Atheist SF author converts to Christianity

[Donkeykong]

Does anyone here know anything about John C.Wright. He is an American Sci-Fi author who converted to Christianity at age 42 :eek: . You can read about it on the comments on this page.
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/003183.html
Anyone have any thoughts on this.

[Writer@Large]

I've never heard of him, personally. Are his books good?

--W@L

[Gooch's dad]

I read through his explanation, and I'm not particularly impressed. He claims that philosophy led him to Christianity, but doesn't bother explaining why it led to him Christianity rather than Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other religion.

He seems to have become a Christian, rather than a Jew or Muslim, simply because of how he was raised. And then he adds a bunch of emotional stuff about personal experience, such as "the paradox between determinism and free will was solved for me". But of course he doesn't actually explain how this paradox is solved. Nor can he, I'm sure.

Kind of weird how often he talks about how he had a "hatred for Christianity" as an atheist. I don't know many atheists that hate Christianity, much less ones that have studied philosophy for 35 years, as that author claimed.

[WishboneDawn]

Kind of weird how often he talks about how he had a "hatred for Christianity" as an atheist. I don't know many atheists that hate Christianity, much less ones that have studied philosophy for 35 years, as that author claimed.


:eek: Are you on the same forum I am? I've met quite a few posters who specifically said they hate christianity (and from some of their experience I have to admit they have reasonable cause to). There's a local philosophy professor IRL who's been quite vocal of his hatred of Abrahamic religions. It happens. Doesn't upset me anymore though because I'm confident their hatred is for the institution, not the people involved. I have a similar feeling towards school systems. :)

[MadPhatCat]

:eek: Are you on the same forum I am? I've met quite a few posters who specifically said they hate christianity (and from some of their experience I have to admit they have reasonable cause to).

You've met quite a few. Gooch's dad doesn't know many. Perhaps he is a really friendly guy so "many" for him is a much bigger number than your "quite a few".

PS - Rather than nitpick comments to death realize that the gist of what he was saying was most atheists he knows of do not hate Christianity.

[WishboneDawn]

You've met quite a few. Gooch's dad doesn't know many. Perhaps he is a really friendly guy so "many" for him is a much bigger number than your "quite a few".

PS - Rather than nitpick comments to death realize that the gist of what he was saying was most atheists he knows of do not hate Christianity.

I'm not nitpicking to death. He made the comment, I challenged. I was a little too...incredulous, yes. But he's got a bigger post count then me so I was honestly surprised.

But shucks, ah didn't mean nothin' mean by it.

[muon]

Does anyone here know anything about John C.Wright. He is an American Sci-Fi author who converted to Christianity at age 42 :eek: . You can read about it on the comments on this page.
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/003183.html
Anyone have any thoughts on this.

I suppose that asking why I should care what some obscure writer thinks about religion isn't what you had in mind. :huh:

[CanoeMan]

I suppose that asking why I should care what some obscure writer thinks about religion isn't what you had in mind. :huh:

QFT

[fatpie42]

He doesn't appear to be too obscure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Wright

Here's an interview where he discusses his conversion:

Greg West:
What kind of a kid were you?

John C. Wright:
Introverted, bookish, rude, irreligious, un-athletic, smart and smart-mouthed: a typical product of popular culture in America.

Greg West:
When you say you were irreligious does this mean you were actively skeptical or simply indifferent and amoral?

John C. Wright:
My moral character has always been sterling. I mean that I was skeptical. For many years I had been an atheist, and a vehement, argumentative, proselytizing atheist at that. I saw no other possible option for belief for a logical thinker. My recent conversion to Christianity was a miracle, prompted by a supernatural revelation, which has satisfied my skepticism in this area, and saved my life. To my surprise, I find that I am still a perfectly logical thinker. I hold that it is insufficient to argue that since human reasoning discovers no evidence of a Divine Being, such a being necessarily does not exist. The proper conclusion is that humans, without the assistance and intervention of a divine being, cannot come to knowledge of Him: a conclusion I think even atheists will allow.

Greg West:
When did this conversion take place?

John C. Wright:
I had a heart attack and was near death. It happened this November just past, late in 2003 AD.

My conversion happened long after I wrote THE GOLDEN AGE, LAST GUARDIAN OF EVERNESS, or ORPHANS OF CHAOS. It was also after I wrote the short story LAST OF ALL SUNS, a story which prompted one editor to ask whether I was a Christian: I was a vehement anti-Christian at the time of that writing, but, like all good authors, I wrote the story according to its own internal logic, and logic demanded an ending more cheerful and supernatural than the world view of a Stoic or a natural philosopher would allow.

Greg West:
What was the nature of this supernatural revelation?

