Losing My Religion: Storying Atheist Deconversion & Religious Exit Narratives in the Maltese Context

Abstract

This qualitative study focuses on the stories of Maltese and Gozitan atheists and non-religious adults, and how they narrate their religious exit within a religiously-saturated social and familial context. It is a systemic exploration of atheism, atheist identities, and the process of deconversion from a strength-based position. 5 semi-structured interviews were carried out and a Critical Narrative Analysis approach was adopted, incorporating elements from Discourse Analytic approaches as well as Narrative inquiry as the main tools for interpreting the results. Findings include notions of the ever-changing nature of participants’ atheist identity, ethical incongruencies, disclosure of their deconverted selves to others, and negotiating the overlapping value systems adopted post-religion. Their stories have narrative arcs relating to the struggle to fit in as well as the rebellion against religious hegemony, blending bildungsroman, tragic, and heroic plots. This study critically highlights the ingrained religiosity in Maltese language and the absence of secular linguistic tools for local atheists, as well as the circularity inherent in deconversion events and juxtaposes notions of ‘de-converting from’ with ‘converting to’. It is also a contribution to the therapeutic field, especially for practitioners interested in issues of spirituality, role exit, and transitioning beyond religious territories.

Key Words: Deconversion; Religious Exit; Atheism; Atheist Identity; Spirituality; Moral Transitions; Deconversion Stories

Full text

1
Losing My Religion:
Storying Atheist Deconversion &
Religious Exit Narratives in the
Maltese Context
Melvin Calleja
Institute of Family Therapy – Malta
July 2023

2
This Dissertation is presented
in partial fulfilment
of the Masters in
Systemic Family Psychotherapy
IFT Malta – 2023

3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Researcher Self-Disclosure, Self-Reflexivity, and ‘Neutrality’ ....................................... 8
1.2 A Personal Exodus: My Own Religious Exit ................................................................... 8
1.2.1 On Contexts, Systems and Origins ............................................................................ 9
1.3 My Research Rationale .................................................................................................. 10
1.3.1 Research Aim and Question(s) ................................................................................ 10
1.4 Languaging Deconversion: My Socio-Constructionist Research stance ....................... 11
2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Definition of Terms of Non-Religious Typologies ........................................................ 13
2.1.1 Religion ................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.2 Secularism & Deconversion .................................................................................... 14
2.1.3 Agnosticism, Apostacy & Exit ................................................................................ 15
2.1.4 Atheism & New Atheism ........................................................................................ 16
2.2 Deconversion as a Systemic Concept............................................................................. 17
2.3 Atheism as a Religion? ................................................................................................... 18
2.4 Statistical Data on Religious Exit................................................................................... 20
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 A Post-Modern Qualitative Methodology ...................................................................... 23
3.2 The Narrative Research Method Rationale .................................................................... 24
3.3 The Self of the Researcher ............................................................................................. 25
3.4 Research design .............................................................................................................. 26
3.4.1 Participant Selection & Recruitment Criteria .......................................................... 26
3.4.2 Data Collection & Sampling .................................................................................... 26

4
3.4.3 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Critical Narrative Analysis ............................................................................................. 27
3.6 Transcription, Analysis & Presentation of Findings ...................................................... 29
3.7 Ethical Considerations.................................................................................................... 30
4. Results .............................................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Table of Participants/Co-researchers ............................................................................. 31
4.2 Holly – The Development of an Ethical Life ................................................................. 32
4.3 Jack – Coming Out of Religion ...................................................................................... 38
4.4 Kate – Awakening .......................................................................................................... 43
4.5 Roma – Il-Miġja għall-Verita` ....................................................................................... 49
4.6 Hal – In His Own Image ................................................................................................ 55
5. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 61
5.1 Social Constructionism and Atheism: Deconversion as a Not-Knowing Stance ........... 61
5.2 Identity Issues: Deconversion & Identity Co-Construction ........................................... 62
5.3 Language of the Godless: Atheism & Deconversion in the Maltese Context ................ 64
5.4 A Recipe for Making Atheists? ...................................................................................... 66
5.5 My Research as a Transformative Deconversion Tool .................................................. 67
6. Limitations, Recommendations & Clinical Relevance ................................................ 68
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 69
Reference List ......................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 87
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 95

5
Acknowledgements
This research study would not have been possible without the great help and
contribution of the following people, to whom I shall dedicate my work. Firstly, I would like
to express my sincere gratitude to my tutor Ms. Yanica Richards Chircop, systemic family
therapist and supervisor, whose professional and nurturing guidance has been instrumental in
the delivery of this dissertation. I also thank all IFT-Malta tutors for their wisdom,
knowledge, and their willing capacity to impart it to me and my fellow colleagues.
I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support and constant
encouragement throughout the combined 4 years of the P.G. Dip. and Master’s Degree.
A special thanks also goes to my amazing family therapy colleagues, especially
Yasmin, with whom I bounced much of my initial ideas on this research topic, and who
taught me the value of resilience and strength in the face of life-changing transitions – much
like deconversion itself. Their support is never forgotten.
I also wish to include my appreciation for those friends and work colleagues who
stood by me, and whose care and understanding during the past few months have been
immensely significant. I am infinitely grateful for their patience, support, and grounding
presence through what was a very turbulent period of my life, both personally and
professionally.
Finally, I dedicate this study to all psychotherapists and professionals within the
helping sector who work with the severely mentally ill, complex socio-relational situations,
and traumatised children. When supporting these people, we truly are doing God’s work, in
His absence.

6
Abstract
This qualitative study focuses on the stories of Maltese and Gozitan atheists and non-
religious adults, and how they narrate their religious exit within a religiously-saturated
social and familial context. It is a systemic exploration of atheism, atheist identities, and the
process of deconversion from a strength-based position. 5 semi-structured interviews were
carried out and a Critical Narrative Analysis approach was adopted, incorporating elements
from Discourse Analytic approaches as well as Narrative inquiry as the main tools for
interpreting the results. Findings include notions of the ever-changing nature of participants’
atheist identity, ethical incongruencies, disclosure of their deconverted selves to others, and
negotiating the overlapping value systems adopted post-religion. Their stories have narrative
arcs relating to the struggle to fit in as well as the rebellion against religious hegemony,
blending bildungsroman, tragic, and heroic plots. This study critically highlights the
ingrained religiosity in Maltese language and the absence of secular linguistic tools for local
atheists, as well as the circularity inherent in deconversion events and juxtaposes notions of
‘de-converting from’ with ‘converting to’. It is also a contribution to the therapeutic field,
especially for practitioners interested in issues of spirituality, role exit, and transitioning
beyond religious territories.
Key Words: Deconversion; Religious Exit; Atheism; Atheist Identity; Spirituality;
Moral Transitions; Deconversion Stories

7
1. Introduction
“The great theistic religions of the world have ascribed many sorts of mentality to the highest
gods, but almost invariably their characteristics have been derived from human models.”
- Gregory Bateson (1987)
“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are
fairies at the bottom of it too?”
- Douglas Adams (1995)
Although the phenomenon and function of religion has been studied in the past from a
plethora of divergent schools of thought (Durkheim, 1921; James, 1902; Harris et al., 2009;
Swaab, 2015; Hardy, 1965; Bateson & Bateson, 1987; Luhmann, 2013), the subject of
religious deconversion is a relatively recent interest in the research spheres. In fact, prior to
everyone’s fascination with deconversion, “conversion has been a prominent focus of
theorizing and research in the psychology of religion from its early days on” (Streib & Keller,
2004).
In this study, I delve deeper into the topic of deconversion and view it from a
qualitative perspective – from the eyes of the deconvert. Unlike trends in research focusing
on this phenomenon from a positivist stance (Hood et al., 2009; Streib, 2020; Streib & Klein,
2013), attempting to explain it down to a nice scientific package, I am taking the lesser-
travelled narrative route and exploring the subjective ‘fall from grace’ into atheism.

8
1.1 Researcher Self-Disclosure, Self-Reflexivity, and ‘Neutrality’
“Qualitative writing by its nature involves the Self too intimately
to ignore wounds, scars, and hard-won understandings
that are to some degree part of our baggage.”
- Ely et al. (1997)
Researchers have sometimes had to defend themselves from accusations of self-
indulgence when using their own stories for research purposes (Mykhalovskiy, 1997), and
traditional academic, positivist discourse has a tendency of silencing the ‘I’, believing that
subjectivity ‘contaminates’ research (Etherington, 2001). Stromberg (2020) states that “since
none of us has the option of adopting a neutral point of view, every position in the world
entails a set of assumptions about the nature of reality” (p.327), hence the importance of
accounting for my own self-disclosure and researcher bias.
Reflecting this post-modern rationale, my work is not intended to be a beacon of
neutrality, impartiality, or ‘bracketing’ as some phenomenological researchers dictate
(Hansen, 2017; Wertz, 2005). Throughout my dissertation my own self-reflexive voice will
be echoed, simultaneously embracing and asserting my non-neutral position on religion.
1.2 A Personal Exodus: My Own Religious Exit
“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most
reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”
- Christopher Hitchens (2008)
The main impetus for this research is my own religious deconversion journey from
Christianity towards Atheism in my late teens/early twenties. The culmination into my own
religious exit came about through an accumulation of factors – but mainly through further

9
scientific understanding of the human brain’s role in creating religious, spiritual, and
paranormal experiences and exclusively believing its own generated reality.
This ‘awakening’ was accelerated by my studies in philosophy & psychology,
ushering me in exploring and unveiling so-called ‘mystical’ phenomena and instead viewing
them through the demystifying eye of the critic, appreciating the trick, without the magic –
acknowledging their meaning yet substituting the supernatural forces seemingly operating
underneath them with psychological (Bering, 2013; French & Stone, 2014; Shermer, 2011),
evolutionary (Dawkins, 1989; 2006; 2009; Thomson & Aukofer; 2011) and neuroscientific
evidence (Foster, 2010; Harris et al., 2009; Sacks, 2013; Swaab, 2015). This sort of behind-
the-scenes-effect was pivotal in my religious exit.
1.2.1 On Contexts, Systems and Origins
“Without context, words and actions have no meaning at all”
- Gregory Bateson (1972)
For context, I come from a Gozitan Catholic family, was a devout ‘true believer’ since
childhood and prided myself in having a good relationship and an open dialogue with God.
Yet, whilst I frequently dialogued with Him, God never replied back, resembling more of a
monologue, and as Bakhtin (1986) aptly says, “there is nothing more terrible than a lack of
response” (p. 127). In these years, I was lucky to have met helpful clerical church members
whose liberal views of Catholic teachings, their open manner of guidance, and permissive
attitude towards asking difficult questions, paradoxically continued to water my seeds of
curiosity.
It is interesting to reflect on the duality of religio-spiritual dilemmas happening on the
micro-level of my mind, versus the wider-scale system of my home village. Family members
and friends were not always understanding and/or accepting of my deconversion, including

10
the local Archpriest and his home-interventions, warning me not to “stray away”. In
Batesonian (1972) fashion, my little existential perturbations created complex ecological
ripple effects in the quiet village of Żebbuġ, Gozo.
With my eventual professional experience working in the mental health field, I also
came face to face with themes of religious nature from a pathological perspective, such as
when I worked with clients suffering from severe psychosis and OCD. This constantly made
me question and ponder on Szasz’s (1973) quote, “If you talk to God, you are praying; if
God talks to you, you have schizophrenia”. What this inadvertently did was dethrone religion
from the unmocked position it occupied in my head where it conveniently escaped the
scrutiny of scientific rules (Bateson & Bateson, 1987), furthering my deconversion process.
1.3 My Research Rationale
Atheism is stigmatised, under-represented and without a voice (Krueger, 2013) both
socially and academically (Streib, 2014), especially in the Maltese local context. My
research on religious deconverts can provide buoyancy to subjugated narratives in a sea of
dominant discourses about religion, spirituality, morality and the choice to disaffiliate from
these pre-determined and default socio-cultural affiliations. It also addresses a lacuna in both
local and international research on the topic (Ebaugh, 1998), especially from a systemic lens.
1.3.1 Research Aim and Question(s)
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find.”
Matthew 7:7
What I ultimately aim to explore are the stories of people who identify as non-
religious/atheist within the Maltese context, what contributed to their exodus from religious
faith, and how they narrate their pilgrimage within their idiosyncratic contexts. My goal is

11
not to produce a one-size-fits-all hypothesis about the universal trajectory of deconversion,
but extracting the unique, narratively diverse textures every participant owns.
My study follows these Research Question and sub-questions:
• How do Maltese atheists narrate their journey from faith to secularism?
How did they live their personal narrative of deconversion and religious exit
whilst living in a religious socio-cultural context?
• How do Maltese atheists negotiate their shifting identities and spiritual
dilemmas, if any, in a post-religious life?
• How do they learn to live as non-religious in a religion-saturated
context?
• What contributed to their religious exit/disaffiliation and how does the
deconversion process fit in the atheist’s life-story?
1.4 Languaging Deconversion: My Socio-Constructionist Research stance
“In the beginning, was the Word”
- John 1:1
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”
- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922)
Throughout this research I adopt a systemic, post-modernist, socio-constructionist
epistemological stance (Dallos & Draper, 2015; Gehart, 2014; McNamee, 2010; McNamee &
Gergen, 1992), also utilising Narrative Theory (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004; Kim, 2016;
Reissman, 2008) as my Conceptual Framework, which is further expounded in the
Methodology Chapter.

