Posted on 03/16/2009 1:24:55 PM PDT by NYer
‘Unshakable’ Rationalist Blogged Her Way Into the Church
Jennifer Fulwiler “always thought it was obvious that God did not exist.”
Fulwiler grew up a content atheist. Having a profound respect for knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge, Fulwiler was convinced that religion and reason were incompatible. Not surprisingly, she was also emphatically anti-Christian and, especially, anti-Catholic. “Catholic beliefs seemed bizarre and weird,” she says.
Fulwiler would have been astonished to know that she and Joe Fulwiler, her husband, would come to embrace those “bizarre,” “weird” beliefs. On Easter 2007, they entered the Catholic Church with deep joy and a sense of coming home — and a blog aided their conversion.
Register correspondent Nona Aguilar spoke to Jennifer Fulwiler about the couple’s unexpected journey.
There is always a first step that leads to belief in God. What was yours?
Thanks to meeting and knowing my husband, I learned that belief in God is not fundamentally unreasonable. We met at the high-tech company where we both worked. Joe believed in God — something that, fortunately, I didn’t know for a while.
Why was that fortunate?
To me, belief in God was so unreasonable that, by definition, no reasonable person could believe in such a thing. I felt I could never be compatible with someone that unreasonable. Had I known that Joe believed in God, I would never have dated him.
What was your reaction when you found out?
It gave me pause. Joe is too smart — brilliant, really, with degrees from Yale, Columbia and Stanford — to believe in something nonsensical. I also met many of his friends. They, too, are highly intelligent — some with M.D.s and Ph.D.s from schools like Harvard and Princeton — and believed.
None of this made me believe in God, of course, but I could no longer say that only unreasonable or unintelligent people believe.
What caused you to consider the question more seriously?
I have always been a truth-seeker, which is why I was an atheist. But I had a prideful, arrogant way of approaching questions about life and meaning. I now realize that pride is the most effective way to block out God so that one doesn’t see him at all. Certainly, I didn’t.
The birth of our first child motivated me to seek the truth with humility. I can’t emphasize this point enough: Humility, true humility, is crucial to the conversion process.
Most atheists are unchanged after their children’s births. Why were you so affected?
First, I had already begun thinking about the possibility of God’s existence. After our son’s birth, I wanted to know the truth about life’s great questions — for his sake. For the first time, I was motivated to seek truth with true humility. For example, I began reading, studying, and thinking about the great minds. Most, if not the majority, believed in some other world, some higher power, a god or gods — something. Even the great pre-Christian thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates believed.
Another avenue of exploration: I always revered the great scientists, including the founders of the significant branches of science. Very few were atheists. Indeed, some of the greatest were profoundly believing Christians.
It could be argued this was because they were steeped in the Christian culture and beliefs of their times.
That ignores a larger question I began asking myself: Is it really likely that great minds like Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Descartes and others didn’t know how to ask tough questions? Do these people seem to be men who didn’t know how to question assumptions and fearlessly seek truth? Of course not.
Was your husband a help in this process?
Eventually, but not at first. Religion wasn’t something we talked about. Joe was a non-churchgoing Baptist, which was fine by me. In fact, since I was an atheist, I considered not talking about God to be a good compromise. Our lives were completely secular — just like our wedding.
No church wedding?
Definitely not! I wore a purple dress; we married in a theater with a friend officiating, using vows we wrote ourselves. The ceremony took seven minutes, then we all partied all night long. In fact, we didn’t even technically get married at our wedding: We did that at city hall a few days before.
Was there ever an aha moment that finally made you abandon atheism?
Several, but one in particular actually shocked me.
I asked myself two questions: What is information? And: Can information ever come from a non-intelligent source?
It was a shocking moment for me because I had to confront the fact that DNA is information. If I remained an atheist, I would have to believe that all the intricate, detailed, complex information contained in DNA comes out of nowhere and nothing.
But I also knew that idea did not make sense. After all, I don’t look at billboards — which contain much simpler information than DNA — and think that wind and erosion created them. That wouldn’t be rational. Suddenly, I found that I was a very discomfited atheist.
Is that the point at which you began to believe in God?
No. But now I was a reluctant atheist. I had lots of questions but knew no one who might have answers: I had always consciously, deliberately distanced myself from believers. So, coming from the high-tech world, where did I go for answers? I put up a blog, of course! I started posting tough questions on my blog.
One matter stood out from the beginning: The best, most thoughtful responses came from Catholics. Incidentally, their answers were consistently better than the ones from atheists. It intrigued me that Catholics could handle anything I threw at them. Also, their responses reflected such an eminently reasonable worldview that I kept asking myself: How is it that Catholics have so much of this all figured out?
Was your husband helpful to you at this point?
As I started telling Joe some of the answers that I was getting, especially from Catholics, his own interest in religion — and Catholicism — was piqued. We have always been a great team, so it was wonderful that we were exploring these issues and questions together, especially since we were so anti-Catholic.
Both of you?