John C. Wright:
That is a strange and private matter. Let us pretend that I was visited by three ghosts, like Scrooge, and, like him, returned from the travail a better man.

*yawn* So apparently he's had some experience that has ruled out any doubts in his mind (in a near death incident unsurprisingly), and so naturally all us atheists who have not had such an experience are doomed to doubt. Of course, the possibility that his experience was just caused by a crisis situation and is not revelation from the almighty, has never crossed his mind.

He even sees 'irreligiousness' as a poor quality! If he was a less good person as an atheist that's his business, but I don't see why he has to brand all other atheists as monsters!

[Writer@Large]

But has anyone actually read his work? Is it any good? Whether he's an atheist or not can take a toss if the books are worth reading.

--W@L

[fatpie42]

But has anyone actually read his work? Is it any good? Whether he's an atheist or not can take a toss if the books are worth reading.

--W@L

Well if you look at the wikipedia link, he won an award for at least one of his books...

[Lance Uppercut]

John C. Wright:
I had a heart attack and was near death. It happened this November just past, late in 2003 AD.Anyone else think it's odd that he the need to specify that his ordeal happened AD?

[Y.B]

Anyone else think it's odd that he the need to specify that his ordeal happened AD?

Maybe he was trying to make a subtle point that it's Anno Domini (the year of the Lord), not that silly evil secular CE!

Btw, it should be AD 2003, not 2003 AD. Most people make that mistake.

[Donkeykong]

What do you think of this claim of his


"The public conduct of my fellow atheists was so lacking in sobriety and gravity that I began to wonder why, if we atheists had a hammerlock on truth, so much of what we said was pointless or naive. I remember listening to a fellow atheist telling me how wonderful the world would be once religion was swept into the dustbin of history, and I realized the chap knew nothing about history. If atheism solved all human woe, then the Soviet Union would have been an empire of joy and dancing bunnies, instead of the land of corpses.

I would listen to my fellow atheists, and they would sound as innocent of any notion of what real human life was like as the Man from Mars who has never met human beings or even heard clear rumors of them. Then I would read something written by Christian men of letters, Tolkien, Lewis, or G.K. Chesterton, and see a solid understanding of the joys and woes of human life. They were mature men.

I would look at the rigorous logic of St. Thomas Aquinas, the complexity and thoroughness of his reasoning, and compare that to the scattered and mentally incoherent sentimentality of some poseur like Nietzsche or Sartre. I can tell the difference between a rigorous argument and shrill psychological flatulence. I can see the difference between a dwarf and a giant."

[Lance Uppercut]

Maybe he was trying to make a subtle point that it's Anno Domini (the year of the Lord), not that silly evil secular CE!That was the only conclusion I could come up with too. But you never know, he believes people used to live 900 years, 4000 probably isn't that much of a stretch for him. ;)

[WishboneDawn]

What do you think of this claim of his


"The public conduct of my fellow atheists was so lacking in sobriety and gravity that I began to wonder why, if we atheists had a hammerlock on truth, so much of what we said was pointless or naive. I remember listening to a fellow atheist telling me how wonderful the world would be once religion was swept into the dustbin of history, and I realized the chap knew nothing about history. If atheism solved all human woe, then the Soviet Union would have been an empire of joy and dancing bunnies, instead of the land of corpses.

I would listen to my fellow atheists, and they would sound as innocent of any notion of what real human life was like as the Man from Mars who has never met human beings or even heard clear rumors of them. Then I would read something written by Christian men of letters, Tolkien, Lewis, or G.K. Chesterton, and see a solid understanding of the joys and woes of human life. They were mature men.

I would look at the rigorous logic of St. Thomas Aquinas, the complexity and thoroughness of his reasoning, and compare that to the scattered and mentally incoherent sentimentality of some poseur like Nietzsche or Sartre. I can tell the difference between a rigorous argument and shrill psychological flatulence. I can see the difference between a dwarf and a giant."

See, if he converted and it fulfills him, bully for him but why on earth does that have to mean he's now gunning for atheists? If the decision leaves him feeling content, why the need for those comments?

I'm convinced a lot of people convert and/or deconvert but all it does is shift where they direct their anger and doesn't change anything fundamental about their reasoning or thinking. They just need to be on the 'right' side or the side they think has all the answers. He sounds like one of those.

[Gooch's dad]

Well put, Wishbone Dawn, and I agree.

[Queen of Swords]

" I can see the difference between a dwarf and a giant."

And I can see the difference between a person who's happy and secure and someone who has a lot of pent-up hostility emerging in a passive-aggressive, pseudo-intellectual rant.

[moonwatcher]

Does anyone here know anything about John C.Wright. He is an American Sci-Fi author who converted to Christianity at age 42 :eek: . You can read about it on the comments on this page.
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/003183.html
Anyone have any thoughts on this.