12
Although the concept of deconversion can be seen as a linear, finite process with a
‘completion stage’, this can shift depending on how it is defined and languaged.
‘Deconversion’ is always a process of Becoming (or Un-Becoming, depending on your
vantage point), yet the terminology used here (atheist, deconvert) implies a sort of finality
(Bakhtin, 1981). In order not to stifle the multitude of fluid atheistic variations, I provide a
comprehensive list of non-religious definitions in the Literature Review Chapter.

13
2. Literature Review
This chapter is subdivided into compartments to provide a coherent train of thought
about my construction of deconversion and atheism in both an academic and reflexive
manner, and all studies cited are seen through a systemic and socio-constructionist critical
lens. I also privilege religious ideas as part of the discussion, hence my inclusion of personal
communication with Fr. Eric Cachia sdb. Given my close relationships to religious people
and clergy throughout my early life, even now through my employment within a religious
organisation, I acknowledge the validity of their contribution to the religion/non-religion
debate.
2.1 Definition of Terms of Non-Religious Typologies
Attempts to formalise the ‘main types’ of atheism (or that which is not religious) is a
philosophic-academic quest undertaken by many, yet not all attempts are equally satisfying,
and in my critical opinion, some authors (Thomson, 2022; Big Think & Templeton
Foundation, 2022) do not merit neither the nuanced intricacies nor rigour to the complex
spectrum of non-religious denominations.
The ‘classification’ approaches I subscribe to are mostly based on Cragun’s (2016)
and Pérez & Vallières’s (2019) works, yet these are by no means a distilled list of all terms
available, and may be used by various populations in different contexts to convey meanings
different from what is ascribed to them in the academic sphere, or in this dissertation.
2.1.1 Religion
Defining Religion is vital in the context of and juxtaposition with non-religion – yet it
“has proven to be a hard concept to define” (Pérez & Vallières, 2019, p.2). Durkheim (1912)
proposed that religion is that which is sacred in society. “However, there are many other
aspects of society that are considered sacred that are not typically considered religious, such

14
as flags, families, and […] sports teams” (Cragun, 2016, p.1), making Durkheim’s (1912)
overly-broad definition problematic.
The definition by Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi (1975) accounts for the gaps in
Durkheim’s (1912) proposal, defining Religion as “a system of beliefs in a divine or
superhuman power, and practices of worship or other rituals directed towards such a power”
(Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi, 1975, p.1). This definition covers what Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi
(2014) observe as the common denominators of religions worldwide: “the presence of a
supernatural being/force, and the relationship that human beings have with such entity”
(Pérez & Vallières, 2019, p.2) The inclusion of religion-making features makes this
definition of religion a complex one, while not constricted only to ‘God of the Bible’, but
transferable to any religious faith (Pérez & Vallières, 2019).
2.1.2 Secularism & Deconversion
The term secular was introduced by Christian theologians as reference to any activity
which is not religious in orientation. With the -ism suffix, secularism becomes a political
philosophy rooted in the notion of separation between church and state (Cragun, 2016). In
Malta, Church and State were officially separated in 2016 with the abolishment of blasphemy
laws and decriminalisation of vilification of religion (Times of Malta, 2016).
Apart from a macro, institutional level, secularisation can also take place at the micro,
individual level, “as people who are raised religious move toward lower levels of religiosity”
(Cragun, 2016, p.6). Resonant examples of stories aiding my own personal secularisation
include the Pastor who experimented living a year without God, eventually deconverting to
atheism (Bell, 2014; Lodge, 2015); and the Fundamental Christian radio host turned Atheist
activist, now host of The Thinking Atheist podcast, and writer (Andrews, 2012). The terms
secularisation and deconversion are overlapping and interchangeable, as I discuss below.

15
Pérez & Vallières (2019, p.5) define Deconversion as a “process by which an initially
religious person abandons his/her beliefs over time and adopts a non-religious identity (in the
form of atheism or, at the very least, agnosticism)”. Since deconversion implies the
diminution of religiosity over time it may also be defined as a process of individual
secularisation and religious disenchantment (Cragun, 2016).
In systemic fashion, secularisation processes on an individual level run in parallel to
the secularisation of society, or the “disenchantment of the world” (Weber, 1905), where
modern understandings of the world are explained less via supernatural and/or religious
means and increasingly though scientific discourse. As naturalistic forms of understandings
replace religious ones, people become less religious and further disenchanted from the
supernatural worldview (Cragun, 2016).
2.1.3 Agnosticism, Apostacy & Exit
Before the term atheism, there came agnosticism, first coined by Huxley (1869)
literally “without knowledge of a god or gods” (Cragun, 2016, p.8), referring to the difficulty
in obtaining knowledge about any god whatsoever. This bears the precursory roots of critical
and socio-constructionist thinking in matters of gods and religions. According to Huxley
(1869, p.768), “Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in
the rigorous application of a single principle… do not pretend that conclusions are certain
which are not demonstrated or demonstrable”. Agnostics are those who adopt an ‘unsure’
position of ‘not knowing’ (Anderson & Goolishan, 1992) on the spectrum of theistic
probability (Dawkins, 2006).
A divergently related term is Apostacy. The meaning of Apostacy depends much on
who says it and towards whom (Cragun, 2016). Caplovitz & Sherrow (1977) argue that
apostasy indicates more than the mere loss of religious faith, and widens the definition to a
rejection of a particular community as a basis for self-identification. Yet, as Cragun &

16
Hammer (2011) argue, apostasy is a term used pejoratively and judgmentally by those who
remain religious. Cragun (2016, pp. 11,12) offers a more neutral term: “religious exiter as it
reflects only the fact that someone left a religion and implies nothing else about where that
person went”.
2.1.4 Atheism & New Atheism
Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s, where “the a prefix means ‘without’ or
‘lacking’, [and] the root of the rest of the word, -theism, is the Greek term, ‘theos’ (θϵός),
which means God or a god” (Cragun, 2016, p.6). From this perspective, Atheism can be an
‘empty signifier’, since it “indicates that the individual may belong to a certain category or
group of people, but precisely what is meant by membership in that category is not perfectly
clear.” (Cragun, 2016, p.8).
Cragun (2016) further argues for an extended definition of Atheism, and considers
Religious people as atheists in other religions. This is known as Positive vs. Negative
atheism. Positive Atheism is when “the individual is making a positive assertion about the
nonexistence of a deity” (e.g., “I know Zeus is just a myth/non-existent”), whilst Negative
Atheism “is being without belief in a god or gods because of no prior knowledge of the
claimed existence of that god/s” (Cragun, 2016, p.7). Negative Atheism sheds a critical light
on statistical numbers about atheists – when researching how many atheists exist in any
society, one needs to further clarify which god/s are they not believing in? Some may be
Christians, but simultaneously they are atheists towards Thor, Shiva, Quetzalcoatl, Amun-Ra
and the millions of other gods claimed by other religions and civilisations, past and present.
In social constructionist terms, embracing one religious belief system means rejecting an
infinitude of others.
Since the early-2000’s commercialisation of Atheist literature by scathing authors
such as Richard Dawkins (2006), Christopher Hitchens (2007), and Sam Harris (2004) there

17
has been a so-called New Atheism wave. New Atheists have suggested that what makes them
unique from ‘old’ atheists is “the combination of three key characteristics: the rejection of all
supernatural beliefs, advocacy for science, and their open criticism of religion.” (Cragun,
2016, p.15).
The above definitions all relate to the topic of Deconversion, further explored below.
2.2 Deconversion as a Systemic Concept
“The more things change, the more they remain the same”.
- Watzlawick et al., 1974, p.23
Whilst relatively scarce in the camps of qualitative research domains, the notion of
religious exit has gained some traction within positivist and scientific research fields
(Bullivant & Ruse, 2013; Streib & Klein, 2013), where the predominant effort is to capture
deconversion and seek causal, statistical regularities in the psychosocial factors that underpin
it, to crystallize it under different ‘models’ – including Ebaugh’s (1988) 4 Stages Model of
Role-Exit, Streib et al.’s (2009) Categories of Deconversion, Gooren’s (2010) Conversion
Career Model, and Krueger’s (2013) Five Phases of the De-conversion process.
Stromberg’s (2020) and Gooren’s (2011) critique of the current deconversion
literature trends considers the historical context of religious pluralism in the early 1970’s and
the sociological study of new religious movements. Although today the purview of the topic
has expanded considerably, the paradigm established by these early studies is inescapable,
with research on the topic oriented around questions about the “religious marketplace”,
(Stromberg, 2020, p.324).
To view deconversion from a systemic lens it is useful to explore where the term
originates from because “etymologically, the term 'to convert' is pregnant with meaning,
namely, from the Latin: 'con-versare', to speak to, in faith-journey terms”, (E. Cachia,
personal communication, 2021). Hence, de-conversion is “possibly, a contradiction in terms,

18
given the fact that a person who decides to distance her/himself from an established,
institutionalised religion is, perhaps, [acting on] a free decision based on opposing or
conflictual views”, (E. Cachia, personal communication, 2021).
Streib (2014) echoes this notion by stating that “the portrait of deconversion, […] is
that of an active deconvert resembling the ‘active convert’” (p.16), which brings the question,
is the deconvert ‘losing’ religion, or ‘gaining’ another? This dual-notion of the term implies a
systemic, circular, if not paradoxical understanding of the de-conversion process. As Cachia
(personal communication, 2021) stated, the term ‘deconversion’ implies a residual connection
with the term ‘conversion’, hence a power issue is created between the two roles/terms,
mainly that ‘deconversion’ is always happening in reference to ‘conversion’, further
accentuating its dialogical soul.
In fact, Krueger (2013) mentions how the term “de-conversion [is] often applied to
individuals involved in the role-exit process who abandon the role of theist in favour of
adopting the role of an atheist”, (p.2). Ebaugh (1988, p.238) further defines role-exit as “the
process of disengagement from a role that is central to one’s self-identity and the
reestablishment of an identity in a new role that takes into account one’s ex-role”. Barbour
(1994) further develops the understanding of the term ‘deconvert’ to suggest conversion from
and conversion toward as alternative perspectives on the same process. Hence, “every
deconversion is a conversion as well as its reverse”, (Nagle, 2017, p.256). This encompasses
the need for a systemic, integrative ‘both/and’ perspective, rather than a linear, divisive
‘either/or’ mindset.
2.3 Atheism as a Religion?
While for some Atheism is “extremely simple to define” (Baggini, 2003, p.3), others
argue that “rather, it is increasingly difficult to say, with any sort of consensus, exactly what

