I also had hoped for conversion stories from atheism, but since anything goes now, I will post my story on how I almost deconverted to atheism and how it did not actually happen after all.
I was raised Catholic.
Age 17: By some good fortune, I learn about philosophy, with central focus on Thomas Aquinas. This would later prove important, see below.
Age 18: Decision to study chemistry, which later would be specialization in biochemistry. No conflict whatsoever perceived between science and religion, as there is indeed none. I never had reason to believe there was a conflict anyway, given that my father converted to Catholicism from being non-religious at age 36, in the middle of a brilliant scientific career. Through the years I am embarking on a, less brilliant but still satisfying, scientific career myself.
Age 38: Discussion on the internet about Intelligent Design (ID). When I hear about ID, I immediately agree with Behe on irreducible complexity of biochemical pathways, since that concept had crossed my mind earlier, even though I never had been aware before of the Intelligent Design movement and its cultural history in the American intellectual landscape (I came to the US in 1997, so didn’t grow up here). As both a theist and a biochemist it is easy to have these thoughts, as I have noticed among some of my colleagues at work as well. Not that this is right by any means (see below). I have an extended debate with an opponent on the issue, which I easily win given my biochemical knowledge. Again, not that I was correct, but my opponent simply did not have the knowledge to back up his claims in a substantial manner — I believe few non-scientists, or also scientists who are not biochemists, would (most of those who know that ID on biochemical pathways is wrong do not know it because they can argue it for themselves, but because they were, correctly, told by others that it is so).
Age 43 (2006): Renewed interest in the evolution issue as my father and sister (who is a biologist) collaborate on an article about it. I read Jaques Monod’s
Chance and Necessity. I stumble across an exchange between Ken Miller and Michael Behe. I go “What on Earth does this Miller guy want?”. But then I read his article:
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html
which makes good sense to me. Read also Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God, which quotes a scientific article about biological pathways that argues against irreducible complexity. I read this article and become convinced that the argument from irreducible complexity with respect to biochemical pathways fails. I continue with Dawkins’s
The Blind Watchmaker. All in all, within a few weeks time, I become convinced that evolution is a self-sufficient process indeed and drop all sympathy for the ID position with regard to evolution. (If as a scientist you learn about evolution, and even work with evolutionary principles like I did and still do, using comparisons of genes among species, it does not necessarily mean you learn about all the details of the process.)
From there I study the origin of life. For this, I dive deeply into the primary scientific literature. After about two and a half months of study I suddenly discover — open-minded as I am — against all previous convictions that more recent scientific studies have made the origin of life by natural causes highly plausible. This comes as a complete shock for me.
It feels like the ground is pulled away from under my feet. Is atheism perhaps plausible after all??
(At the time I had already heard about the cosmological fine-tuning argument — Miller mentions it in his book — but given lack of closer study had failed to see its impact.)
At this point, only the philosophical argument from the Unmoved Mover keeps me from abandoning theism (the argument, even though it is based on quite different premises –act and potency, not necessarily physical ‘movement’ –, correlates well for me with the argument from science against a perpetuum-mobile like eternal matter, given the second law of thermodynamics). My theism hangs by a single philosophical thread, as it were, for a few weeks.
Then, after some more study of the issues, I start to realize the impact of the cosmological fine-tuning argument. After a while I go, “You got to be kidding me! This completely demolishes the atheistic argument from evolution for nature not being designed”. I still feel that way and think it is a strong argument for the existence of God. I have encountered no objections, also in discussions on the web that I participated in, that in my view would diminish the argument as defended in my article:
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm
(Of course, my opponents think they have raised substantial objections, but that’s the nature of the game.)
I guess the fine-tuning argument forms a deep divide between theists and atheists. I think that once a theist has fully understood the argument in all its implications s/he cannot easily become an atheist anymore, whereas atheists, for whatever reasons they may bring forward, are not easily convinced of the merits of the argument.
Anyway, the argument brings me firmly back on theistic ground. Meanwhile I become so enthusiastic about an origin of life by natural causes that I write an overview about the scientific research, which is accepted by
Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
(cont.)
, although I decided independently).
was always theistic. Though I was agnostic for awhile before Catholic, that was an interesting road.
lol 