That's me, going under the name Stargazer, who asked the question of how his religion would affect his future books, in the comments to that review of Wright's book. No one was more surprised than me that he actually saw and responded personally to my comment. There followed a lengthy series of email exchanges between us after that discussing the issue of religious conversion and deconversion.

He's a smart guy (though he comes off a bit arrogant and cocky). The Golden Age Trilogy is excellent. It's among my favorite recent SF books and I highly recommend it. I haven't read any of his other books yet. I'm sure I will before long.

In the discussion we had, he makes a standard argument from religious experience. It makes one wonder. If you had a religious vision/hallucination following a medical emergency where you were near death, could you hold on to your ability to view the experience rationally and objectively or would you give in to the deep feeling of comfort it provides? I would hope I'd do the former---but who knows; I've never been in that situation.

Either way, Wright employs the same sort of weak arguments we've all heard from apologists. What he actually converted TO, though, is still pretty unclear. His wife is a member of the Christian Science church---a pretty unconventional form of christianity. I never could get him to give a clear explanation of what he now believes. Some of his comments implied a pretty conventional christianity and others almost sounded New Age.

He has a blog if any are interested in looking into his comments. He frequently discusses religion on it. I just recently found it and haven't gone into the archive yet to see past posts.

John C. Wright's Journal (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/)

[Revolutionary]

He had no reason to believe until he received special supernatural revelation,but he's willing to consign everyone else who hasn't received this to eternal fire?

I don't get the Chesterton thing. He's supposed to be so wonderful according to a thousand different Catholic sources, but I wasn't impressed at all. Aquinas is too dense to even discuss.

[moonwatcher]

He had no reason to believe until he received special supernatural revelation,but he's willing to consign everyone else who hasn't received this to eternal fire?

I don't get the Chesterton thing. He's supposed to be so wonderful according to a thousand different Catholic sources, but I wasn't impressed at all. Aquinas is too dense to even discuss.


In my discussion with him I dont recall him saying what his views on hell are. I do seem to recall him saying that nonchristians could be saved but I'd have to reread the emails to be sure. Its been quite a while ago. We shouldn't assume he believes in hell unless you know of somewhere that he specifically says so. Not all christians do. He might be an annihilationist or even a universalist for all we know.

As to chesterton, I agree (same with Lewis). Wright seems to have come to accept some pretty poor apologetic reasoning since his conversion. Aquinas is better.....but only in the sense of being more sophisticated in his sophistries. His arguments are equally bad.

[Donkeykong]

he did mention hell in this quote


From that time to this, I have had prayers answered and seen miracles: each individually could be explained away as a coincidence by a skeptic, but not taken as a whole. From that time to this, I continue to be aware of the Holy Spirit within me, like feeling a heartbeat. It is a primary impression coming not through the medium of the senses: an intuitive axiom, like the knowledge of one's own self-being.

This, then, is the final answer to your question: it would not be rational for me to doubt something of which I am aware on a primary and fundamental level.

Occam's razor cuts out hallucination or dream as a likely explanation for my experiences. In order to fit these experiences into an atheist framework, I would have to resort to endless ad hoc explanations: this lacks the elegance of geometers and parsimony of philosophers.

I would also have to assume all the great thinkers of history were fools. While I was perfectly content to support this belief back in my atheist days, this is a flattering conceit difficult to maintain seriously.

On a pragmatic level, I am somewhat more useful to my fellow man than before, and certainly more charitable. If it is a daydream, why wake me up? My neighbors will not thank you if I stop believing in the mystical brotherhood of man.

Besides, the atheist non-god is not going to send me to non-hell for my lapse of non-faith if it should turn out that I am mistaken.

[moonwatcher]

I took that as a tongue in cheek joke. Nothing more.

Without something more substantial I don't think we have good reason to assume we know what his position is on the doctrine of Hell.

[Donkeykong]

I took that as a tongue in cheek joke. Nothing more.

Without something more substantial I don't think we have good reason to assume we know what his position is on the doctrine of Hell.

What do you think about the rest of the quote?

[Deadbeat]

Occam's razor cuts out hallucination or dream as a likely explanation for my experiences. In order to fit these experiences into an atheist framework, I would have to resort to endless ad hoc explanations: this lacks the elegance of geometers and parsimony of philosophers.

I seriously think this guy is holding the wrong end of the razor... ADDING an additional element, such as an invisible sky fairy, is exactly the sort of thing using Occam's Razor is supposed to prevent. A hallucination or dream is a much simpler explanation than an all-powerful personal deity that decided to give this guy a heart attack just so he wouldn't have to spend eternity in a lake of fire.

