are pending. That is the best we can do as a human race. 100 years ago we did not know anything about relativity. Now we do.

You do not have to argue even if it gets hot in the room. If you want to use reason in a religious community you can sometimes better say nothing.

On Atheism and Scientific Thinking

A natural second belief system people enter is the atheistic, scientific, rational way of approaching questions. It's worth exploring for sure, also be mindful not to fall into the trap of becoming anti-religion or getting harsh feelings for those who do believe. Also in those communities, there is plenty of diversity in beliefs and people disagreeing with each other.

On openmindedness

Being open-minded while skeptical can cause philosophical anxiety and existential problems for you. Doing this right is challenging and can hurt your self-image. But it's a general virtue that I believe is important when considering any set of beliefs. This exactly is what a lot of religious people don't have or reject. The idea of discovering new truths and refactoring the old ones is an echo-hurting process that not everyone can engage in.

On rationality

I fell in love with the logical reductionist way of thinking as it is also required for my work as a software engineer to do so. One may try to find rationality in religion but that may be hard to find there is not much of that in mainstream religion. Eventually, you won't get the rational answer for why Jesus had to Die on the cross for the sins of humanity. Or it may be rational within the belief system itself but is often quite circular. Many times I have been told to pray or read more out of the bible as a cure to the questioning of those belives. Of course, there are always exceptions. Religions or schools of thought such as Kabala, Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism have quite a rich history of discussion on various practices and methodologies. But to face brutal logical break down many systems do break at some point.

Thanks to

To be honest, without the following channels, if I lived 100 years ago, I would not have been able to see the world as I do now. Big credits:

• Actualized.org for helping me understand extreme skepticism and wacky ideas haha.
• Enlighten University: for helping me understand perenalism and the beauty of Christianity and other faiths. And how to merge science with religious thinking.
• Seekers of Unity: for helping me understand Jewish mysticism as an insider.
• Esoterica: for helping me understand Jewish mysticism, occult practices, and esotericism from a scholarly perspective
• Religion for breakfast, Let's talk Religion: for helping me understand religion from an objective perspective.
• Alex O’Connor, Rationality Rules: for strengthening my reasoning and logic
• Capturing Christianity: for helping me find a way to put logic to Christian faith and making discussions about this accessible.
• Rupert Spira, Moojiji, Eckhart Tolle: for teaching about beautiful Eastern ideas of inner peace.
• Curt Jaimungal, Lex Friedman For showing so many interesting smart people on a podcast.
• Veritasium, Sabine Hofstader, PBS Space Time, Crash Course, etc… for showing the beautiful aspects of scientific thinking.