19
it is” (Quillen, 2015, p.1). Due to this conceptual ambiguity lacking clear distinctions
between conversion and other types of radical change, the ‘deconverted’ position might bring
with it discussions around whether atheism is another religion – rendering deconversion a
misnomer (Fazzino, 2014).
Fazzino (2014) defines Deconversion as a “dynamic multi-stage experience of
transformative change marked by both liberation from and opposition against religion”
(p.250). Through this understanding, I do not subscribe with the ‘Atheism as a religion’
claim. To call atheism a religion is tantamount to saying ‘not collecting stamps’ is a hobby, or
abstinence is a sex-position (Dawkins, 2006). A secular exit is but one option in a spectrum
of deconversion trajectories (Streib, 2020; Streib & Keller, 2004), and not every religious exit
is a conversion to another religious belief system. This does not automatically mean that the
atheist deconvert does not hold a particular worldview – it only highlights that sometimes
deconverts choose to opt out of the religious marketplace and stop playing the ‘god(s) game’
altogether, an exit characterized by disaffiliation (atheism) without re-affiliation (Streib,
2014), as shown in Figure 1.
On the other hand, Scheidt, (2018) argues that “becoming atheist also entails a turning
toward, and there are new values and structures that support atheist identity and the process
of deconversion” (p.35). Stromberg (2020) further emphasizes that “one can only move by
going somewhere else and hence leaving will inevitably entail taking up a new set of images,
ideas and beliefs” (p.332). Although the term deconversion and discourse around it usually
tend to convey the metaphorical “stripping” of religion, one analysis shows that for many
atheists it also entailed the “donning” of new clothes (Scheidt, 2018), but to claim this as a
‘religion’, I believe, is premature and overly-simplistic, because while the processes of
conversion and deconversion might be palindromic, the narratives of converts and deconverts
are not (Barbour, 1994).

20
Contrary to popular misunderstanding, as atheists exit from religion, they are not void
of beliefs or philosophical ideas. They do not become tabula rasa. Research consistently
shows that the contribution of many (often conflicting) ideas/beliefs about morality, ethics,
scientific worldviews and rationality provide the necessary catalysis for loss of faith (Pérez &
Vallières, 2019). Atheists hold beliefs independent from God, and by subscribing to a set of
values does not automatically mean they are ‘religious’ or have converted to a religion/faith.
As the website for American Atheists (2021) state, atheists have no common belief system,
rituals, or ‘atheist creed’ to adhere to, there are no sacred atheist scriptures, no atheist Pope,
“the only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods” (American
Atheists, 2021). This subtlety can give rise to confusion and may explain oxymorons like
‘religious atheist’ or ‘Atheist faith’ used still in social discourse today.
The term ‘deconvert’ itself can be enough to highlight and distinguish between the
two positions, since by “calling the transition from religion to atheism ‘deconversion’,
atheists aim to create distance between the two” (Scheidt, 2018, p.62). The languaging of the
term becomes a power-laden message, emphasising the difference between becoming atheist
vs. becoming religious, since “overwhelmingly in atheist communities, one ‘deconverts’
rather than ‘converts to atheism’”, (Scheidt, 2018, p.62).
2.4 Statistical Data on Religious Exit
Statistically, there are emerging trends in various lines of research (Kosmin et al.,
2009; Cragun et al., 2013; Baker & Smith, 2015) showing the considerable growth and
increasing visibility of non-religious populations in contemporary Western society (Sumerau
& Cragun, 2016). This is evidenced by the growing portions of individuals with no religious
affiliation (religious ‘nones’), atheists, and agnostics, with 31% religious nones in the USA
(Pew Research Centre, 2022), and 40% in Germany (Streib et al., 2009). The slide into

21
secularism in society is also reflected locally as evidenced by the State of the Nation Poll
(Marmarà, 2021a; 2021b; 2022; 2023)
In Malta, the 2021 State of the Nation poll (n=1,064) carried out by statistician Dr.
Vincent Marmarà has shown that 3% of all respondents (16 years and over) do not believe in
God. This was also the case for 8% of 16- to 25-year-olds, whilst overall, 3.5% said they ‘did
not know’. 10.8% reported that religion is not important in their lives at all (Marmarà, 2021a;
Aquilina, 2021; Farrugia, 2021). The majority of the population (93.5%) believes in God.
Interestingly, Gozo scored lower than the National average when it came to the impact of
religion on personal decisions. In fact, 20.5% of Gozitans regarded religion as not important
in their lives at all (Marmarà, 2021b).
The same survey was repeated in 2022 and 2023 with the previous years’ exact sample
size (n=1,064). The data extracted is mostly similar and, when compared to 2021, the results
pertaining to belief in God are reported to only have moved marginally. 90.5% still reported
belief in God in 2021, decreasing to 88.5% in 2023, yet 5% of the Maltese population in 2022
and 6.6% in 2023 reported they don’t believe in God, while 4.5% of the population in 2022
and 4.9% in 2023 ‘don’t know’. This means that at least ~3% of the Maltese population has
undergone or is undergoing through some form of secularisation, mainly in the younger
population, with a quarter (25%) of 16–25-year-olds reporting no belief in God (Marmarà,
2023).

22
Figure 1. The complexity of Deconversion trajectories as migration movements within
and out of the religious field. (Streib, 2014, p. 3).

23
3. Methodology
“Stories always refer to the past; they never can reach the very present moment,
since when the word is formulated, and when it becomes heard, the situation in
which it was formulated has already passed.”
- Jaakko Seikkula (2011)
3.1 A Post-Modern Qualitative Methodology
The qualitative methodological framework adopted is aimed at an in-depth and
insightful understanding into the how, rather than the why of participants’ patterns and
processes (Mason, 2002; Sprenkle & Piercy, 2005; Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). A qualitative
methodology allows the exploration of delicate, unique, deeply personal, and fleeting
accounts of a process or event, unlike positivist, modernist definitions of ‘events’ as external,
permanent phenomena.
Rather, in my post-modern, socio-constructionist research, I operate under the
assumption that both researcher and participant are embedded in social contexts, biases, and
discourses. Hence, narratives provide a wealth of storied experiences which represent
people’s stories as told by them (Kim, 2016; Riessman, 2008) and “seeks to illuminate how
believers use narratives to fashion a context of meaning” (Gooren, 2010, as cited in
Stromberg, 2020, p.328). I thus acknowledge that the research process is inductive in nature
and allows the emergence of participants’ co-constructed narratives (Dallos & Vetere, 2005;
Gergen & McNamee, 2000).

24
3.2 The Narrative Research Method Rationale
“Narrative is not only a research method, it is a cultural mechanism whereby persons make
sense of their lives […] in narratives, participants build a world.”
- Stromberg (2020, p.331)
“Narrative is the primary scheme by which human existence is rendered meaningful.”
- Polkinghorne (1988)
The overarching framework adopted in my research is that of Narrative Analysis
(Riessman, 1993; Kim, 2016) since it “focuses on the way individuals present their accounts
of themselves” (Burck, 2005, p.252) and “how they accomplish a sense of self when they
engage in story-telling talk” (Bamberg, 2006, p.142). According to Georgakopoulou (2006)
“the study of narrative is by now a well-established area” and is in line with my research aims
and rationale, since it “can afford to reach out to under-represented stories as well as viewing
all stories as social practices” (p.129).
This method emphasises individuals’ story-telling and meaning-making, encapsulated
through language, personal and relational experiences over time, as constructed within a
specific context (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004). According to Frank (2010) narrative
approaches are best used when studying one or more individuals on topics lending
themselves to “narrativizing” of some kind (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004), such as
deconversion.
Because narratives neither speak for themselves nor have unanalysed merit
(Riessman, 2005), narrative research is “always interpretive at every stage” (Josselson, 2006)
and thus, core narratives will always require interpretation when used as data in social
research (Riessman, 2005). Given the systemic-narrative nature of the study, I am aware that
the excavated themes, patterns, and how I make sense of texts is a fruit of personal bias and

25
pre-knowledge. Thus, the data presented should be interpreted as subjective discursive
constructions, not as empirical facts (Fazzino, 2014).
3.3 The Self of the Researcher
The co-construction of deconversion harks Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of polyphony as
“a plurality of independent, unmerged voices and consciousnesses” (p. 6), where no voice
enjoys an absolute privilege. In my research, I vocalise both the multiplicity of voices that
inhabit me, as the author, and the multitude of voices of my participants without exercising
monologic control (Kim, 2016).
Since none of us hears a story exactly as it is told, “we fill in the gaps as we imagine
they are intended and, [thus], we construct the story for ourselves about what we think the
narrator tells us” (Etherington, 2001). Thus, I juxtaposed my participants’ stories to my own,
positioning myself as a heuristic researcher (Etherington, 2001; Moustakas, 1990). As a
heuristic researcher I become a responsive audience to my participants’ stories, and albeit in
a selective manner, “those responses include the impact of their stories on the researcher”
and where it connects with my story (Etherington, 2001, p.123).
By adopting the less-privileged position of a co-researcher rather than the ‘expert
interviewer’ I mitigated power-imbalances within the researcher-participant relationship.
Care was also taken during analysis to remain cognizant of my biased self as a deconvert,
and my gendered, relational, and culture-bound positions of power as a co-researcher and co-
participant (Davies & Harre´, 1990), hence enacting more like a “fellow traveller”
(Weingarden, 1998, p.2) in my participants’ narrative journey. Research is a process of
“mutual shaping in which researchers and co-researchers are changed by each other” (Simon,
2014, p.5) and the researcher’s voice should be posited as one which neither valorises one

26
particular point of view (Kim, 2016; Seikkula, 2011), nor “gives them second-hand and
finalizing definitions” (Bakhtin, 1981, pp.67-68).
3.4 Research design
3.4.1 Participant Selection & Recruitment Criteria
Due to similarities to my own dissertation and owing to the lack of local research
studies on the topic, I based my participant eligibility criteria on Wagstaff’s (2015) and
Hansen’s (2017) research, whereby participants need to:
(a) be a Maltese National,
(b) be eighteen (18) years of age or older,
(c) have considered themselves believers/religious at one point,
(d) no longer believing in a deity and/or identify as agnostic, atheist, non-theist or
‘spiritual but not religious’,
(e) have lived in the Maltese islands during their deconversion process.
In line with Hood & Chen’s (2013) definition, my focus is upon atheistically
motivated deconversion and deconverts who no longer believe in God but once did. This
bracketing is not inclusive of all positions on the deconversion spectrum, but will focus on
those who currently situate themselves in the later stages of their religious exit rather than
attempting to pinpoint any particular stage, which can be very elusive (Bullivant & Ruse,
2013).
3.4.2 Data Collection & Sampling
I conducted five (5) face-to-face, semi-structured in-depth interviews of 1 hour
average duration with adults (18+ years) who satisfied the recruitment criteria mentioned
above. A small sample size is compatible with the aims of my study, privileging depth over

