Atheist Preaching

Two of the most striking of many interesting speakers at the Reason Rally and the American Atheists convention were Nate Phelps and Jerry DeWitt, who were both affiliated with the organization Recovering From Religion which, among other things tries to get recent deconverts to therapists who won’t do what most therapists apparently do and tell them they need to “get right with their religion”. I found Phelps’s speech (which you can watch here) poignant primarily for the somber way he countered, contrasted with, and repudiated his father’s and his family’s hatreds. I found DeWitt interesting for the way that he embraced his Pentecostal idioms and put them to the service of a form of rousing atheist “preaching”.

Former Pentecostal preacher Jerry DeWitt only admitted to himself he was an atheist less than a year ago. Not knowing where to turn, he googled Dan Barker since he remembered that Dan had written a book about leaving the ministry upon becoming an atheist. Dan, who DeWitt describes as the closest thing to a real life Jesus, took the time to call DeWitt and eventually DeWitt became part of the Clergy Project. The Clergy Project is a community of closeted clergy who secretly no longer believe in their faith and who provide support for each other as they contemplate the difficult life and the possible career moves involved in coming clean to the world about their loss of religious beliefs. It would not be long until DeWitt went ahead and outed himself on Facebook as an atheist in October by posting a picture of himself with Richard Dawkins. There were several things that I either liked or found fascinating about DeWitt.

Firstly, it resonated deeply with me that he framed his deconversion as “identity suicide”. Although I am long over it now, that was the most initially traumatic thing about leaving Christianity for me. I had no idea who I was or could be without Christianity and I felt a serious loss in realizing that all the Christian accomplishments in which I had placed my pride and self-satisfaction were all not only a waste but downright counter-productive to the real advancement of truth.

Secondly, I appreciated DeWitt’s implicit apology for being so wrong for so many years. He stressed the deep ways that his religious identity bound him to the faith and the ways that deep family associations warped his sense of the world so profoundly from the start. It’s good for atheists to be reminded that religious people are usually accepting the only world they’ve ever known and are not always willfully obtuse.

Thirdly, I appreciated that he stressed that there were two constants motivating him in his faith and which eventually led him to his unbelief, and they were the love of truth and the love of people. He wanted desperately to stop people from going to hell if that was the truth of what would happen to them. And he spent 25 years trying to work out the truth about who goes to hell until he first theologized away all belief in hell and then finally reasoned away all belief in such theological delusions whatsoever.

In the post that I consider definitive of this blog I explained how it was my religious commitment to truth that made me an atheist. And, so, my turn to atheism really represented my last and most decisive religious act, which culminated years of religious ardor. I think this fact about my and many other apostates’ deconversions should be much more respected by the supposed defenders of religion who want to shut up atheists for daring to criticize religious beliefs. For us apostates, our religious experience is one of disillusionment and deconversion, but it is still a religious experience in many ways. Many of us could not leave devout Christianity except as devout Christians. Anyone who wants to respect all religious beliefs and experiences, to be fair, should honor our apostate experiences and our moral rights to spread the word about them and to criticize our former communities, as much as any other religious experiences and as much as intra-faith debates.

And about a year before I deconverted, while still in college, a nihilistically doubting Christian friend talked about his feelings that if there were no God he would wake up in the morning one day and just not move as there would be no point to living. Though at the time I still believed relatively confidently and was trying through seemingly endless dialectic to persuade my friend to believe, I nonetheless speculated that even were I not to believe, that I would still clearly love what I already loved. I would still care about truth and care about people. There not being a God would make no difference to any love motivation.

So, in substance, I connected with DeWitt’s experience a whole lot. I too was a Christian because I loved truth and people and I too deconverted because of my commitment to those values. But what was, so to speak, a revelation and a puzzle was DeWitt’s style of presentation.

DeWitt essentially delivered a full-out atheistic sermon in the southern Pentecostal style.

