When I was young, I used to think atheists knew something I didn't. So in college I read everything I could find by atheists and other sceptics of Christianity. Doing this helped me realize that many or most atheists, despite their claims of rationalism, don't actually embrace atheism because of evidence or reason.

In fact it seems like most are members of a sort of "cult of reason", where they like the idea of reason, even if many of them (certainly not all) don't know how to utilize it very well in their thoughts.

Nothing against Michael Shermer's ability to reason per se (he sounds like a pretty reasonable guy, frankly), but from what this article says, his conversions seem to have been mostly for emotional reasons. My emphases:

In high school, at a friend's urging, Shermer became a born-again Christian, eventually teaching Bible study courses. But after enrolling in Pepperdine University to study theology, he gravitated toward science....

[Shermer:] I became born again when I was in high school. I went to Pepperdine University to major in theology. And for about seven years I'd say I was pretty seriously into the evangelical movement.

Then I decided to be a science major, and that's what took me down the road to adopting a scientific worldview. I just liked the openness of it, the democratic sense that anybody could participate and make a contribution. And I liked scientists as my friends more than I liked religious people as my friends.

It wasn't any awakening one morning. At some point I just felt I was being hypocritical calling myself a Christian, because I didn't believe the doctrines anymore.

For one, this touches on what is becoming a frequent theme on Random Observations: How for many, "science" is something more like a social club -- a group of people with an accepted outlook, pedigree, and accepted set of dogmas -- than a methodolgy.

Again, note that Shermer's stated motivations for conversion were basicly social. He first became a Christian because of the urging of a friend; later he liked the "sense" or feelings of another group more. He "liked having scientists as friends." I'm all for democracy and openness, but feelings regarding group membership do not cause the answer to questions like "Does God exist?" to switch from true to false, nor vise-versa.

A reviewer on Amazon seems to have picked up the same thread from Schermer's book The Science of Good and Evil:

First, I am a naturalist who believes, like Shermer, that ethics doesn't need god. Unlike Shermer, though, I don't think that this is anything close to a 'science'. Seeing people conflate 'it's a naturalistic explanation' with 'its a scientific explanation' forgets that science is a process, not an ideology. Yes, Shermer gives us a naturalistic explanation, but just like most evolutionary psych, it is simply naturalistic "puzzle filling" of what MIGHT have happened, not experimental and falsifiable conjecture that makes for science.

Right: I am a scientist, and I have thought of this, so it must "Science". Again, given his emphasis on social factors in the story of his conversion, it's not suprising that a reviewer -- a fellow materialist, even -- notices Schemer apparently thinks science is whatever people called "scientists" do or say today, rather than a strict methodology for testing hypotheses.

Reading Shermer's account suprised me a bit, because here we have "one of the nation's foremost sceptics", and I didn't see evidence play any central role in his own narrative about why he changed his beliefs.

(Maybe I'm just surprised at the honesty?))

Many people, I guess, when they choose a religion, do it like people choose clothing. What works for me? How do I look in this context? What will my friends think? What allows me to think of myself as smart, logical, enlightened, open-minded, or caring?

I expect there are Christians like that (Shermer seems to have admitted to being one), but I get the sense that after youth, and outside the bible belt, Christianity is particularly unsuited to some of these needs. (Thank God.) So many of these people end up chosing science ("open-minded", "enlightened"), atheism ("logical"), liberalism/leftism ("progressive", "tolerant", "caring") or the New Age ("caring", "enlightened", "spiritual") as their religion.

And I want to be clear: I'm not saying that "reason" is the only or best way to choose a belief system. It certainly played large role in my search, but I know sincere people of many faiths (and non-faiths) who didn't use it. But what drives me nuts is the hypocrisy of pretending reason is your #1 value, but actually being motivated by something far different.

But hey, it's difficult to know our own motives.