27
generalisability, allowing an in-depth, qualitative understanding of participants’ experiences
to emerge (Creswell, 2014). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed with
participants’ consent. Semi-structured in-depth interviews are “widely used by researchers to
co-create meaning with interviewees by reconstructing perceptions of events and
experiences” (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006, p.2). My semi-structured interviews were
organised around a set of predetermined open-ended questions, with other questions
emerging from the conversation (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006), changing organically to
fit the dialogue that arises within the interview (Hansen, 2017; Hays & Singh, 2012). A
sample of the Interview Questions can be found in Appendix B.
A snowball sampling method was utilised (Creswell, 2014; Fazzino, 2014; Patton,
2002), through which I circulated the information of the research through various methods
including social media, online fora, and networks of local non-religious/atheist communities
(such as the Malta Humanist Association). In this way, only those who were interested and
willing to participate established contact with me (Parker et al., 2019).
3.4.3 Data Analysis
Although the methods of analysis I prefer all stem from the post-modern, narrative
slant, I zoomed in on the one which could represent my participants’ data in the most relevant
ways. Since several typologies of narrative analysis exist (Riessman, 2005), I “flirted” (Kim,
2016) with different methods of narrative analyses. In the end, I chose Critical Narrative
Analysis.
3.5 Critical Narrative Analysis
Critical Narrative Analysis is the method of analysis I adhered to. Critical Narrative
Analysis (CNA) as posited by Souto-Manning (2005; 2014) is a method wedding the worlds

28
of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Narrative Analysis (NA), and was born out of the
unmet epistemological needs of both.
Discourse Analysis was a method I had considered, as it involves the study of
language beyond the sentence (Ashworth, 2021; Miles, 2010), as well as Thematic Narrative
Analysis with its marriage of both Thematic and Narrative Analysis, but both were discarded
due to conceptual and epistemological discrepancies. The inclusion of Discourse Analytic
elements in CNA offers “a balanced focus on social issues as well as linguistic (textual)
analysis, considering the complex ways in which language and the social world are
intertwined” (Souto-Manning, 2014, p.163), locating it within a social constructionist
paradigm, fitting “well with systemic psychotherapists’ interest in language and dominant
and subjugated meanings” (Burck, 2005, p.249; White & Epston, 1990).
Souto-Manning (2014) argues that while personal narratives are always assumed to be
socially-constructed, “yet by and large, they are analyzed apart from issues of power and/or
institutional discourses. CNA proposes that when individuals make sense of their experiences
through narratives, they bring together the micro (personal) and the macro (social or
institutional)” (Souto-Manning, 2014, p.163).
This conveniently solves any theoretical and methodological dilemmas associated
with critical approaches to language research at both the macro and micro levels. According
to Souto-Manning (2014, p.161), NA “focuses on how people make sense of their
experiences in society through language; CDA is concerned with power and language in
society. [CNA] take[s] a closer look at how these two discourse-analytic approaches can
inform one another as a means to seek a more complete analysis.” In this way, CNA becomes
a hybrid analytic approach which adopts a both/and systemic framework, shining a unique
light onto individuals’ conversational narratives whilst “identifying the socio-ideological

29
influence of systemic and institutional discourses on their beliefs and practices” (Souto-
Manning, 2014, p. 161).
Recycled institutional discourses, such as religious ones, effectively infiltrate and
assert themselves as colonising power discourses through every day, colloquial narratives
(Souto-Manning, 2014). “Thus, CNA allows us to learn how people create their selves in
constant social interactions at both personal and institutional levels, and how institutional
discourses influence and are influenced by personal everyday narratives” (Forgas, 2002;
Souto-Manning, 2014, p.162). This embedded circularity in CNA is one of the strongest
reasons for subscribing to this method of analysis, because the mutually beneficial
partnership of NA with CDA can help me “assess and understand institutional and power
discourses in society in more concrete ways” (Souto-Manning, 2014, p.162).
3.6 Transcription, Analysis & Presentation of Findings
The interviews were meticulously transcribed a verbatim to mirror the researcher’s
and co-researchers’ verbal, paraverbal, and non-verbal utterances into text format as best as
possible. Once the interviews were fully transcribed and checked with the audio for accuracy,
the analysis commenced.
The way the deconversion narratives were told was usually in sporadic bursts of small
stories (Bamberg, 2006; Georgakopoulou, 2006) or what I termed micro-stories, scattered
throughout the interview. Hence, I underwent through a process of chronological stitching of
narratives into a coherent plot of temporal unity via restorying (Polkinghorne, 1995), “a
process of reorganizing and analyzing the key elements of a story and rewriting it within a
chronological order” (Nasheeda et al., 2019, p.2).
According to Polkinghorne (1995, p.14), “the process of narrative analysis is actually
a synthesizing of the data rather than a separation of it into its constituent parts.” By not

30
doing a Thematic Analysis I “produce stories as the outcome of the research” (Polkinghorne,
1995, p.15) “rather than decontextualize them into bits and pieces that we see in qualitative
research in general” (Kim, 2016, p.179).
Throughout the data analysis, I used a multi-method approach to narrative analysis
(Nasheeda et al., 2019) to extract the essence of the participants’ lived experiences whilst
maintaining a sense of the whole, which is “an important goal of restorying in narrative
analysis” (Nasheeda et al., 2019, p.3). I also included notions of holistic life stories (Gibbs,
2015) with narrative roots of Greek literature/drama (e.g., genres such as comedy, romance,
satire, tragedy). These narrative devices were used to give a plot or narrative flavour to the
participants’ deconversion stories.
3.7 Ethical Considerations
This research proposal was submitted to the IFT-Malta Ethics Committee which is in
line with both the British Psychological Society and the European Family Therapy
Association. All participants received a consent form and a detailed information sheet (see
Appendix A) overviewing the research purpose in both Maltese and English languages. These
imparted the research aims and process, data collection methods, analysis and how anonymity
and confidentiality would be ensured through GDPR measures, such as assigning
pseudonyms for privacy.
Creswell (2014) also details robust safeguards for participants’ rights as a research
subject, especially those pertaining to refusal to be in the study at all, stopping participating at
any time after study commences, and to research-related injury. Due to the sensitive-nature of
the topic, participants were informed about non-research support facilities as necessary
(Corbin & Morse, 2003).

31
4. Results
I love a good story. In this chapter, I present the selected stories deemed relevant and
significant enough to be picked amongst the richness of narrative data my co-researchers
kindly provided me. I also introduce my participants/co-researchers with some brief
demographic data (see Table in point 4.1) to give some context to their stories. I divide this
chapter into sub-sections, one for each deconversion narrative, each named in the title of the
co-researcher’s creative choosing during interview stage.
Each story includes direct quotes from the interviews. These are kept in Maltese, with
translations found in Appendix C. In line with Critical Narrative Analysis, each sub-section
also includes highlights of discourse which caught my attention. Throughout this process, I
found it more parsimonious to incorporate some analytic reflections directly into the results
because it provides more narrative coherence. A separate, extended Discussion section will
follow, where I expound on the Results in comparison to literature.
4.1 Table of Participants/Co-researchers
Pseudonym
Age
Gender
Education
Employment
Marital Status
Spiritual Trajectory
Holly
30
Female
Tertiary –
B.Psy
Job Coach
Cohabitating
Roman Catholic to
Pantheist Agnostic
Jack
24
Male
Tertiary –
B.Psy
Student
Services
Coordinator
Same-sex
cohabitating
relationship
Roman Catholic to
Non-Conforming
Kate
29
Female
Masters –
PGCE
Part-Time
Educator
Married
(Church)
Roman Catholic to
Spiritual not Religious
Roma
28
Female
Tertiary –
B.Psy
Youth
Worker
In a
relationship
Roman Catholic to
Atheist
Hal
42
Male
Post-Grad
– B.Psy
Senior
Manager
Single
Roman Catholic to
Atheist, Existentialist/
Humanist

32
4.2 Holly – The Development of an Ethical Life
“Darba minnhom mort insaqsih lil dan [il-qassis], jekk jemminx fl-eżorċiżmu, qalli ‘le, jiena
ma nemminx fl-eżorċiżmu’, u da’ qassis!... qalli, ‘jiena għalija dawk kollha ċuċati!’...
(laughs) vera bqajt iċċassata dak il-ħin!”
- Holly (lines 582-584; 596, 597)1
The first person I interviewed was Holly. She starts her deconversion narrative by setting
the context of her younger self – the primary character, and immediately introduced her
family of origin (FOO) - the first of many secondary characters which feature in her story.
Holly comes from a moderately religious family, and emphasised the non-extremism of her
FOO’s Catholic beliefs, which is a narrative set-up for later episodes in her deconversion
story where she crosses paths with other characters of contrasting levels of religious
zealousness. Holly remained actively religious until she stopped going to MUSEUM, aged 11
or 12. Her devotion towards the organised portion of religion started declining from there
onwards, yet she remained a believer in God.
“Kont nemmen, imma kont niddejjaq immur il-knisja” (lines 44, 45)2
This introduces another chapter in her story, that of the Questioning phase. For
Holly, this was mainly during a past relationship her mid-teens:
“meta kelli 15 jew 16… kont noħroġ ma’ xi ħadd għamilt ħames snin miegħu u kellu ommu u
missieru li kienu like, reliġjużi to an extreme… iġifieri li għarukaża jekk ma tmurx il-quddies
il-Ħadd u jriduna mmorru bilfors, u ma jriduniex norqdu flimkien” (lines 47-52)3
In her FOO, Holly has the freedom to reject attending religious rituals, whereas this
was not an option in her ex-boyfriend’s family. Experiencing this invasively authoritative
version of religion, her Questioning phase transitioned into Rebellion phase.

33
“qisu min hemmhekk umbagħad, so 15, 16… li bdejt nirribella kontra r-reliġjon.” (lines 65,
66)4
This micro-story serves both as justification for her transition into rebellion against
religious extremism and the start of her fight against the suffocating lack of choice in spiritual
expression. Initially, this rebellion was not externalised. Holly kept going to church in a
cosmetic sense, keeping up with her FOO’s social expectations and ex-boyfriend’s parents’
demands. Simultaneously, Holly still engaged in subtle micro-actions (or non-actions) of
rebellious defiance:
“…pereżempju ma kontx irrodd is-salib, iġifieri kont immur [il-knisja] u just, I wouldn’t pay
attention” (lines 531, 532)5
When the relationship with her ex-boyfriend ended, in hindsight Holly attributed that
episode to a quest of freedom – a significant metaphor for the freedom espoused by her
deconversion process:
“meta ma bqajtx ma’ dal-bniedem, umbagħad qisu I was free, għax umbagħad stajt ma
mmurx, stajt ma nismax iktar qrid… u iktar qisha dik kompliet issammar fija li l’hemmhekk
[il-knisja] jiena ma rridx nersaq” (lines 76-78)6
She also looks back at this self-contained micro-story and re-stories it as a lesson
about her own deconversion process. She highlights how her ex-boyfriend’s FOO co-created
a reinforcing feedback loop, a demand-withdraw cycle – the more they pushed their
religious agenda in a dogmatic way, the more she rebelled. Paradoxically, they helped her
become non-religious. These significant characters in her deconversion story are pivotal to
the protagonist’s non-religious identity development and, in fact, Holly refers to them as
being nails in the coffin for religion:

34
“Il-kunjati li kelli dak iż-żmien, dawk kienu the nail in the coffin! (Laughs) […] qisu
iktar ġagħluni nirribella… [Għinuni] b’mod ieħor…” (lines 543-549)7
It is interesting to note in the last 2 quotes the repetitive word usage and linguistic
referencing to “issammar”/“hammering”, “nails”, “coffin”, which are very resonant with
stereotypical Christ-like features. The Biblical narration of Jesus’ death by his nailing to the
cross thus bears a powerful linguistic parallelism to the metaphorical nailing of religion’s
coffin for Holly.
This catapulted Holly into the next phase of her deconversion narrative, the rejection
of the classical monotheistic god and loss of religion, simultaneously married with the gain of
something else – the Pantheistic idea of god. As Holly matured and found her own
epistemology of thought, she changed her relationship to god by changing her idea of god
altogether.
“U qisni ġejt b’din l-idea li jiena fl-opinjoni tiegħi… (exhales) Alla huwa n-natura.
Iġifieri, jiena nemmen ħafna li… l-univers huwa Alla, basically, iġifieri mhux Alla dak li
nimmaġinaw fil-Kristjaneżmu” (lines 90-94)8
Holly’s new, divergent idea of god and her spiritual relationship with nature stems far
off from the local dominant traditional notions of the Christian God, enabling her to take a
more agentic role on who god is, a powerful twist on the dominant religious script whereby
‘God creates man’, not ‘Man creates God’. This concept of ‘god as nature’ makes god more
‘real’, or accessible for Holly, like a symbiotic relationship because nature is both interactive
and interacted-with. Holly stopped believing in the Christian God and through her
deconversion moved towards another ‘god’, the Universe/Nature, which is also perplexing
for myself and challenges my own preconceived ideas about the atheist spectrum and popular
definitions of Atheism (i.e.: denial of all gods). Holly narrates this Pantheistic worldview as

35
having real-life impact and brought significant changes in her lifestyle (e.g., becoming
vegetarian).
Yet, Holly emphasised that she did not merely reject her previous Christian values to
replace them with Pantheistic ones. For her, it was more of an interwoven both/and situation
of borrowed and overlapping ethical values, even if stemming from different ideological
roots. This “journey” / “vjaġġ”, as she calls it, drove her to exit from a monothetic, faith-
based perspective of the world, and adapt a wider, secular definition of spirituality inclusive
of a more respectful, ethical, and benevolent attitude. Simultaneously, the language used here
implies a sort of internal struggle with fully letting go of her familiar beliefs even though in
disagreement with them – a grieving process for her loss of faith. This dialogical conflict
might have been resolved by the seaming of her original Christian spiritual seeds in the new,
fertile ground of Pantheism.
“Jiena ma narahiex li tlaqtha [ir-reliġjon]... as in tlaqtha, tlaqtha.” (line 164)9
Holly further explores other secondary characters figural in her deconversion
transition and shifts to the academic sphere, telling a micro-story about a character who
defies all the usual stereotypical presuppositions. She sets up the scene for a narrative twist.
“darba minnhom partikolari kelli psychology of religious experience… U l-lecturer
kien qassis… għalkemm kien qassis, kien vera open imma. Iġifieri anke jekk ħa tmur u tgħidlu
‘isma jien ma naqbilx miegħek u naħseb illi qiegħed tgħid huwa bullshit’… kien ħa jiddiskuti
miegħek… u mhux xi ħadd ħa jgħidlek ‘le mur il-quddies!’” (lines 555-565; 572-576)10
I call this character the rebel priest, since he defies expectations of his role as a
‘shepherd for religious conversion’ and instead stayed with Holly, catalysing her
deconversion, further facilitating her religious exit, as opposed to other religious/clerical
people who would push a different agenda. Through her discourse I could sense the

36
juxtaposition of this lecturer’s liberal worldview, language, and permissiveness to plurality of
ideas, vs. the censorship and suffocation of her ex-boyfriend’s FOO. This openness to
discussion and critique of religious ideas in a safe environment was key to Holly’s exit, also
similar to my own experience with the very liberal and academically-minded MSSP priests.
The next phase of her narrative takes me to her romantic relationship because another
central character to her deconversion process and maintenance is her long-term boyfriend.
Holly narrates that just like her, he also came from a religious FOO background, yet states a
major difference – he was baptised with the River of Love, a local extreme Evangelical
Christian group, famous for controversial homophobic practices. Holly states that although he
has roots in River of Love, he no longer affiliates with them and is now atheist. In a way, they
both share a deconversion narrative, albeit from different departures.
At this point, Holly presents a striking temporal juxtaposition of how 16-year-old
Holly vs. 30-year-old Holly react in significantly different ways when protecting their
identity boundaries:
“Hi (ommu) qatt ma qaltli pereżempju ‘isma, ejjew magħna River of Love’… One,
kieku kont ħa ngħidilha ‘le’ square and plain …ma kontx ħa nagħmel kif kont għamilt meta
kelli 16 u noqgħod immur biex noqgħod nagħlqilha ħalqha… (smiles)” (lines 658-660)11
Throughout her deconversion journey Holly moved from a position of passivity to
Assertiveness, which ties up to another sub-plot running through her narrative, that of
Authenticity:
“li tkun assertiva f’kollox hu mportanti fil-ħajja… u fuq reliġjon speċjalment, għax
qisu biex toqgħod tmur il-quddies biex issaħħan is-siġġu… jew biex jarawk il-ġirien, ma
mmur imkien, taf kif?... X’inhi r-raġuni li għandi ngħid it-talba ta’ qabel l-ikel just biex inkun
għidtha jekk jien mhux qed nemmen f’dak li qed ngħid?” (lines 801-812)12

37
This quote shows the break-away from engaging in socio-religious rituals for others’
sake (very prevalent in our local context), and towards a more irreverent attitude and
authenticity to herself. The culmination of Holly’s story includes her development of an
ethical lifestyle, revolving around respecting difference and her appreciation of nature. This is
also an interesting point, especially the discourse she uses to express this spiritual connection
and her trajectory towards Pantheism:
Holly: “Jiena n-natura għalija, like, naduraha… as in mhux naduraha fis-sens…
Kristjan, imma nieħu ħsieb ħafna. Iġifieri, nemmen ħafna-”
Researcher: “Qisu you honour it.”
Holly: “I honour it, eżatt!” (lines 715-722)13
She had to resort to borrowing directly from religious jargon in order to describe her
spiritual relationship with nature, and I felt I had to interject to assist her in finding secular
language (even if in English) to re-story it as part of her deconversion narrative. This is a
deeper implication on the nature of the Maltese language and its inherently coded religiosity,
by default disallowing the option to speak (and therefore, think) non-religiously. Moreover,
from a discourse analysis perspective, it seems that the choosing of the term ‘worship’
signifies the depth of her new belief system, carried from her experience as a Christian and
shifted onto her Pantheistic worship of nature. Although Holly changed the meaning of the
concept, it seems that her need for worship is still present.
To conclude, the plot of Holly’s story is a bildungsroman where the hero (Holly) has
risen from a submissive position to one of dominance over her life and ethical choices,
evolving and changing her moral identity in the process. The story includes the protagonist,
the villains (oppressive church members, a religious socio-linguistic context), the anti-heroes

38
(rebellious priests) and the allies (boyfriend, family members, academia). Running sub-plots
identified are Authenticity, Assertiveness, Irreverence, and the Quest for Freedom.
4.3 Jack – Coming Out of Religion
The second person I interviewed was Jack. He starts by setting the atmosphere regarding
his turbulent relationship with religion, fashioning his story’s main antagonist:
“Mill-bidu ta’ ħajti minn dejjem… ħassejt qisu, qatt ma kelli dik is-stable relazzjoni
mar-reliġjon” (lines 13, 14)14
Jack comes from a family of varying levels of religious commitments. At home with
his parents, religion was not given much weight. His maternal FOO are very much non-
religious and non-conformist, whereas his paternal grandparents are quite religious, yet not
much so his father. Despite having these extremes, he was a believer, mentions prayer and
ritual, and narrates how they still attended Sunday mass, Xmas & Easter mass throughout the
years as a family.
Jack’s parents are un-married and since they were cohabitating, the Church
disallowed his baptism as an infant, until 8 years of age. This systemic failure contributed to a
domino effect of misalignment in Jack’s chronology of socio-religious milestones (e.g.,
sacraments), which left him out of sync with his peers.
“minħabba f’hekk imbagħad lanqas il-Praċett ma’ stajt nagħmel ma’ sħabi, so
għamiltu sena wara” (lines 44, 45)15
His childhood was filled with disappointment, stemming from the unacceptance of
his diverse FOO by religious authorities. This sense of not-belonging followed Jack
throughout his life, and his relationship to his socio-cultural territory has always been mired
in incongruence. In the many micro-stories characterising his religious exit, it seems that Jack
was consistently being ushered out by the Church itself.

39
“naħseb dik kienet il-feeling tagħha kollha, eħe, qisu I was feeling left out from the
religious world…” (lines 94-96)16
These experiences play a significant part in fuelling Jack’s deconversion, and he
mentions how his Questioning phase had started very early on, in Primary school and
getting more permanent in Forms 1 and 2 (ages 11 & 12). His questions in religion class were
less about the nature of God’s existence but rather targeted the unjust treatment of others by
the Church itself:
“niftakar kont insaqsi mistoqsijiet fuq- pereżempju għalfejn jiena kont, like, shunned
mill-Knisja peress li ommi u missieri ma kienux miżżewġin? U I never really got a good
enough answer to me…” (lines 61-63)17
Jack here uses very powerful discourse. Never getting a ‘good-enough’ answer to his
very personal and familial struggles in relation to the Church accelerated his deconversion
process. The term “shunned” has a lot of weight since it implies how he was feeling rejected
by religion, and by proxy, God Himself. In fact, his questions were not only left unanswered
at school, but also during his direct pleading with God:
“kont nagħmel prayer u waħda mill-affarijiet li kont nitlob għaliha (laughs) u it’s a
bit depressing, huwa l-fatt li vera kont nitlob u nixtieq li ommi u missieri jerġgħu jħobbu ‘l
xulxin (smiles) […] U niftakarni iġifieri ngħid, [Alla] jagħmel dawn l-affarijiet kollha imma
dil-ħaġa li hija daqshekk sempliċi qisu kienet… it just seemed unreachable.” (lines 68-70,
76-78)18
This piece of narration is imbued with a sense of shame, disappointment, and
embarrassment, and the term “a bit depressing” in hindsight may be the protagonist’s
assertion to his younger, more naïve self, that prayer is futile. Jack’s sense of dissatisfaction
with religious faith was further accentuated, eventually losing trust in God’s omnipotence

40
when his “simple” request remained unfulfilled. This sense of unfairness also became a
catalyst for deconversion and by age 12 Jack says that he was in Advanced stages of
Deconversion:
“all in all nista ngħid li kompletament I lost my faith probabli around Form 2,
actually so niftakarni anke meta kont għamilt il-[Griżma], dak iż-żmien kont diġa… it all
seemed a bit unbelievable” (lines 65-67)19
Although he participated in the expected sacramental rituals, Jack still felt
mismatched with his peers – both in age and in faith. Another shocking micro-story which
further filled up Jack’s ‘bag of proofs’ against the church and clergy was when a priest
humiliated and chastised his mother during confession:
Jack: “niftakar li l-padre actually beda jgħajjat magħha-”
Researcher: (shocked look)
Jack: “-waqt iċ-ċeremonja u jirrabja magħha, għaliex somehow the conversation came up u
qaltlu li m’hix miżżewġa ma’ missieri, u… ommi, jiġifieri, spiċċat litteralment tibki f’nofs ta’
knisja…” (lines 115-121)20
This micro-story is very symbolic of the blatant rejection by the church, even when
members of his family were attempting to approach the church for forgiveness (literally) and
instead getting shamed and judged. This form of Religious Double-Bind is what further
catalysed Jack’s anti-religious stance. Narratively, this follows the Church’s own plot as a
separate secondary protagonist in Jack’s deconversion story, mainly the development of the
antagonist story-arch – Clergy devolved from revered heroes/saviours (as society holds them
to be) to villains (as in Jack’s experience).