Besides, the atheist non-god is not going to send me to non-hell for my lapse of non-faith if it should turn out that I am mistaken.

Pascal's Wager? Seriously?

And he calls himself a reasoned intellectual?

[moonwatcher]

What do you think about the rest of the quote?

I'll take it point by point:

From that time to this, I have had prayers answered and seen miracles: each individually could be explained away as a coincidence by a skeptic, but not taken as a whole.

Typical vague assertion. Specifics would have been nice.

From that time to this, I continue to be aware of the Holy Spirit within me, like feeling a heartbeat. It is a primary impression coming not through the medium of the senses: an intuitive axiom, like the knowledge of one's own self-being.

Typical assertion of direct experience of God---not even considering the quite reasonable possibility that such experiences are phantoms of the believers own imagination. Especially considering, as I mentioned to him in my email exchange, the quite different beliefs different believers feel are being revealed to them through this supernatural source.

This, then, is the final answer to your question: it would not be rational for me to doubt something of which I am aware on a primary and fundamental level.

Utter nonsense.....feeling one is in contact with a supernatural entity is not good reason to be convinced they really are (even for themselves) unless that entity can reveal things to them that they didnt know and could be verified as true by mundane methods.

If I began hearing voices claiming to be telepathic communications from psychically advanced aliens in the Andromeda Galaxy I would only take it as true if they could reveal things which I could verify later so I would know the entire thing wasnt a product of my imagination alone.....one should do the same in the case of a God.....if one is thinking objectively about the experience.

Occam's razor cuts out hallucination or dream as a likely explanation for my experiences. In order to fit these experiences into an atheist framework, I would have to resort to endless ad hoc explanations: this lacks the elegance of geometers and parsimony of philosophers.

What ad hoc explanations would be necessary? His experience, from what he describes of it, fits neatly into the hallucination/dream/imagination category.

I would also have to assume all the great thinkers of history were fools.

No, merely that they were capable of error.

On a pragmatic level, I am somewhat more useful to my fellow man than before, and certainly more charitable. If it is a daydream, why wake me up? My neighbors will not thank you if I stop believing in the mystical brotherhood of man.

One need not abandon ones sense of brotherhood with man simply because one doesnt believe in God. I find myself actually more charitable since leaving my supernaturalist worldview behind---without no supernatural source of aid we have only each other to rely on.

[Alludium Fozdex]

That is a strange and private matter.
This is the very same lame-assed dodge I've gotten whenever I've tried to nail somebody down on details of an alleged supernatural experience.

:banghead:

[HaysooChreesto!]

Bomp-bomp-bomp... another one bites the dust.

It always sucks to lose one back to the bad guys, especially when we're already so outnumbered. At least this dude is more cerebral than Kirk Cameron's seemingly endless parade of shennanigans that have caused so many eyesballs to roll in their sockets.

The one thing he did say though, that made a little sense to me, was that he was disappointed in so many atheists who seemed to not know what human life is about. I've encountered this kind of thing in IIDB too many times to count; where things like love are demeaned or attempts are made to put such things into cold and disheartening biological terms. Sorry, but that's no fun... to put it mildly.

At any rate, let's just hope this guy doesn't start showing up on the 700 Club to be used as the newest poster child for Godless Heathen brought to salvation through the soft sweet bosoms of Jesus.

[moonwatcher]

This thread motivated me to look through Wrights online journal and I found the post shortly after his conversion where he announces what happened:

Total Conversion
I have had a religious conversion. It happened during my heart attack and consequent hospital stay. Do not worry about my physical health: I am doing very well indeed, thank you, and I regard the physical damage to my body to be temporary and unreal.

I am no longer an atheist: instead, I am now a worshiper and servant of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. I hope that my Jewish or Islamic friends will pray for me if we happen to disagree on the question of whether or not Jesus is the Son of God. We are all still on the same team, after all, followers of the same Almighty Lord. May He forgive the disputes of His children with each other!

I hope my pagan friends will think favorably of me in their rituals and spells, and bless me; the divine spirits or angels whom they praise in their rites are God's creatures also, and it may be His plan to lead some of his children from types and images to truth by gentle steps. Since I now believe in miracles, it would ill behoove me to scorn those who believe in magic.

I hope my atheist friends will continue to think kindly of me: I mean no insult to your doctrines. It was for no intellectual reason that I rejected them, it would be closer to the truth to say that a contrary teaching, which I had falsely thought to be merely one doctrine among many, turned out to be a living thing, like a Word sprung to life, which came to me in my hour of need and possessed me.

And I hope my Christian friends will pray for me. More is accomplished by prayer than men can guess: it is to the gentle prayers of friends that I owe my life. I doubt I could have come out of surgery so filled with health and good spirits had not angels, called by those prayers, rushed down from heaven to protect me.

