I've never heard of her before. *shrug* Anywho, aside from msnbc, all the "news" outets with this story are Christian sites, of course. They're peeing their pants over this conversion, if it is indeed a conversion. I am always dubious of the claim that deconversions are people who "were never true Christians," and likewise whether atheists who embrace a religion were ever true atheists, but in this case I question whether she was ever truly an atheist. From her final post:
Atheist blogger Leah Libresco converts to Christianity
A prominent atheist blogger says she has converted to Christianity.
Leah Libresco made the announcement on Monday on her Patheos blog, "Unequally Yoked." The blog post, titled "This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal," details how Libresco came to her decision.
She said she struggled with moral law, exploring where it comes from and what's behind it. As an atheist, she states that friends told her that her philosophy was unsustainable.
I believed that the Moral Law wasn’t just a Platonic truth, abstract and distant. It turns out I actually believed it was some kind of Person, as well as Truth. And there was one religion that seemed like the most promising way to reach back to that living Truth. I asked my friend what he suggest we do now, and we prayed the night office of the Liturgy of the Hours together (I’ve kept up with that since). Then I suggested hugs and playing Mumford and Sons really, really loudly.
Moral Law is some kind of Person? Huh? And just coincidentally, one the predominant religions of her culture is the true Truth.
I have put in a lot of thought about morality and never came to the same "conclusion." She apparently wants to believe that some supernatural deity made us behave the way we do, not evolution. If she'd even just take a look at the animal world she'd see that "morality" is natural, not supernatural.
I think it's John Loftus who says "You can't reason someone out of faith because they were never reasoned into it." On the surface this seems to be the rare conversion based on reason, because she argued, philosophized, and researched, but in the end her "reason" for converting was the need for agency in the Big Questions of Life. This isn't reason; it's emotion, or at the very least an evolutionary brainfart. The human mind conceptualizes other minds ("Theory of Mind") and extends that conceptualization into the inanimate/supernatural ("Agency").
Would she have come to the same "conclusion" if she'd been reading skeptical literature instead of philosphy?
I have been wondering what neophytes to atheism need to "know," like how much about science or the history of religion. I'm starting to think that combatting our natural inclination to believe in nonsense really does take some work, just as scientists work to take their biases out of their experiments.