I don't need NDEs in order to believe in the afterlife, so I pay no attention to them. Christians shouldn't anchor their faith on such stories because they might be disappointed if they turn out to be false. The fraud perpetrated by this boy and his father may cause some to lose faith. And it has given ammo to the non-believers to mock us.
More ammo. We already have plenty. This was just a bonus.
Seriously, I doubt those of faith will lose it because some young child lied, or that his Dad bought into it or went along with it.
When has anybody converted without having had a personal experience? I don't think Apologetics converts people. Faith isn't rational without a personal experience. How can you choose to believe? You either believe or you don't: it isn't about evidence.
No, you're wrong. When I was investigating Christianity I read many books and all of them had an effect on the final decision I made. This book could have been the tipping point that made someone into a believer. Such a person could lose all faith now that the boy admits it was a fraud.
Also, this forum has a powerful impact on many who never post here, but read what we are writing. Everyone should realize that they are acting as ambassador for whatever belief system they are propounding. If people kept that in mind, I think people would be more careful what they post.
Why did you read many books on Christianity? Was it a general curiosity about Christianity in particular, or religion in general? If just Christianity, what was your motivation? You don't have to answer that because the reason may be very personal, but just consider it. Did you study Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., with as much fervor or interest as you did Christianity? Did you study philosophy of science at all?
The reason I think Apologetics doesn't make converts is because for every evidential basis for an argument which supports faith in a supreme being, there is a counter argument. And for every argument based in logic, there is a counter argument.
I've listened to the best Apologists out there: William Lane Craig, Justin Brierly, William Dembski, Craig Hazen, just to name a few. If Christian Apologetics is so convincing, why have I not been convinced? You might think its because I'm biased or against the very idea, or reject God because I want to feel free of personal responsibility, or I want to sin guilt free, but that isn't it. There are some very attractive aspects to a life lived in faith. In many ways, I envy believers.
But I can't just choose to believe, I must be convinced. If Christianity was convincing, why are there so many who don't convert yet are exposed to its message i.e. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, etc.?
There isn't absolute proof that God exists, which is why faith is essential to religion. So why make a decision about something without sufficient information?
In other words, there is always room for rational doubt. If, on the other hand, one has a personal experience, rational doubt is irrelevant. Or, if someone turns to faith as an emotional response (such as people struggling with depression, substance abusr, prison, or trauma), rationality is irrelevant because the choice is made based on emotion or emotional need.
Apologetics is the defense of faith, and, I suspect, its most important purpose is an attempt to justify the faith of the already converted with suppporting evidence, logic, and reasoning. But you hear very little from Apologists about why doubt is also justified.