Yes. I thought the Church’s views on most things, but especially marriage, contraception and abortion (since I was then ardently pro-choice), were simply crazy. Joe’s anti-Catholicism, while different, was stronger and more settled. He didn’t understand any Catholic doctrine or apologetics, so he fell into a stereotyped view of Catholics, thinking that they made idols of the pope and Mary, etc. Also, it never really occurred to him to take seriously the idea that Jesus founded one Church. He just assumed the way to pick a church is to find one that fits your personality.
Your conversion has impacted your daily life. What change, in particular, stands out in your mind?
Community! There is nothing like it in atheism. I never understood what people meant by members of the Church being part of the body of Christ, but now I really get it. By being part of the one, holy Catholic Church, there is a palpable connection I now have with other Catholics, even people I don’t know. It’s been amazing to experience that connection and community.
The Catholic Protestant facet of the Troubles is not an 'element', but a root cause; THE cause in fact that led to every other element of the conflict.
Without Catholics fighting Protestants, and vice versa, there is no conflict.
Great Britain was a Catholic bastion and an ally of not only France but the Vatican at the time? Wow! Was basically a mixture of religious as well as acquiring/preventing of strategic land masses (By Russia).
It was a war for control and sovereignty over the Holy Land; a religious war between Eastern Orthodox and the Western Christian powers.
Wars between countries over religion died down but Europe after 1648 was hardly secular.
They became more secular. I didn't imply an instant shift, but a gradual secularization between then and the late 20th century. It's undeniable.
No, forward-deployed weapons that could annihilate cities with one shot is what keeps “the peace” and prevents serious hot wars from occurring
I'll take the 'No' as an agreement.
They just filled the void from a population which turned their backs on God.
Sure, and it was an easy transition; it's very simple to morph religious authoritarianism to secular authoritarianism. It's still authoritarianism.
Find a society based on the ideals of those in that latter half of the sentence, and tell me which one has slouched into poverty, repression, and dictatorship.
Don't look long because you won't find one.
Umm, tell that to the un-spirtual “Catholics” (Ever been to Northern Ireland) who want the English GOVERNMENT out.
“It was a war for control and sovereignty over the Holy Land; a religious war between Eastern Orthodox and the Western Christian powers.”
Bwahahahaaa... That is how it started “bubbling” but wait.... why did Great Britain “join” the Vatican/France. What RELIGION did Great Britain promote? It certainly was not Anglican as their intentions were FAR from “religion”.
“I didn't imply an instant shift, but a gradual secularization between then and the late 20th century.”
Right, after Nazism/Communism. 300+ years with the Great Awakening thrown in was a loonnnnggggg time between a COUPLE of aggressive atheistic States. Good grief.
“I'll take the ‘No’ as an agreement.”
Jesus said it was not going to be perfect. Just because someone fancies a belief in God does not immune oneself from temptations of desire, covet, power, lack of self-control etc... Also, humans have never used Christ name in vain by their actions./s Pretty easy to spot the frauds if you are “filled” with Holy Spirit (Which a lot a people claim to be).
“Sure, and it was an easy transition; it's very simple to morph religious authoritarianism to secular authoritarianism. It's still authoritarianism.”
Which is why countries that experiment in personnel liberty (Not talking about genitals) often lose sight of the God given free will which the powers that be do not respect. United States had a good run, too bad it is fading. You seem to imply the teachings of Christ to some earthly institution, big mistake.
“Find a society based on the ideals of those in that latter half of the sentence, and tell me which one has slouched into poverty, repression, and dictatorship.”
So it's “religions” fault for secular authoritarianism, is that what you are implying. I got it, lol. Gee, the Greeks never let religion (Although they had rites, religion was not an important player in politics in most poleis) get in the way of their city States, Romans to some extent who Greece was easy pickings, whole host of African societies, Persia namely Iran before Islam and in between Islam, United States is falling fast, better watch out, etc...
I am still trying to find pure “secular societies” (Whose populous is mostly agnostic) that last, the work ethic involved is pretty nonexistent.
So she made a major life decision based on grotesquely stupid creationist talking points. Awesome. You guys can have this one, we don't want her.
Question: Can you make something from nothing?
One thing I have noticed is that ardent evolutionists have not investigated their own philosophy.
Let's take a much simpler approach. Say a silver chain was found on mars that was only 3 links long. It's obvious that it didn't come there by "natural causes", but an evolutionist would tell you that a living bacterium (significantly different from Earth bacteria) a million times more complex is obviously there by natural causes. The reason is because the chain must go through the steps of purification, molding, and linking to come about, which are human actions, but to the evolutionist, the natural process of organic chemistry is enough to produce a bacteria. Of course it is, because unlike the chain, the bacteria is capable of reproduction.
In this case, perpetuation of a population is a natural process, but bringing about the population in the first place? Well, even an evolutionist will say that you're not talking about evolution anymore. So then they have it both ways, evolution explains the origins of all modern life while sweeping the pesky details of ultimate origins under the abiogenesis rug. In fact, whatever was the initial "chain" of life for their creation story is no longer in existence and therefore can be speculated to be anything with an infinite number of improbable happenings creating it. So even if we have a theory of engineered origins that precisely separates the natural from the engineered, you have nothing to compare it against, because an evolutionist will argue that anything that can reproduce using organic chemistry could have ultimately been created by a natural chemical process.