It was a tale of being lost and found, mired in the muck and raised up. It was delivered with all the humor and emotional rhythms we have seen a million times. And it was fascinating. The crowd ate it up. The whole time, DeWitt made jokes aimed right at the irony of what he was doing in coopting such a highly specific form of speaking, one barely if ever replicated outside of a very specific kind of religious sermonizing, and using it to talk to atheists about the goodness of atheism. It was surreal and fascinating. The line between irony and seriousness was totally blurred. He got numerous huge rounds of applause for rousing lines. The room felt like it was on the verge of getting “Amens” numerous times and he even got a couple by the end, even as he joked about it the whole way. And I saw an atheist woman afterwards come up to him and express a great excitement and a warmed heart from getting a taste of this style of preaching she fondly remembered from days doing something with church music as a believer—but now fortunately without all the bogus Christianity involved.

DeWitt explained afterwards to some of us assembled that he realized that this style of speaking was simply a deep part of him. It is what he does. And he feels like to speak in some other style would actually be disingenuous to who he is. So, as he said in his “sermon”, the answer to the question about what he should do upon leaving the Christian ministry was to keep preaching, rather than to stop, and to keep doing “ministry”, rather than to stop. But now the preaching and the ministry would be on behalf of atheism.

So, what should we think about this? On one level at least, I found the experience really inspiring for the way it coopted powerful rhetorical tools forged in a religious context and satisfyingly turned it against the lies it is normally used to promulgate. It also allowed some of the parallels that deconversion narratives often share with conversion narratives to feel even more explicit in a really fascinating way.

Coincidentally, I had just that morning been explaining to Richard Wade on the train to the convention the ways that I saw recovering alcoholics’ narratives about their debauched drunken days and their eventual redemption as patterned on evangelical conversion stories. I also talked about how, in a strange way, I feel like my own deconversion from evangelicalism was similarly the fulfillment of a narrative planted in me by my evangelicalism itself. Evangelicals grow up with a strong pressure to have a good story about coming out of darkness and into the light. The idea of screwing up your youth and then having a life-altering transformation upon encountering Truth and Redemption is downright idealized. So even though a deconversion is scary and identity destroying and alienating and leaves devout believers with few forms available through which to understand their experience—nonetheless, this is also the kind of destruction of the old self and rebirth into a new self with a new beginning and a betrayal of the past that evangelicals so celebrate in conversions.

I think this at least partly explains why aesthetically, and on a certain emotional level, the entire drama of deconversion always appealed to me (after it had happened). As emotionally devastating and disorienting as it was on one level, there was a lot of romance to it all. I even have a sort of perverse love of the scene in Revenge of the Sith when Anakin converts to the “dark side” due to the Jedi’s inabilities to help him actually cultivate his emotions and powers rather than try to force him to abandon them or limit them.

So, as Richard Wade watched this former evangelical go so far as to present the narrative of his turn to atheism in the precise idiom of a Pentecostal preacher, he turned to me and said, “You were right!” It made the dynamic so clear.

So—is this a good thing? I think in most ways it is, but I have a reservation. There is nothing wrong with a narrative in which “once I was blind but now I see”. This has always been a part of secularism. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on the “light of reason” was coopted, for example, by Descartes from St. Augustine. We need to reclaim some of the emotionally resonant metaphorical terrain that is part of our linguistic and cultural means of expressing certain kinds of experiences. Just because a certain emotionally powerful form of personal narrative was cultivated in evangelical circles does not mean it cannot have genuine parallels among apostates. We are not just ripping them off or somehow remaining Christians. But sometimes we do remain evangelicals, only now atheistic kinds. The apostate’s narrative often just has some basic formal similarities that make it true to co-opt similar categories to evangelicals when conceiving of and narrating what is happening within oneself.

But what about the Pentecostal delivery? I can imagine some atheists with what I like to call “religious PTSD” rejecting it out of hand for its “triggering” connotations that remind them of the shameless charlatans who pioneered, and up through today still, exploit those techniques to manipulate people into falsehoods and religiously based moral corruption. But the vast majority of the auditorium seemed happy to play along with DeWitt and to really enjoy the experiment. He got a hearty standing ovation from a good portion of the room when he was done and was one of the day’s leaders for applause lines for sure.

But the Pentecostal style might also simply look so well practiced and formulaic and manipulative that it is the equivalent of a shameless Hallmark card or a schmaltzy movie providing cheap emotional triggers using the easiest and least respectable methods in the book for pushing people’s buttons.