I was drowning in deep waters, and was pulled ashore; I was surrounded by many waters, drowning, and was lifted up to safety. I will never cease to praise my savior.

If any of the readers of my journal has any questions for me concerning the thoughts or experiences accompanying this change, or want to know the motives or reasons impelling it, you may write me at john-c-wright@sff.net, and I will write a personal reply. It is not a fit topic to discuss in public, however.

http://johncwright.livejournal.com/?skip=140

At least he seemed to converted to a pretty liberal form of christianity rather than some sort of fundamentalist mentality.

[moonwatcher]

I'm currently looking through his posts in the journal prior to his conversion. Only just beginning to do so but its proving very interesting.

[MadPhatCat]

I hope my atheist friends will continue to think kindly of me: I mean no insult to your doctrines. It was for no intellectual reason that I rejected them

Guess we can lock the thread now. :p

[Pendaric]

<M&PC to PA&SA>

[Donkeykong]

This thread motivated me to look through Wrights online journal and I found the post shortly after his conversion where he announces what happened:



http://johncwright.livejournal.com/?skip=140

At least he seemed to converted to a pretty liberal form of christianity rather than some sort of fundamentalist mentality.

What he said seems rather condescending to me

[Donkeykong]

Just looked at his site and found this quote "My son survived the Holocaust
Once upon a time, I was agnostic on the issue of abortion. Being a very logical and cautious thinker, I thought, that the premise of the proabortionist (that the fetus is a clump of cells, not human) and the premise of the antiabortionist (that the baby should be treated like a human being even if his humanity is still in question, just to err on the side of morality) had no common ground that could be used for discussion. If there was no logical common ground, I thought the issue was beyond the power of the reason to settle rationally.

Then I had a kid. Thanks to modern sonic photography, I saw my son Orville in my wife's womb. He was still within the first trimester. He was playing with his toes.

It was as if I had been struck by a lightning bolt. Dear God, how I felt cheated. I had been, all this time, giving the generous benefit of the doubt to a pack of bloody child-murderers.

Imagine a man who had never met a Negro listening to a Southern Planter and an Abolitionist arguing about whether the Darkie had rights, or was just property. Then the man meets, let us say, Frederick Douglass or Thomas Sowell, a black man smarter than he is. Wouldn't that man feel his innocence had been abused by the Planter? You told me there was a reasonable doubt as to whether this man here is human. Sir, he is more human than you. He does not advocate enslaving his fellows.

So is my anger toward the red-handed child-murderers. Sir, children are innocent, and no unborn little babe has ever urged his fellow man to murder. You, on the other hand, are on the same moral level as the Aztec. ":eek: :eek: :eek:

He does not seem very liberal to me

[Queen of Swords]

I would also have to assume all the great thinkers of history were fools.

All the great thinkers of history believed in a god (and not just any god but the christian one)? Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Karl Marx - they were all christians?

[moonwatcher]

What he said seems rather condescending to me


As I said, he has an arrogant, cocky tone. It comes across in almost everything he says. He seemed to be an arrogant, cocksure atheist who converted to an arrogant cocksure christian.

Oh well, at least he writes interesting novels---even if I wouldnt care to have him over for dinner.

[rationalOne]

See, if he converted and it fulfills him, bully for him but why on earth does that have to mean he's now gunning for atheists? If the decision leaves him feeling content, why the need for those comments?That's a very good question to ask him, although I suppose it's for the same reason that an atheist deconvert would be critical of his/her former religion.

It's interesting that on his LiveJournal profile (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/profile), he lists atheism and ayn rand as interests, but there is no direct mention of christianity. (He does include apologist G. K. Chesterton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton))

[rationalOne]

"If atheism solved all human woe, then the Soviet Union would have been an empire of joy and dancing bunnies, instead of the land of corpses."That's bull. Communism is just one subset of atheist philosophies.

Equating all atheists with the Communist atrocities just like equating all theists with the Taliban.

[moonwatcher]

That's bull. Communism is just one subset of atheist philosophies.

Equating all atheists with the Communist atrocities just like equating all theists with the Taliban.

Yes, he seems surprisingly willing to attack strawmen despite being someone who was recently an atheist himself and therefore should know thats exactly what he's doing. You can somewhat forgive it in people who's only image of atheists is the demonization of them they heard from their pastor.....in a former atheist it smacks of dishonesty.

[Gooch's dad]

He didn't equate all atheists with communists. His point was actually valid--if lack of religious belief is supposed to lead to a better world, as some atheists suppose, then the atrocities of communism show that supposition to be false.

