I was disappointed that, although the introductory blurb mentioned that testimonies like that are a good source of hypotheses but a bad way to test them, they didn't follow up that comment by actually making a rigorous attempt to test their hypothesis before proposing a programme of sermons focusing on the observed problem areas.
That also seemed like an optimistic idea even supposing the hypothesis does stand up to rigorous testing, since it kind of assumes that these deconverts haven't encountered the highest-quality Christian counterarguments for the various things they have problems with, rather than that they have encountered them and been unimpressed. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that a lot of those deconverts had actually deliberately googled for the apologetics in question in the hope of being reconvinced.
no subject
I was disappointed that, although the introductory blurb mentioned that testimonies like that are a good source of hypotheses but a bad way to test them, they didn't follow up that comment by actually making a rigorous attempt to test their hypothesis before proposing a programme of sermons focusing on the observed problem areas.
That also seemed like an optimistic idea even supposing the hypothesis does stand up to rigorous testing, since it kind of assumes that these deconverts haven't encountered the highest-quality Christian counterarguments for the various things they have problems with, rather than that they have encountered them and been unimpressed. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that a lot of those deconverts had actually deliberately googled for the apologetics in question in the hope of being reconvinced.