Why is it so hard to deconvert a "faith-head"?

Richard Dawkins has been accused of being a fundamentalist. He takes issue with the charge: "No, please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism, which never will." So Dawkins is not a fundamentalist because he remains open minded.

Pardon me for being skeptical, but does anybody really believe that it is any more likely that Richard Dawkins would ever become a diehard Christian than it is likely that Pat Robertson would become a diehard atheist?

Although it is popular among atheists to play up their "openness to the evidence" and firm commitment to fallibilism (i.e. the "I could be wrong" mantra), they typically seem to me no more likely to surrender their basic convictions about God or the supernatural realm than anybody else.

But does this just mean that atheists and theists are all "fundamentalists"? I don't think so. And the reason is simple: some conversations take time. And that is as it should be.

Let's say that I believe that Honda has a higher initial customer satisfaction than Pontiac. A ten minute conversation with somebody in the know could very well change my opinion. Just show me the latest findings from J.D. Power and Associates. If I believe Obama is doing a good job in his first few months in office, a different half hour conversation with an informed political junkie could well change my opinion there too.

Now ask yourself how many half hour conversations make people atheists or theists? Not too many. But far from seeing that as a sign of "fundamentalism" it makes good sense. After all, our beliefs about whether there is a creator, whether there is objective purpose and meaning in the world, and whether there is life after death, are all very fundamental or, as the epistemologist would say, deeply embedded in our noetic structure. That is, they are like stones in the base of the wall: change the stone and the whole wall shakes.

Given the deeply embedded nature of our beliefs about God (or lack thereof), it is fully reasonable and to be expected that we will be reticent to change those beliefs too readily.What would it take for Pat Robertson to become an atheist? I don't know but probably quite a bit of new evidence. Perhaps as much as it would take Dawkins to become a Christian.

With this in mind we need to reject the ascription of one group as fundamentalist. All religious or metaphysical beliefs that are basic are not readily surrendered, whatever your specific commitments may be.

This recognition has a very important implication. It means that conversations on matters of God and eternity are not like conversations on the nature of automobile or presidential performance. That is, they are not settled over a lunch break. You don't change a person's mind over a lunch break, but you just might over a lifetime. And then again, they might change your mind. Or maybe you'll change each other's.

One final word. The labor intensive nature of discussions about God, the universe, and the meaning of life has a very important payoff: understanding about something infinitely more important than Pontiacs and presidents. So let's keep talking.