41
Throughout his narration Jack repeats how much he always felt different to others,
and this matches both with his deconverted self as well as other aspects of his identity. Jack’s
story is unique from all the other participants also because his deconversion process coincides
with his coming-out process as a member of the LGBTIQ+ community. His deconversion
story follows the interweaving similarities of both his subjugated identities (gay and non-
religious) in the local religious and heteronormative context.
Jack’s sexual orientation impacts also his relationship with religion, mainly because
he feels that the Church is mostly against difference or anything other than the traditional
nuclear family, further playing into his perceived, pre-determined destiny to never be
welcomed by the Church.
“inħoss li it was never really in my books to be religious” (line 174)21
Apart from that, Jack feels that religion can be harmful to “people like himself” –
implying both gay people as well as other minorities – characters I shall narratively call the
non-typicals. For him, being religious feels like a sign of betrayal to the gay community and
other non-typicals due to the damage they incurred in the name of religion.
“Infatti vera naraha xi ħaġa stramba meta xi ħadd ikun gay pereżempju u jkunu
reliġjużi… Hija xi ħaġa li vera ma tagħmilx sens għalija li you’re believing in an institution
that doesn’t believe in you” (lines 324-328)22
This quote highlights the incongruence Jack feels when it comes to being religious
and gay simultaneously. One such character in his story is his boyfriend, who still adheres to
certain religious rituals like making the sign of the cross when driving past a religious
icon/‘niċċa’. Jack finds this absurd, moreover since his boyfriend is not typically religious
either, and recounts micro-stories of confusion stemming from those negotiating their gay

42
identity with residual aspects of religion different to his expectations. He narrates this with a
sarcastic, comical twist:
“Għax jien għalija qisu jekk irodd is-salib mela jemmen fiha l-ħaġa, fis-sens…
Otherwise, it’s literally just like, qisek qed tagħmel il-YMCA… (smiling)” (lines 376-379)23
For Jack, his deconversion process runs in parallel to his coming-out process, and
thus, for his narrative to bear some form of congruence and meaning, both subjugated
identities need to be simultaneously co-occurring in some form of unholy marriage. Having
said this, Jack makes it clear that he is unbothered and unsure how to label his non-religious
identity:
“I don’t- mhux I don’t relate with the word ‘Atheist’… qisu għalija li tgħajjat lilek
innifsek ‘Ateu’ huwa… it’s like giving power to the religion… in my perspective il-fatt li
tgħajjat lilek innifsek ‘atheist’ it’s like you’re segregating yourself from the world of religion,
meta fil-verita` jien ma nemminx li hemm dinja tar-reliġjon. Nemmen li hemm dinja, u r-
reliġjon hija parti minnha… maybe it’s a stupid example, imma ma noqgħodx immur fuq in-
nies u ngħidilhom ‘jiena m’inhiex Taljan’... Fhimt? Għax fis-sens, it doesn’t really relate to
my life.” (lines 220-224, 235-241)24
The above quote is a great commentary on hegemonic religious discourse and how
non-religious discourse can fit or not into it. Jack alludes to language of power – by not using
the term ‘atheist’ he is freeing himself from the omnipresent religious default. Disclosing it
gives religion more power, because the term ‘atheist’ as a negative referent is always in
relation and reference to religion. His choice of language and, thus, meaning-making tools
help him narrate a different story than the dominant religious one. It bears signs of socio-
constructionist and pluralistic discourse – religion is not the totality of what is out there, but

43
quite the other way round. Religion is one out of many other modalities available and he is
partaking in that modality no more.
The culmination of all the sub-plots of Rejection, Disappointment, and the Odd One
Out/Ugly Duckling effect all come together in this narrative mix – a twist of a classic epic
genre of Good vs. Evil, where the main plot of Jack’s deconversion arch is less about
religious/spiritual confusion, and more about injustices on Earth and clerical
paradoxes. These incongruences and uncertainties are based on the circular feedback loop
the Church (antagonist/villain) co-created with the Protagonist from his birth – the shunning
of his FOO and other allies (non-typicals) by the Church/clergy is now being reciprocated by
his rejection of religion (protagonist as the hero) and his subsequent indifference towards it.
4.4 Kate – Awakening
Kate was the third participant I interviewed. Her story has particular resonance with
mine, mainly because she hails from Gozo, my birthplace, sharing similar contextual tropes
to my deconversion narrative. Having said that, I am aware that although our trajectories
towards religious exit have similitudes, they are not identical, due to gender, age, family
background, and a multitude of other factors.
Kate comes from a religious family who followed the usual religious rituals, both for
communal purposes and as family tradition. She used to attend mass daily, and her young
village life was so religion-centred that she considered becoming a nun. This wish became
ingrained in her at a young age:
“darba kont mort kunvent tas-sorijiet u qisni rajt- ħassejt il-paċi, hekk tagħhom… U,
hekk, qisni xtaqtha imma mbagħad x’ħin tibda tikber naħseb l-affarijiet jibdew jinbidlu”
(lines 23-27)25

44
In the same micro-story about sisterhood and her quest for peace, Kate also alludes
to the first seeds of change and cites age as the primary catalyst in her deconversion process.
“imbagħad x’ħin tibda tikber u tgħix għalik, tibda tgħix waħdek, u tmur Malta, l-
Universita’… ma tibqax daqshekk…hekk, tal-Knisja…” (lines 30-32)26
She expounds on this notion of change through time by adding other contextual
factors like change in setting, independent living, and academic pursuit. For context, these are
rites of passage common for the majority of Gozitan young adults who choose to further their
careers in Malta, and are the exact same deconversion-catalysts I also experienced. Through
her quote Kate implies that when her context changed, her beliefs started to shift also, which
brought a change in her previous religious identity (“ma tibqax tal-Knisja”). The religiously-
saturated Gozitan village life became non-existent in cosmopolitan Msida, encouraging her
loss of interest in religious pursuit as well as independence of thought:
“qisek imbagħad… qisha ma tibqax tħoss il-bżonn, qisu sa ċertu punt.” (line 37)27
“qisek x’ħin tibda toqgħod waħdek l-ideat tiegħek jibdew jiffurmaw iktar…” (line
872)28
This precipitated Kate’s Questioning phase and shifts the story to a new chapter. Her
questioning stems from 2 streams of thought: firstly, on a theological level she questioned the
unquestionable dogmatic tenets of religion, citing The Problem of Evil argument:
“qisek tibda tgħid ‘imma, eħe, jeżistu ċertu affarijiet?’[…] tiqquestionja ‘kif jista jkun
il-Madonna baqgħet verġni u kellha ‘l Kristu?’” (lines 45, 560-561)29
“pereżempju meta jmut xi tifel żgħir, għall-argument, jew tifel żgħir jimrad b’xi
cancer… jekk ngħidu li Ġesu` qiegħed hemm biex jgħinna, u jrid il-ġid ‘il-kulħadd, mela
għax lil dan tah il-mard, fhimt? Qisek tibda you question a lot of things.” (lines 47-52)30

45
Secondly, Kate questioned the gullibility of her younger self and how/why she
passively believed what she was told. She reflects on how maturity and life experience gave
her a different perspective, helping her outgrow religion through questioning:
“meta tkun żgħira qisek tibla dak li tisma’… X’ħin tibda tikber qisek tibda tirrifletti
waħdek u ċertu esperjenzi li tgħaddi minnhom” (lines 42-45)31
Kate: “‘[il-fidi] għixha bħalissa jekk tħoss li għandek tgħixha, pero question things,
għax- eħe, it will help you grow’ naħseb jien…when you question things…”
Researcher: “Mmm, so ‘questioning helps you grow’…” (530-534)32
From a language perspective, it is interesting to note the repetition of the term
“questioning” in the above quotes, with the juxtapositioning of the term “tibla”/ “swallow”,
implying that she now metaphorically chews ideas rather than passively swallows them. The
second quote uses the literary tool of the ‘flashback’, since Kate was addressing her younger
religious self, the protagonist in a different time and space. In her retrospective time-
travelling message, she encourages her younger self that she can only grow through
questioning religion, yet acknowledges the need for that religiosity at that time (“għalissa”)
implying religion’s function as temporary and utilitarian.
This ties in to the experiences of parental addiction issues Kate endured in her FOO.
She narrates this part of her deconversion narrative to position religion’s significance as a
necessary coping mechanism:
“billi d-dar kellna naqra issues familjari tipo… kont immur il-knisja tipo biex ħriġt u
naħrab. Għal dawk il-ftit mumenti… u naħseb tant kemm kelli chaos dak iż-żmien meta kont
iżgħar- għax tipo, ommi bl-addictions tagħha, missieri kien bl-addictions tiegħu, allura
qisu… ma kellix fuq min inserraħ tipo… Ma kienx hemm trust-person, dak it-tip. Forsi kont

46
insib it-“trust”, tipo indirectly bħala knisja, reliġjon, whatever. Forsi kont ngħid li rrid
nidħol soru għas-sens ta’ peacefulness li ħassejt… compared mad-dar” (lines 502-513)33
The notion of religion as a crutch is very prevalent here, it being a source of safety
and respite, circling back to the nun episode and her quest for peace. This was first
experienced through religious means/clergy, yet when she moved away from home and
experienced growth through deconversion, Kate shed away her religious comfort-blanket and
created her own secular spiritual meaning. Simultaneously, Kate does not feel certain if she
should identify as ‘atheist’, although narrates alternative ways of fulfilling her spiritual needs
and finding her inner peace through the rejection of traditional religious rituals:
“ma nafx nistax nuża l-kelma ‘ateist’ to be fair. Għax qisni xorta nħoss li hemm xi
ħaġa, pero ma nsejħiliex ‘Alla’ jew ‘Ġesu’… iktar ngħix l-ispiritual aspect tal-ħaġa, fis-sens
li m’hemmx bżonn immur ġo knisja biex inħossni fil-paċi, just immur barra fin-natura
pereżempju u noqogħod nirrifletti u meditation” (lines 58-61)34
“Qisni iktar inħossni jagħmel sens għalija dak l-insib l-inner peace tiegħi nnifsi tipo
…Iktar milli reliġjon jew trid tmur, sorry l-kelma… imma irrid immur nibla l-ostja biex
inħossni sewwa miegħi nnifsi.” (lines 63-68)35
Her hesitant usage of “nibla l-ostja” (literally “swallowing the holy wafer”) stems
from the derogatory nature of the phrase in local context, and is a reference to those believers
who go through the motions of religious ritual, yet contradict their religious values in daily
life. This incongruence and inauthenticity elicit anger in Kate. She holds the value of
congruence between actions and beliefs in high esteem, bringing the Sub-plot of
Authenticity to the fore. Kate seams Authenticity with Hypocrisy as another sub-plot in her
deconversion story and narrates one such contradiction in a micro-story of an episode where
she encountered a vulnerable person lying in the middle of the road in Gozo, and how she

47
gave him First Aid. She highlights how despite this person being visibly unwell, no one
stopped to help him:
“Nannti…li tmur il-knisja kuljum u taf int, tal-knisja, ‘għatti għajnejk u ibqa
għaddejja, tatix kas!’ qaltli…jien ma ħassejtx il-ħaġa li rrid nibqa għaddejja, ma ħassejtnix
sewwa. Issa jien ma mmurx knisja kuljum, imma nħoss li ‘isma… dil-persuna għandha bżonn
l-għajnuna’, so waqaft insomma u għint lil dil-persuna billi ċempilt l-ambulanza” (lines 81-
88)36
This story harks similarities to the Biblical narration of The Good Samaritan, and
juxtaposes her devout grandma’s Christian beliefs (to be kind to others, etc) versus her advice
(“don’t help him”/ “look the other way”). Kate’s actions went against such religio-cultural
pressures and acted as the Samaritan, or as the ‘good Christian’, in an ironic twist of roles.
This hints at the sub-plot of practical morality – that people can be good without going to
church, and Kate’s development of a Humanistic epistemology – helping others for the sake
of helping them. Encountering such events legitimises Kate’s deconversion.
Being judged because one is different is very prevalent in Gozo, and Kate mentions
how she tries to blend in as much as she can, and seldom discloses her secularism or critique
of religion to other people, fearing they are not ready to handle difference:
“jiena fil-verita`- ħa nkun onesta, ma nħossnix komda ngħid ‘isma, jien ma
nemminx’… ma ngħidx li nemmen aqqas, just ma ngħid xejn fuq dawn l-affarijiet!
(laughing)… ma’ nies speċjalment li naf li huma closed-minded… Fis-sens li- M’humiex open
li jisimgħu ideat oħra” (117-126)37
The phrase “just ma ngħid xejn” feeds directly into the protagonist’s Gozitan identity,
enshrining censorship and restraint when it comes to sharing ideas different from dominant