I do tend to think that life in Europe or New Zealand would be better than life in the U.S., solely because of the increasing influence of fundamentalist Christianity in America. So there are some kinds of nonreligious societies that I think would be much better than American society. But I don't pretend that simply getting rid of religion will lead to societal bliss.

[Stacey Melissa]

Moving to GRD ->

Stacey Melissa
PA&SA Moderator

[moonwatcher]

He didn't equate all atheists with communists. His point was actually valid--if lack of religious belief is supposed to lead to a better world, as some atheists suppose, then the atrocities of communism show that supposition to be false.

I do tend to think that life in Europe or New Zealand would be better than life in the U.S., solely because of the increasing influence of fundamentalist Christianity in America. So there are some kinds of nonreligious societies that I think would be much better than American society. But I don't pretend that simply getting rid of religion will lead to societal bliss.


His point was actually valid--if lack of religious belief is supposed to lead to a better world, as some atheists suppose, then the atrocities of communism show that supposition to be false.

Only the most utterly naive atheists make that claim.

What a sensible atheist would say is that rational thinking tends to improve our world and that skepticism regarding theism is simply a consequence of rational thinking on the issue. Communism hardly constitutes an outbreak of rational thought (though its underlying original motivator---to free the average working family from the oppression of the wealthy; a real problem in that time---was humane and reasonable).

One can replace theism and supernaturalism with any number of secular absurdities which will have devastating effect on society if implemented widely.

[Clivedurdle]

I had a heart attack and was near death

Excellent! Scientists have now shown nde's to be a form of rem sleep whilst awake and in crisis that lead to wondrous dreams and terrifying nightmares.

Another gap that god can't fit in! No miraculous revelations there, just a brain in crisis!

[moonwatcher]

Excellent! Scientists have now shown nde's to be a form of rem sleep whilst awake and in crisis that lead to wondrous dreams and terrifying nightmares.

Another gap that god can't fit in! No miraculous revelations there, just a brain in crisis!


Yes, it sounds as if he's referring to an NDE. But in our email exchanges he explained that he had "visions" on three separate occasions during his recovery from the surgery. He was not clinically dead during these visions (hallucinations would probably be the better word). He did not go into specifics about them however. He was quite reticent on that (I suspect he wants to save it for a nonfiction work of apologetics; especially since he admitted he's considering writing such a book). It could very well be a best seller considering the dramatic personal story.....we may be witnessing the next Strobel emerging.....what a joy:banghead:

[blkgayatheist]

He doesn't appear to be too obscure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Wright

Here's an interview where he discusses his conversion:



*yawn* So apparently he's had some experience that has ruled out any doubts in his mind (in a near death incident unsurprisingly), and so naturally all us atheists who have not had such an experience are doomed to doubt. Of course, the possibility that his experience was just caused by a crisis situation and is not revelation from the almighty, has never crossed his mind.

He even sees 'irreligiousness' as a poor quality! If he was a less good person as an atheist that's his business, but I don't see why he has to brand all other atheists as monsters!

Is there any evidence from the time period that he was supposedly an atheist? he said he was a proselytizing atheist, did he write any articles? did he appear in any publications? Im always dubious of these "I used to be an atheist" claims.

I used to be a Christian...and there are people who can testify to that.

[Donkeykong]

It could very well be a best seller considering the dramatic personal story.....we may be witnessing the next Strobel emerging.....what a joy:banghead:

Sounds like the next Howard Storm

[Morgana]

It's funny.

When a Christian deconverts and becomes an atheist, they usually describe their pre-deconversion selves as good, honest, faithful people, just like an ordinary Christian would. They also generally claim not to have changed much as people, just minus a bit of baggage.

When an atheist converts, they describe their pre-conversion selves as rabid, militant, hating god, immoral, drug-abusing and all kinds of other over-the-top junk, totally different from their self-described post-conversion selves.

Is it the case that only emotionally and socially non-functional atheists actually convert to Christianity or are those the only ones we hear about?

[moonwatcher]

Is there any evidence from the time period that he was supposedly an atheist? he said he was a proselytizing atheist, did he write any articles? did he appear in any publications? Im always dubious of these "I used to be an atheist" claims.

I used to be a Christian...and there are people who can testify to that.

Yes, I am dubious of them as well and wondered whether it was true or not. But I think he probably was. He speaks as an atheist prior to the heart attack on his live journal (but it only started about the time his first book was published; if one is extremely cynical one might question that it was just an attempt to get some "credentials" as an atheist so he could point to them later when people asked your question).

I tend to think that he is honest in his claim of having been an atheist. Certainly THE GOLDEN AGE TRILOGY is a book with a thoroughly naturalistic worldview---even if heavily drawing on mythology. It deals with transhumanist themes and you'd be damn hard pressed to find a transhumanist who's also a theist.