I think that if the emotional button pushing is a way to make an end-run around reason, that is corrupt and despicable. But if it is to package and deliver rational truths and moral ideals of rationalism to people in a way that will properly align their emotions to what is actually true and ethical, then ultimately I am not convinced there’s anything dishonest or manipulative about that. I am open to arguments though. It may be unseemly for example to ever pitch things to the lowest common denominator like that, but if the virtues of rationalism and atheism are going to spread all throughout society there probably have to be pitches which meet the lowest common denominator where they are, emotionally and intellectually.

As I also explained to Richard the morning before seeing DeWitt, I have preachers’ rhetorical skills and yet for the most part I assiduously avoid them in my classrooms, and instead work with my students dialectically and put the stress on the development of their own reasoning skills. Occasionally, I will get on a roll about something I’m passionate about and reach back to make a rhetorically boosted little speech. But even then I hold back on going quite to preacher levels. And if I do, it’s tempered and not exploitative.

There are two reasons for my hesitation. One is purely technical. I once picked up the interesting advice that if you can do something exceptionally well you should do it only selectively, so as not to diminish its impact. In general you should only put as much rhetorical push into an idea as it needs and save your force for when it’s really needed, always calibrating force applied precisely to what is necessary at every level.

But the more morally serious and germane reason I hesitate to go into preacher mode is that it can be downright anti-dialectical and counter-productive to cultivating an atmosphere of rationalism and habits of careful reasoning. Preaching, rather than just teaching or guiding through questions, runs the risk of inherently training and reinforcing the audience’s infamous preexisting susceptibilities to falling for passions and pretty words at the expense of rational thought. Even if you convince them of your point with your bluster and poetry, you do not train them in careful critical thinking in the process, and so you have not guaranteed they have learned to think for themselves, so much as to simply think like you. And you may have just contributed to their ever ongoing habituation throughout the culture in being led by irrationalistic appeals rather than rational ones. This is not just a pitfall of the parts of our movement that dance with religious forms but also the ones which dance with dubious political rhetorical tactics too.

I’m not sure if it is the case that the preacher’s style is always mutually exclusive with training in critical thinking. Clearly a major part of why it’s so dangerous in actual religions is because it is explicitly coupled with injunctions to just have faith and with countless dubious appeals to unjustified authorities. Can a rationalism which explicitly denounces such things be compatible with some fiery preaching? Can one preach successfully against authoritarianism and faith or is their an implicit bogus appeal to faith in the ungrounded authority of the speaker that is structurally there every time a teacher takes recourse to the tactics of the preacher?

Your Thoughts?

If you enjoy reading my philosophical blog posts, consider taking one of my online philosophy classes! I earned my PhD and taught 93 university classes before I went into business for myself. My online classes involve live, interactive class discussions with me and your fellow students held over videoconference (using Google Hangout, which downloads in just seconds). Classes involve personalized attention to your own ideas and questions. Course content winds up tailored to your interests as lively and rigorous class discussions determine where exactly we go. Classes are flexible enough to meet the needs of both beginners and students with existing philosophical background

My classes require no outside reading or homework or grades–only a once weekly 2.5 hour commitment that fits the schedules of busy people. My classes are university quality but I can offer no university credit whatsoever. New classes start up every month and you can join existing groups of students if you want. Click on the classes that interest you below and find the course descriptions, up-to-date schedules, and self-registration. 1-on-1 classes can be arranged by appointment if you write me at



The Collar That Choked Open Hearts
Comparing Humanism and Religion and Exploring Their Relationships to Each Other
Before I Deconverted: I Saw My First “Secular Humanist” On TV
ISIS’s Iconoclasm, The Bible, and The Problem With Taking Literalism Literally
About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • James Sweet

    Firstly, it resonated deeply with me that he framed his deconversion as “identity suicide”. Although I am long over it now, that was the most initially traumatic thing about leaving Christianity for me. I had no idea who I was or could be without Christianity and I felt a serious loss in realizing that all the Christian accomplishments in which I had placed my pride and self-satisfaction were all not only a waste but downright counter-productive to the real advancement of truth.

    So this is interesting to me… I have long struggled with developing a strong sense of identity, and I’ve always suspected it had something to do with the fact that my Mormon upbringing was a very poor fit for my personality. That Mormon identity just never took, even though I tried for awhile, so by the time I was a teen I found myself somewhat identity-less… having rejected identities that were a better fit for my natural inclinations, but not being able to embrace the one I had tried to.

