Not a terribly inviting invitation 
I don’t know that I’ve seen yours to model from.
I am not anti-theist, and I have never been anti-theist.
I was not indoctrinated into anything. There is no doctrine of atheism or agnosticism.
I was a Christian for a significant part of my life. But that was not indoctrination, either. I went into Christianity with my eyes open. I knew that I was placing trust in what I was being taught. And I took it as a personal responsibility to check it out. And I did check it out, with a lot of time reading Christian literature and scripture. And I eventually concluded that I could not believe it. So I left Christianity.
No indoctrination was involved in going in or in going out.
3 Likes
I’ve read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity as well as his The Great Divorce. Lewis is a gifted writer, and both books can be warmly recommended.
2 Likes
Would you be willing to try one of the others?
Actually, there is. A primary one is “Refuse to accept as evidence anything that suggests that there might be anything outside the physical realm of space, time, energy and matter.”
I might one day, when my reading backlog isn’t quite as daunting.
But mind you: I’ve lived in the house Lewis describes, trying to convince others to move in as well. I might not have read the other two books you mention, but I have read other books on Christian apologetics. I know the case they’re trying to make.
As a mathematician, I could never accept such a doctrine.
3 Likes
It isn’t so much a house to be in as who to belong to and a recognition of reality.
Atheists all the time refuse to accept big bang cosmology as such evidence.
Some do, some don’t. And maybe they don’t see big bang cosmology as outside of space and time.
1 Like
It more than suggests, though, that time itself had a beginning, and thus is definitely evidence of something outside of time. Of course it’s deniable, but that makes my point. (Oh yeah – it also more than suggests that space itself, all energy and matter had a beginning, too. 
)
Can you tell more?
Is this an identity thing or affirming certain beliefs/being affiliated to a church.
Or was it a deeper spiritual experience?
Again – late!
This seems to be a general difference between the theologian and the scientist. The philosopher will straddle both sides of the debate. The scientists tends, from my limited conversations, to be much more open to “harmony” in your sense one, while the theologian is much more interested in “harmony” according to your sense two. The philosopher, depending on if he/she leans more normative (e.g., early Wittgenstein) or descriptive (e.g., late-Wittgenstein) will waffle between the scientist and the theologian. One more reason why the people of Athens KILLED Socrates!
Philosophers seeking a deeper synthesis of science/religion, again whether synthetic or reductionist, have already committed to playing the game in a certain way. However, I think that recent work by Alister McGrath and @Josh_Reeves is suggesting that the game may be slowly changing…
Although we’ve known this in philosophy for much longer… 
!
The rules of engagement were set. You’ve thrown a monkey wrench into the normal rules and everyone gets upset. However, they/we all talk about it here and they all talk about it there, wherever that is. You win. However, much like Socrates, winning means death in some metaphorical (thank goodness!) fashion. I’ve learned in my short career, that being perceived as “not a team player” can be very problematic when teams have been well established.
2 Likes
There is a new book out by Dan Barker “Mere Morality”. It parallels Lewis and concludes that a moral life is obtainable without Christianity.
No it doesn’t. Time is a measurement. If there is no 3D space nor matter in that 3D space, you can’t measure time.
Rephrasing again, it’s more about love, joy and ultimate reality, and who we are at the core of our being. Christianity is not an add-on that a person can change their mind about and decide to shed. That is certainly not to say that there are not many to whom it is, that they attracted to ideas, principles and doctrines, but for one reason or several, leave the ‘faith’ that they never really had. That is the distinction Jesus makes between sheep and goats, wheat and tares, the wide path vs. the narrow gate, and the reason behind some of the dire warnings that he makes in the gospels and that Paul makes in the epistles.
My point, made.
1 Like
It’s a package. It had a beginning.