No, I think he really was an atheist. But, no, there is nothing much to indicate this other than the tone of his first novel. He was an unknown prior to that.

I

[OldYgg]

I'm an avid science fiction reader - and I've never heard of this guy. That may or may not mean anything in specific, I don't know.

Anyway, in science fiction - in writing in particular and the world cons - you find that there is a temporary atheist/agnostic/secular humanist stronghold. It is one of the rare occasions that there is what I would consider an atheist community. So, he was a writer, I wonder if he'd gone to these conventions - and been in an actual non-theistic community? Most authors that are serious about it would have gone to the WorldCon conventions to promote their books, and themselves.

So, I guess he's turning his back on that - as he had a good dream and almost died.

Anyway, does anyone have links to the NDO research that indicates it is basically a bodily function?


Old Ygg

[The Other Michael]

I looked up a list of his books. I think I started that "Last Guardian of Everness" and gave it up as hopeless after about 60 pages.

I guess it goes to show that being an atheist and a really good science fiction/fantasy author don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Christopher Stasheff started off very well with the "Gramarye" series, but sure dragged them (and his other series) down with a lot of Catholic moralizing and musing.

cheers,
Michael

[ELECTROGOD]

I hope my atheist friends will continue to think kindly of me: I mean no insult to your doctrines. It was for no intellectual reason that I rejected them,
Huh....so when he was an atheist he followed doctrines? I wonder what those were.

[The Other Michael]

It sounds like you weren't paying attention in Atheist catechism class. I guess that's another black mark in your personnel folder.

cheers,
Michael

[Merzbow42]

But has anyone actually read his work? Is it any good? Whether he's an atheist or not can take a toss if the books are worth reading.

--W@L

John C. Wright is a monster fucking genius. His Golden Age trilogy is an awesome work of crazy creative cyberpunk space opera. And this is coming from a sci-fi snob who has probably read something from every author out there. It is that good; I've never read anything that had more cool ideas per page than these books.

Sad thather converted, but oh well. I don't hold authors' personal beliefs against them as long as they don't let it bleed through into their work.

[moonwatcher]

I looked up a list of his books. I think I started that "Last Guardian of Everness" and gave it up as hopeless after about 60 pages.



I dont know about his fantasy. The only thing I've read is his SF work: The Golden Age Trilogy.

I absolutely loved it. Give it a try. Maybe your tastes are different from mine but I suspect most SF lovers will be very impressed by it. Its truly a masterwork of transhumanist SF (and if you are an SF lover but don't know the term "transhumanism".....then shame on you. Go to wikipedia and look it up).

[RussianM3_dude]

What do you think of this claim of his


"I remember listening to a fellow atheist telling me how wonderful the world would be once religion was swept into the dustbin of history, and I realized the chap knew nothing about history. If atheism solved all human woe, then the Soviet Union would have been an empire of joy and dancing bunnies, instead of the land of corpses.





Life in the Soviet Union was still a damn sight better then it a Catholic Utopia of Latin America. Except for the Stalins purges (which only lasted a few years and mostly tageted OTHER communists) and WW2 which was started by a Catholic, life in Soviet Union was not that bad. People just don't realise that. OK not as good as atheist Europe, but better then Religious Third World.

[rationalOne]

http://johncwright.livejournal.com/?skip=140
From the comments page: (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/10487.html)I pulled through better than OK, thanks to the prayers of friends and well-wishers.Maybe he should give thanks to the skill of the doctors? Perhaps he just has a relatively healthy constitution?

He claims to be "scientific", yet how can he verify that the source of his recovery is prayer?

[rationalOne]

At least he seemed to converted to a pretty liberal form of christianity rather than some sort of fundamentalist mentality.Unfortunately, no. From Mechanical arguments to explain man (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/11376.html):I remember the day and hour when I, a perfectly tolerant libertarian, rejected (with revulsion) the notion of gay marriage, and, in so doing, was logically required to reject toleration for homosexuality. It was March 05, 2002, at 10:00 in the evening. I was watching a television show where two lesbians were helping a bride get ready for her wedding....

While I was (hitherto) willing to accept the libertarian argument that perverts should be left alone to practice their perversions, so long as they harm none but themselves, the liberal argument that true love is perversion and perversion is true love was so shocking to me that I was thunderstruck to the core of my being.
He's not just a run-of-the-mill Christian, he's a flaming-asshole Christian.

In his recent entry of 10/13/2006 (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/44263.html), he comes gunning for atheists again:
Having been converted against my will to the Sunny Side of the Force, the atheists who speak in public now sound like moral retards. They talk as if human life has no value.