Evolution is truly the enemy of scientific inquiry because it hides in unknowns. The less known about life and origins, the better for evolution. As more DNA is found to be necessary for an organism, as more discoveries are made about how complex the simplest reproducing life form must be, and as we find the limits of genetic algorithms in software, the closer we come to realizing that evolution and materialism is impossible.
bump
Bwahahahaaa... That is how it started “bubbling” but wait
So wait, are you laughing because I'm right? I'm a little confused.
It started as a religious conflict over Holy Land sovereinty. The fact that Anglican Britain joined France and the Vatican against Moscow does not change that it was a religious conflict. QED.
Which is why countries that experiment in personnel liberty (Not talking about genitals) often lose sight of the God given free will which the powers that be do not respect. United States had a good run, too bad it is fading. You seem to imply the teachings of Christ to some earthly institution, big mistake
I call your attention again to the non-theist personalities I used as examples. They didn't need God to believe in personal liberty and freedom.
So it's “religions” fault for secular authoritarianism, is that what you are implying. I got it, lol.
No, that's actually what you did to non-believers earlier when you listed murderous authoritarian governments as if all non-believers somehow have to answer for them. I believe in secular governments, which by their nature do not enforce religious intolerance. Stalin's Soviet Union, with his requirements of unending praise to the state and the dear leader, his miracles (Lysenkoism), and his Inquisition (the Gulags) was not secularism.
The Constitution of the United States and its government are secular. God and Christ are not mentioned anywhere in it, and the government is expressly forbidden from interfering in religious matters, establishing a church, and prohibiting anyone from practicing their beliefs. We're accountable to no church, priest, pope, or any other religious body, and should aim to keep it that way.
Please give precise definitions of: 'something', 'nothing', and explain exactly what 'make' means in this context.
Also, please explain why you responded to a criticism of a silly argument based on 'information' with a question about 'something from nothing'.
So your stated belief is that the ‘thousands more manhours of engineering’ are devoid of any information or knowledge?
Then we should be able to extract working diesel engines from iron ore veins so long as they’ve been exposed to sufficient pressure and heat, yes?
I was curious if she still maintains this blog and, if so, what’s the URL?
If you're defining a religious conflict narrowly and say that it only covers specific arguments over religious doctrine and practices, perhaps you needed to state that at the beginning. Using your methods of argument, one could say that the Thirty Years War wasn't all about religion either, and had other causes and roots.
I don't see any need to debate the Crimean War with you any longer. You've already admitted several posts back that the roots were religious, or in your words, that's "how it started “bubbling”". Case closed.
But Jefferson had no problem teaching with a Bible.
Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible that excluded everything supernatural and prophetic, and all passages that dealt with the Holy Trinity and Jesus' divinity. He clearly believed that Jesus' was a real person and had some worthy philosophical and moral teachings that were useful, but he obviously didn't feel that a supernatural belief in a theistic God was necessary to appreciate liberty.
True but how many State Constitutions directly mention God or imply God?
I'm not sure. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the word God isn't anywhere in the Constitution, and that the two most important facets of the document pertaining to religion are 1) the government cannot make any law that establishes religion and 2)that everyone is free to exercise religion without state interference.
How come Christianity was welcomed in the PUBLIC square until some oligarchy perverted Original intent and created some "establishment clause"?
The establishment clause was not 'created' by the courts and is not imaginary. It's very clear and simple.
What religious laws are we lacking that you'd like to get on the books?
Also why did you avoid all those secular societies that decayed from within because of well, secularism.
I've asked you to name them, and you haven't. Tell me which countries and societies you are talking about. How can I avoid something that doesn't exist?
I hope you're the only one to draw that conclusion. My point was exactly as you say; a diesel evolves thanks to physical forces guided by an intensive investment in information and intelligence. Physical force is never enough; it must always be intelligent work, work to a plan.
A plan can evolve, as circumstances change, but the change is in response to information. It requires intelligence, always. That was my intended point, whether it got across or not.
I thought of it more as a request for clarification. Thanks.
That was the part of the article that made me raise an eyebrow. I would re-phrase it as such:
What are the odds that there would be such exact conditions for the formation of primitive RNA, leading to DNA, and early cellular life.
That was the part of the article that made me raise an eyebrow. I would re-phrase it as such:
What are the odds that there would be such exact conditions for the formation of primitive RNA, leading to DNA, and early cellular life?
That’s right. Also, if you want to do PCR, you need a really expensive temperature changing machine and exact reagent concentrations. A difference of a few microliters of dNTPs or polymerase can really mess things up with small samples. You also need to include PH buffer to keep the molecule from breaking up.
This is a pretty clear indication of how nearly perfect the early Earth conditions had to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.