    I suppose in some sense I am lucky, because I never experienced the “identity suicide” thing… I never felt like a Mormon, ever, so leaving was easy. But at the same time, there was still a void, and I haven’t always filled it in the most healthy ways. I wonder how things would have been different if, as a pre-adolescent and adolescent, I had felt more free to experiment with other identities early on.

  • Matt Oxley

    Identity Suicide sums it up just beautifully….I’d certainly agree that leaving the faith meant the death of a person I had worked incredibly hard to become.

  • Brad

    Watching your embedded video now, and yes, even in a smaller group context, he can’t help but sound a whole lot like a preacher.

    I don’t think that’s a bad thing, just an individual personal style thing.

  • crowepps

    The most serious problem I can see with “preacher mode” is that convincing people through “passions and pretty words”, button pushing and ‘spiritual’ catharsis, is not transferable and has nothing to do with reason or rationalism. It is very much a ‘have to be there’ technique, and when the new ‘convert’ goes home all hyped up about their new direction, they have nothing which would enable them to transfer that new conviction to others.

    “Preacher mode” is DESIGNED to take advantage of people’s normal emotional reactions to stimuli, to manipulate people through sound, sight and peer pressure, to hype up their primate reactions until an emotional orgasm has occurred, and then to bring the recipient back over and over for another ‘fix’. It is ineffective in getting people to actually change their behavior to be more ‘moral’, and I think it would be equally ineffective in getting people to be more ‘rational’.

    I can understand why someone who was trained in and become good at and had felt the intoxicating POWER of controlling the emotions of the mob through this technique would be very, very reluctant to give it up. IMO claims that ‘the power can be used for good’, that it is uniquely effective, or that the crowds enjoy it are disingenuous; IMO people don’t want to give up this technique because they really, really crave that intoxication.

  • Beth

    It seems to me that there are times and places when such an approach is appropriate. On the other hand, if your goal is to help people learn and practice critical thought and rational evaluation of new ideas, the ‘preacher’ approach is simply not appropriate to that goal.

    On the third hand, I don’t think that promotion of critical thought and rational evaluation must be limited to the goal of helping people learn and practice critical thought. I think that goals of getting people fired up and emotionally committed are also acceptable goals. You just have to accept that when you use that approach, you are asking them to put those skills aside for the duration.

    Hmmmm. That does seem as a bit discordant. You have a good point with this post.

    I would say that I think that when attendance at such an event is voluntary and accurately advertised, I’m not sure that it should be considered a sin. Can humans make a rational decision to forgo rational and critical thinking temporarily in favor of participating in a social setting that provides a well-tested route to developing an emotional commitment to a certain set of values and bonding with others who share that commitment? I think perhaps we can.

  • Jalyth

    I don’t like ‘preacher mode’, but I don’t care that it exists. I don’t even listen to Obama’s speeches, cause I think he sounds preachy. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I have religious ptsd, but certain emotional or rhetorical styles just ping my skepticism so hard I stop listening.

  • F

    OK, just a brief thought: I have a deep and native distrust of anyone charismatic and charismatic experiences. In the case of DeWitt I might accept this (and I mean in a personal sense, to me specifically) as performance art. Charisma is not what draws me to anything, whether it is rock and roll, politicians, or friends. This would also include a perceived charisma on the part of fans/followers/joiners, whether or not I see charismatic manipulation on the part of the object of the f/f/j’s adorations.

    Not that good people don’t have charisma, it’s just a hump I have to get over sometimes, an additional barrier to trust. Because it is, as you rightly noted, a manipulation, whether natural or cultivated.

    Not as brief as I initially projected, but certainly limited to only a small portion of your report and thoughtful analysis.

  • crowepps

    I’d add that a similar rhetorical style is very popular at political rallies to ‘fire up the crowd’, but they’re definitely not trying to promote reason and rationality!

  • Caryn

    it seems to me that preaching as an atheist would be helpful for the creation of people-who-identify-as-atheists, and not the creation of critical thinkers. For the latter, there is simply no substitute for sustained attention by hardasses to the quality of argument.. Call it the Socratic Method if you like.

  • Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto

    Preaching to the converted, e.g. to get a crowd energised and active, is okay. Preaching to convert? Not so much. In that context it’s manipulative and underhanded.