48
religious social discourse. In the Gozitan context, Kate learned that questioning was no
longer a vehicle for growth, but a challenge inviting conflict. The position of caution she
adopts helps her stay within the socially-acceptable norms, and not say anything ‘too
controversial’, the very Gozitan idea of ‘do not rock the boat’. Kate’s FOO also carry this
cultural token and with it marry the anxiety of being different, and of ‘being noticed by the
other’, hence her mother’s incessant pressure to attend Mass with the family:
“Tibqa’ tissukkani u tissukkani ‘u ejja’- għax aħna dik il-ħaġa wkoll, dejjem ‘min jaf
x’ħa jgħidu n-nies, min jaf x’ħa jgħidu n-nies!’… Dik kienet tkun presenti ħafna, x’ħa jgħidu
n-nies” (lines 817-823)38
Kate switches to another significant secondary character, her husband – who
confidently identifies as atheist, even though he’s Gozitan. Her husband has a highly
religious FOO, and she narrates how he was still a believer when she met him, yet the tragic
death of his uncle during Xmas time triggered his own deconversion process. Kate mentions
that during this time she was also in her questioning phase, and thus, their relationship
nurtured the symbiotic space for a dual deconversion process. Although she locates her
deconversion onset earlier than her relationship with her future-husband, she admits that his
deconversion supported hers.
“nista ngħid li forsi [d-deconversion tiegħu] kkonfermatli ftit dak li kont qed naħseb,
iwa.” (lines 881, 882)39
Kate narrates that her husband is the only person she feels safe with to bounce her
atheistic and controversial opinions without being judged/misunderstood thus serving also as
a means of connection in their couple relationship.

49
“Allura nħobbu nargumentaw ġieli fuq dawn l-affarijiet qisna biex- ma nafx, sense ta’
communication, argument… fis-sens to question iżjed naħseb…” (lines 903, 904)40
This secondary character functions as a helpful deconversion resource for the
protagonist. Her choice of phrase “to question more” implies the unfinished nature of her
religious exit, giving Kate’s deconversion a Bakhtinian quality: it is not an end-state, but
perpetually unfinalized. Kate’s deconversion narrative is characterised by the sub-plots of
Moral/Ethical Growth, Authenticity, Hypocrisy, and a Quest for Peace, whilst following
her spiritual journey towards difference in a context which values sameness.
4.5 Roma – Il-Miġja għall-Verita`
“Il-verita` hu, għax hekk naħseb, li dik il-verita`, li ma jeżisti xejn.
Dik il-verita` tiegħi, wara kollox.”
- Roma (line 289)41
The fourth participant is Roma and her deconversion story embodies a sharp critique
of religious doctrine. She was brought up in a religious family following typical religious
rituals (Sunday Mass, solo praying before bedtime, etc). Her story follows the classical
trajectory of the tragic hero drama – the protagonist’s fall from grace from believer to
atheist.
Roma’s FOO are an important secondary character in her deconversion narrative, and
mentions how in her early teen years her mother would push for her to attend church, unlike
her father, who did not really give this much importance. This was happening when Roma
was in her early teens, exploring social life with her horizontal family, her peers. This
pressure led to Roma’s Rebellion phase as narrated in the micro-story below:

50
“Ommi dejjem teqridli biex immur il-quddies fil-weekend, ‘ġifieri bdejt noħroġ mal-
ħbieb u l-outings taf kif? Taż-żogħożija…U dejjem ‘ara li trid tiġi l-quddies magħna!’,
umbagħad bdejt nivvendika- immur mal-ħbieb biex qisu ma mmurx…Imma naqra naqra bdejt
innaqqas, minflok immur il-quddies, immur il-bandli (smirks)…U nara kif ħa nevitaha.
Niftakar darba staħbejt taħt it-taraġ id-dar stess biex ma mmurx! (laughs)” (lines 25-33)42
Her usage of the term “bdejt nivvendika” is a clear implication of the start of this
rebellion against religious ritual and her FOO’s pressures to conform. Roma’s rebellion co-
occurred with her Questioning phase:
“Niftakarni nsaqsi ħafna mistoqsijiet, speċi, ‘għalxiex li kieku Alla jeżisti kif hawn dit-
tbatija?’ u nipprova qisu nirraġuna, ‘għalxiex għandu jkun hemm il-fidi?’ U ‘għalxiex
għandi nimxi ma’ li jgħidulna l-Knisja?’” (lines 38-40)43
“qatt ma ridt inkun dik il-persuna li nemmen mingħajr mistoqsijiet għax bit-tama, bil-
fidi- il-fidi! Dik li nistaqsi! Il-fidi... X’inhi l-fidi? Għax jien illum il-ġurnata naraha bħala xi
ħaga li żżomm in-nies milli forsi jkollhom daqxejn ta’ breakdown… Qisu jkollhom l-iskuża
tar-reliġjon” (lines 89-94)44
Analysing the discourse used here, Roma emphasises “asking a lot of question”,
bringing queries pertaining to The Problem of Evil and the linguistic juxtapositioning of
“nirraġuna” (reason) and “fidi” (faith), a popular atheistic argument, further implying her
internal struggle between these two often polarised ideological states, ending with the
questioning of religious authority itself – “why should I follow what the Church says?”. The
language used implies that Roma sees blind faith as fickle, unvirtuous, and delusional,
implying a false sense of hope.

51
The sub-plot of questioning of authority is tied in with the sub-plot of active
rebellion in the next transition of her story, where Roma offers a change in setting, narrating
how she continued to flex her critical thinking skills at school:
“l-iskola kont ribelli ħafna fir-reliġion. Kont insaqsi ħafna mistoqsijiet li t-teacher ma
tafx kif ħa taqbad tirrispondi” (lines 41-44)45
Roma’s challenging of the teacher’s authority also meshed with the challenging of
core Biblical teachings:
“niftakar waħda ‘jekk ituk daqqa… u ddawwar wiċċek biex ituk oħra’ pereżempju…
Dik kienet xi ħaga li konna nippruvaw nicchalengjaw. Iġifieri inti għandek toqgħod għal
vjolenza?” (lines 48-51)46
The above quote is rife with avenues of analysis. It offers a blatant critique and
challenge to one of Christ’s most beloved teachings, and the context of challenging this in
class adds another layer to the rebellion it espouses. Moreover, Roma bridges the
metaphorical narratives of the Bible into the modern-day context by highlighting implications
of submissiveness to abuse imbued in Christ’s teaching, criticising it also from a female
& feminist perspective.
Another secondary character introduced in Roma’s deconversion story is Music,
which she has great passion for. She brings an interesting parallelism between the musical
world she inhabits and her religious exit, overlapping the communal aspects of religion with
the music scene, which both bring people together:
“qisu [il-mużika] dejjem kienet il-passjoni tiegħi, iġifieri jista’ jkun illi l-mużika ġiet
flok ir-reliġjon għalija- Għax qisu, niffolowja ħafna idoli fil-mużika, u mhux biss kif jiktbu
imma kif jgħixu, il-ħajja tagħhom, qisu- tista tiġi bħala reliġjon dik, ukoll…” (lines 119-
124)47

52
In her deconversion narrative, Roma identifies music as a valid replacement for
religion, including also musical figures/idols and their life philosophy and values – in a
similar way believers would follow Jesus’s ideas. She adopted the music scene as a blueprint
for her life like a ‘religion’. When invited to deconstruct the term, Roma defined religion as a
“belief which conditions your life”: a lens through which she experiences her reality. This is
very socio-constructivist in nature, since different lenses result in different realities –
through her agentic choice of ‘lens’, Roma co-created her own preferred secular reality and
meaning.
This meaning-making process cannot occur without the implication of language, and
Roma narrates how her deconverted position no longer matched the local context’s language:
“għax meta tara n-nies illi jirraġunaw ‘u għax Alla hekk irid!’, ‘Għax dak imn’Alla
ġara hekk’… ‘Għax Ġesu` għandu xi ħaġa aħjar għalik’- dawn li jemmnu dawn l-affarijiet,
qisu, ħeq, mod ta’ kif tgħix.” (lines 130-133)48
“‘Għax Ġesu` jrid hekk’, ‘Għax Alla jrid hekk’. Jekk għamilt żball trid- you have to
own up for it ukoll, fis-sens. Tieħu responsabbilta’. Mhux nagħtu responsabbilta’ lil
ħaddieħor, hu!” (lines 656-658)49
Roma delves into the linguistic aspects of colloquial sayings, implying both the
ingrained passivity in terms of owning up to responsibility for mistakes by scapegoating the
divine (the convenient “other”); as well as the reality-creating qualities of language, which
locally is dominantly coloured by religion. Hence, employing an atheist map to navigate a
religious territory positions the protagonist in an incongruent shape where she struggles to
find the subjugated language to support her non-religious reality-building.
Part of reclaiming and asserting her atheist identity is through her activism and her
choice of employment. Roma works in the helping profession and has also been part of local

53
movements and NGO’s who fight against social injustices and for fundamental human rights.
These activities fight away the existential dread which atheism may bring, instead giving
Roma purpose, or what the Japanese call ikigai, a reason to wake up in the morning.
“meta tidħol existentialism iktar ikollok mistoqsijiet u iktar ikollok kriżijiet…‘X’jien
nagħmel b’ħajti?’ U naħseb illi lili għinitni l-fatt li dejjem xtaqt naħdem fis-social helping
sector- qisu dik hija l-purpose ta’ ħajti… Dejjem qisu ħassejt in-need of belonging” (lines
171-174, 205)50
Roma’s purpose is her Pragmatic Humanistic tendency to help, bringing out her ethic
of care, and satisfying her need to belong. Simultaneously, this set of beliefs include Roma’s
core script of believing in love, which she adopted from a band member she knows:
“[il-lead singer] kien qal li jemmen fl-imħabba, ma jemminx f’Alla. U dik kienet vera
baqgħet miegħi, għax irreżonat ħafna miegħi… li għandek qisu tħobb unconditionally in-nies
ta’ madwarek” (lines 265-267, 270)51
This tenet of ‘believing in love’ is also one which highlights a major incongruence in
her FOO, especially with her maternal side. Roma hones in on her mother, who is a
significant secondary character holding dual roles in her story. The first role is that of an
antagonist. Roma narrates that her mother was the most impacted by her religious exit. An
emotionally painful micro-story involves what Roma calls a ‘backlash’ from her mother
when Roma was in a relationship with a man who had children from a previous marriage. Her
mother’s judgemental disapproval of her relationship is connected to her shame and
preoccupation with their family image, and branded Roma as no longer being congruent with
her family’s values:
“meta kont ma’ xi ħadd li kien separat u b’tifel, il-mummy qaltli ‘inti m’għandekx
valuri bħal tagħna’…” (lines 428, 429)52

54
This taps back into Roma’s need for belonging/acceptance and recalls the sub-plot of
incongruence once more: this time within her own FOO because of a shift in values. Roma
expresses shock and disappointment at the fact that her mother’s conservative religious
values took precedence over her daughter’s happiness. Circularly, this episode of betrayal
was further amplified because her mother’s actions were also incongruent to Roma’s central
belief in love, bringing to the fore the systemic nature of the conflicts Roma had to navigate
in achieving her deconverted identity:
“verament ma kontx qed nistenniha dik ir-reaction [tal-mummy]… għaliha ma kienx
‘l-ewwel jiena għax jien kuntenta’… L-ewwel il-valuri tagħna, tal-familja, u kif ħa nidhru
aħna bħala familja… jiena ma stajtx nifhima, li jien tant nemmen bl-imħabba, ma stajtx
nifhem kif it-tifla li suppost verament tħobb tiġi wara t-twemmin tiegħek!” (lines 463-470,
475-478)53
This chasm in values between Roma and her mother has been partially restored more
recently. Moving forward in her deconversion timeline, Roma narrates that her mother shares
similar attitudes regarding the currently hot topic of the legalisation of abortion in Malta.
“…fuq hekk il-mummy, li l-mara tkun ħa tmut jew il-mara tkun fil-periklu, taqbel
[mal-abort]. ‘Ġifieri mbagħad nara ċertu humanism f’ommi wkoll… li dik qisu tagħtik
daqxejn kuraġġ li tgħid ‘eh! il-aħwa, orrajt! Mela hawn xi ħadd…!’” (lines 526-530)54
It is interesting that Roma uses the term “humanism” when referring to her mother’s
values, bringing her closer to the protagonist’s position. It is this Humanistic thinking by her
religious mother which contributed to Roma’s restored hope and sense of acceptance by her
family. Due to this ideological common ground, familiarity, and congruence to Roma’s
values, the mother’s role shifts from antagonist to ally.