I said moral, not mental. Moral retards are often bright and well spoken. But the same way a brain-damaged child simply cannot perform the basic mental functions of speech and reason is said to be mentally retarded, a man whose conscience cannot reach the most obvious, practical and necessary conclusions of moral law is morally retarded.

Moral retardation can be detected when man's conscience is not telling him the moral information he needs to live his day-to-day life. If your conscience tells you human life is no more valuable than that of a cat or pig, then, logically, you should be able to castrate your son with no more moral ramifications than gelding your tomcat, or likewise cut up your wife for bacon. This is not a practical way to live. Can anyone make sense of that? Anyone out there cutting up their wives for bacon?

[Clivedurdle]

Light at the end of the tunnel
17 October 2006
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Douglas Fox



Joe no longer fears death. In fact the last time it happened he rather enjoyed the ride. First he was plunged into darkness, then came a bright light, a field of flowers, and a man in white who told him about his future. Later doctors informed him that his pulse had been flat for 44 seconds.

For Joe his near-death experience (NDE) was a very real preview of what is in store for him after death. Science has a different take: NDEs are real, but they have nothing to do with the afterlife. Instead, they are illusions created by a fading brain. But despite numerous attempts, no one has been able to scientifically explain all the elements of an NDE.

Now one researcher thinks he can. For Kevin Nelson, a neurophysiologist at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, NDEs may be little more than dream-like states brought on by stress and a predisposition to a common kind of sleep disorder. If he's right, as many as 40 per cent of us could be primed to see the light.

Written accounts of NDEs go back more than two thousand years and have been reported all over the world. Most include a "point of no return" that if crossed will lead to death, and a person who turns you away from it. The identity of the person seems to depend on your religion. Christians, for example, often meet Jesus or a dead relative while Hindus may see Yamraj, god of the dead.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19225731.300-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel.html

[Queen of Swords]

Anyone out there cutting up their wives for bacon?

I seem to recall someone on this forum saying he would kill his wife if he believed his god wanted him to do so. He wasn't an atheist, though - far from it.

[Donkeykong]

I don't care if this guy is the best sci-fi/fantasy writer of all time. Given his comments I will never give this DONKEY HOLE one cent of my money by buying any of his books!:mad:

[moonwatcher]

Unfortunately, no. From Mechanical arguments to explain man (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/11376.html):He's not just a run-of-the-mill Christian, he's a flaming-asshole Christian.

In his recent entry of 10/13/2006 (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/44263.html), he comes gunning for atheists again:
Can anyone make sense of that? Anyone out there cutting up their wives for bacon?

Yes, he seems to have been thinking of becoming christian long before his religious experience (he told me he had been becoming more sympathetic to many christian views long before his conversion). Plus, his wife was a christian (even if from a loony fringe form of christianity) so its hard to imagine she wasn't interested in converting him.

As to that journal post on atheist views on the value of human life, its simply absurd. The New Scientist article he quotes doesn't even relate to the topic. It simply indicates humanities tininess and frailty within the cosmos.....which is simply a fact......thats not a claim that humanity is of no value. Its simply something written in the comments section which makes the sorts of claim he's referring to (and even it isnt as extreme as he's making it out to be).

Its amazing how bright people will employ absurd arguments with a straight face when they are committed to a position for strong emotional reasons.

[moonwatcher]

I don't care if this guy is the best sci-fi/fantasy writer of all time. Given his comments I will never give this DONKEY HOLE one cent of my money by buying any of his books!:mad:

I can't really fault you for that. Its reading such comments by him thats probably kept me from ordering any of his other books that are out now. I'll still probably get some of them eventually. I try to keep in mind that a good work of art can be appreciated for its merits even if created by a jerk.....but Wright makes it pretty difficult.

[Donkeykong]

It is people like him that make me wary of being friends with Straight people. How do I know that they won't come to a new understanding of some abstract moral point or have a religious conversion and turn on me!

[moonwatcher]

It is people like him that make me wary of being friends with Straight people. How do I know that they won't come to a new understanding of some abstract moral point or have a religious conversion and turn on me!


I just read Wright's post on his "epiphany" concerning homosexuality.

Wow! The more I learn about this man the more he disgusts me. I doubt I'll read anything else by him at this point. Even if he is a skilled storyteller---that sort of bigotry is just too much---I won't be able to read his stories without having the memory of those sorts of comments ruining it for me.

[Doug Shaver]

His point was actually valid--if lack of religious belief is supposed to lead to a better world, as some atheists suppose, then the atrocities of communism show that supposition to be false.
Well, yes, some atheists do suppose that, and yes, history has proved them wrong. But so what?

Given the context, he was clearly offering it as an argument against atheism. It is nothing of the sort. It is an argument against a political system that some atheists happened to find attractive.