  • Timberwoof

    How do you get people with an emotional investment in their religion to step aside from that for a moment and think about things rationally?

    A few articles lately have discussed how some people will cling to their irrational beliefs even more strongly when presented with facts. Is it really sneaky and underhanded to use evangelical preaching skills to ease the hurt of giving up ideology and open a mind up for rational discourse?

  • James Gray

    I think getting excited about being ethical and reasonable is a good thing. It is motivational to think about how important it is to be philosophical, rational, and moral.

    The idea that preachers incite an irrational “primate” part of us fails to account for the fact that emotions are not irrational and we can’t be motivated to act out of thin air. We have emotions. We are primates. That doesn’t mean we have to be irrational or immoral.

  • Russell

    The question you raise about preaching as art reflects on some academic trends. In my mind, it is important to distinguish between art and reason. The analytic philosopher has it correct, that if you get lost in the art you are not practicing reason. Which isn’t a criticism of art, but a reason for keeping some distance between it and what is meant to be something other than art.

    Then there are those who want to collapse that distance…

    • Daniel Fincke

      Then there are those who want to collapse that distance…

      Like Plato and Nietzsche

  • reasonbeing

    I do not speak in the “preacher way” but if that is an effective way to speak and if some atheists are comfortable speaking in that manner, I do not have a problem with it.

    As far as identity suicide, that is a very interesting way to phrase what so many atheists have to go through, particularly young people who may not have had the luxury of a longer life in which to “find themselves”. I recently wrote about my conversion away from religion. It was in college and I did not struggle with a lack of “who am I”, but I started questioning religion in high school and most certainly would have been a bit lost had I reached my atheistic conclusions at that time.

    The one positive thing to note is that there are so many resources for people who are becoming atheists today than there were even ten years ago. Hopefully, they can find the transition as smooth as possible.

  • Qwetzaqwetal

    it was my religious commitment to truth that made me an atheist. And, so, my turn to atheism really represented my last and most decisive religious act.

    This really resonates with me.

    Growing up, I still have a strong memory from my religious school class when we talked about people being persecuted for their beliefs, and whether we would renounce God if threatened by someone stronger. I was the only one in the class who said I wouldn’t, because I felt like my belief really MATTERED.

    And likewise, as I learned more about the world, it was because my beliefs mattered so much that I was forced to update them. Hadn’t quite made the connexion until I read your post. Thanks.

  • Crys

    I put importance on truth before anything else, and context is everything.

    If what you are saying is true, or has merit, does not contain logical fallacies, and you pretty up the already good content of what you have to say with “preaching”, I don’t see anything wrong with that. To me its like the difference between putting an awesome cover on an awesome book and putting a cover that makes you think the book contains far more awesomeness than it actually does to sell more copies.

    Also, its about context. If DeWitt feels most comfortable speaking in that way, I don’t see why he should force himself to change something that works for him. Also I get what you say about preaching conflicting with teaching, but there is a time and a place for both. At a rally you’re not there to have an open discussion with the crowd, and a “sermon” is probably the most effective especially in keeping the audience’s attention. If you’re addressing a small group of people with the intent of stimulating them to make up their own minds about a topic then leave the sermon at home. I don’t think any one person has to speak any one way all the time

  • Baal

    I like the style but only in small amounts. Doing preaching in that style for atheism only makes sense to me as parody. I can see that others might feel differently but the inherent problem is that it’s such an iconic style that it cannot be divorced of religious meaning.

    “In general you should only put as much rhetorical push into an idea as it needs and save your force for when it’s really needed, always calibrating force applied precisely to what is necessary at every level.”
    ^_^; I’m tempted to tattoo this on my forehead (right side round, it’s not there for me to read it in the mirror). The statement applies to every application of force. Too little and you don’t succeed. Too much and you’re likely to break what ever the subject is. For rhetorical force, the too little case means you’re not compelling and the too much means you’re a cartoon or a jerk. I don’t think this changes based on the subject matter either.

    • Daniel Fincke

      The statement applies to every application of force. Too little and you don’t succeed. Too much and you’re likely to break what ever the subject is. For rhetorical force, the too little case means you’re not compelling and the too much means you’re a cartoon or a jerk. I don’t think this changes based on the subject matter either.