55
Roma’s story bears similarities to the Tragedy genre, yet follows a strength-based
‘hero path’ towards forging her own life and atheist identity against all the odds a religious
family and society throws at her. Her determination to follow what she believes is right
shines throughout her deconversion narrative, and is characterised by sub-plots of Rebellion,
Incongruence, Betrayal, Pragmatic Humanism, and a Quest for Belonging.
4.6 Hal – In His Own Image
“There is no purpose in life outside of me, I create my own purpose…
I am now in control! And that is the humanism part of it,
tipo, the human is the centre of my life, not God.”
- Hal (lines 556, 585, 586)55
The final participant I interviewed is Hal. Hal is the oldest of all five co-researchers
and the first thing he asserts is that although his religious exit spans across a longer time
period due to his age, he still believes that it is not complete yet, giving it a Bakhtinian spin
by implying it’s a never-ending story of constant becoming:
“huwa proċess, huwa journey li naħseb ma jispiċċa qatt, fl-aħħar mill-aħħar.” (lines
27, 28)56
Hal’s story takes place in a religious setting of many local Christian communities,
from his FOO, to school, to voluntary organisations, all serving as important secondary
characters accompanying the protagonist’s deconversion arch. Hal emphasises how deeply
involved he was in these religious communities and that his religious identity was dependent
on the religious circle he was embedded in. This religious activism and participation was
unhindered until his late teens when he entered University and started adopting certain
critical thinking skills. This was the beginning of his Questioning phase:

56
“With hindsight ngħid dejjem kien hemm dik ix-xi ħaġa li ngħid ‘imma, does this
really make sense? Is it għax dejjem hekk ġejt imrobbi? Dejjem hekk ġejt mgħallem?’ u
dejjem qisni [kien hemm] dik l-isplinter in your mind, hekk… dak id-dubju” (lines 45-49)57
Hal mentions very clearly the “doubt” that started to infiltrate his as-of-yet
unquestioned religious identity, mainly by doubting the origin of his devotion. From a
discourse analysis perspective, the parallelism between “doubt” and the “splinter in [my]
mind” is very powerful, since it implies a subtle, yet present itch for questioning the
fundamentals of his faith.
Hal narrates how at first he denied he had such doubts, but through his studies in
psychology and other self-reflexive practices he adopted a meta-position to his own thoughts
and faced his own denial:
“dak id-dubju dejjem kont ngħid, ‘u lee! Le, dak just normali’ tipo, ‘tatix kasu!’
Eventwalment, meta kont qed l-universita’, qisu bdejt ngħid lili nnifsi ‘isma, you are in
denial!’…’You are not really a believer, inti just għalik hija iktar faċli għax dejjem hekk ġejt
mrobbi, għandek il-ħbieb kollha reliġjużi’… allura bħal speċi għidt, kienet my comfort zone,
jekk jiena ħa ngħid ‘isma, I’m not a believer anymore’, emm, prattikament jien ħa nispiċċa
eskluż waħdi” (lines 50-59)58
Given his context was so religious, Hal also understood that he could not come out as
atheist immediately since this disclosure was akin to social-suicide. Although he had
undergone an intense internal deconversion event, Hal held himself back from showing this
spiritual achievement to his peers, due to the frightening probability of exclusion.
Hal sets up the next phase of his story in a 3-part act. Act 1 carries a Sub-plot of
Acceptance/Tolerance. The set-up includes the direct disclosure of his atheistic position

57
within a religious context, his community’s acceptance and welcoming of the co-habitation of
ideological polarities:
“Eventually I came out with my friends u anka ma’ spiritual [leader] u bħal speċi
għidtlu, ‘isma, this is my position’… Għidtlu ‘il-volontarjat xorta għadu għall-qalbi, bħal
speċi, pero I mean, I am not religious anymore’ and he was very accepting...” (lines 91-
108)59
I note Hal’s use of language in this quote, describing his atheist disclosure as “coming
out”, harking similarities to the coming out of other subjugated and minority identities
(usually sexual/orientation/gender-related) and the risk it may entail. This narrative-discourse
tool is imperative in setting up the next bit of Hal’s story.
Act 2 is characterised by the Sub-plot of Betrayal & Shunning. After some time,
Hal’s community experienced some changes, the spiritual director was replaced by another,
and he came out to him as well:
“erġajt għamilt l-istess tipo, qrara miegħu. Qalli l-istess affarijiet, pero għal xi sena,
sena u nofs wara reġa bdielu…U da’ deherlu li jiena mhux posti iktar hemm… u bħal speċi
qalli ‘ma rridekx tibqa iktar tattendi’” (lines 140-145)60
Hal’s rejection is made to feel even more impactful given the religious language he
uses to narrate it. His borrowing of “qrara” / “confession” to refer to his deconversion
disclosure to the priest implies secrecy, guilt, and shame – branding atheism as ‘sinful’.
Confession also implies forgiveness, mercy, and acceptance, yet Hal was discarded and
discriminated based on his belief/lack thereof.
Hal embellishes aspects of Act 2 by adding some more context. The religious group
were hard at work organising a music concert, and Hal’s dumping came the day after this
project was finished:

58
“[l-ispiritual director] ħalla dal-kunċert isir… u bagħat għalija biex jgħidli… the
very next day wara l-għeluq tal-proġett… ‘please tiġix iktar, is-servizzi tiegħek ma rridhomx
iktar’… u qisni bħal speċi ħassejtni użat u mormi.” (lines 178, 179, 189-191, 205)61
Hal’s emphasises on the broken promise and the injustice incurred from religious
authority highlights the betrayal aspect furthermore. This locks up the narrative in a
cliffhanger, imminent for a satisfying resolution in the final Act.
Act 3 involves a Plot Twist. Hal narrates how during his ousting from the religious
community, many other members of the same group unexpectedly exited the community with
him in solidarity and as a protest against the spiritual leader’s decision:
“Kien hemm grupp mhux ħazin ta’ nies li actually bi protesta telqu wkoll…Iva. U
konna ingħaqadna niftakar… ma’ [grupp reliġjuż ieħor] (smiling). So xorta bqajt- dħalt in
another religious group as an atheist!” (lines 148-155)62
This micro-story demonstrates the protagonist’s symbolic victory over religious
bigotry in clerical authority. Through this plot twist, the protagonist also stirred an intra-
rebellion within the religious community, together with his own personal rebellion against
the Church. He inspired his religious peers to stay true to their Christian values by, ironically,
moving away from a religious group, like a reverse-Messiah.
Hal’s deconversion process towards an atheist identity had many turning-points across
time, and I resonate a lot with his trajectory due to its similarity to mine. After the initial
Questioning phase and self-admission of denial, he then started gradually cherry-picking
Christian beliefs. The first casualty was the sacrament of the Eucharist:
“Xorta bqajt nemmen- kont għadni nemmen f’Alla… Pero` ma bqajtx nemmen fl-
Ewkaristija. Għalija l-Ewkaristija kienet bullshit. Mhux vera l-ostja ssir il-veru ġisem ta’
Ġesu` u l-inbid il-veru demm ta’ Ġesu`.” (lines 335-339)63

59
The phrase “Eucharist was bullshit” is a very strong use of words, blasphemous in
nature. This implies Hal’s strong revulsion and detachment from that core Christian belief.
Through his scientific/logical critique of his beliefs, the Eucharist it had lost its magic, it was
no longer Holy or revered. This ties into the Sub-Plot of Irreverence.
This position of a Critical Christian led him to a gradual chipping away of his faith,
until the ‘final’ chip that broke everything came along. This revelation of deconversion came
in two overlapping stages: a sudden-realisation event, and a longer, gradual simmering
process.
“The final one kienet… kind of umbagħad overnight fejn ngħid ‘isma’, għidt, ‘Hal ħi,
inti ilek dejjem denying it…You are in denial, tibqax titmejjel bik innifsek u ma tarax
l’għandek id-dubju’” (lines 345, 346, 353)64
The ‘over-night’ finale was not the philosophical and critical analysis of religion itself
(that is the long, evolutionary process), but the moment Hal gave himself the permission to
embrace that process and its result. The latent questioning process was emptying him of faith
yet the external ‘believer’ façade remained, fulfilling its ‘camouflage’ function. Once he
came to terms with the process, the protagonist had to face himself in third-person, almost as
another character – a cloned secondary protagonist facing his own demise. In this dialogical
confrontation Hal discovered that the loss of his religious self also left him a new self, his
atheist self/identity.
Hal stays with the sub-plot of Loss through deconversion and narrates the grieving
process of a major secondary character present in his story: God.
“Ifhimni, ħajtek kollha tmur il-quddies, temmen f’Alla, titlob… titkellem u għandek
relazzjoni m’Alla… it’s a grieving process… Qisu miet ħabib tiegħek, fl-aħħar mill-aħħar…
għax your purpose in life was given to you by God. When God isn’t in the equation, you lost

60
purpose… tispiċċa. Ma baqalekx iktar skop għal ħajja. And that can turn suicidal!” (lines
543-550, 567-573)65
Hal says that what supported him through this existential despair and grief was the
creation and discovery of a new person-centred value system which helped him to find
purpose without God – the original ‘purpose-provider’. Now he no longer had to subscribe to
pre-packaged ideas of what his life’s purpose should be:
“Għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, I found my own purpose… Għax minflok jiena ġejt fid-
dinja, prattikament I don’t have a free will, and there’s God’s plan li lili ħalaqni biex
nagħmel… il-pjan li għandu għalija, issa dak il-pjan spiċċa… issa l-pjan ta’ x’irrid nagħmel
f’ħajti, issa ħa nagħmlu jiena!” (lines 577-583)66
From a discourse analysis perspective, the phrase “fl-aħħar mill-aħħar” / “all in all”
implies that for Hal, his deconversion narrative is reconciled and coherent enough. It is a
story of brute-force individuation to painfully find his own purpose without God’s help and a
blatant rejection of His plan. The above quote frames the protagonist at the ‘Eureka’ point
where he takes control over his life and its meaning, as well as finding his place in his old
context/setting, yet with a new identity.
Hal’s story follows the over-arching plot of the subservient protagonist turned Rebel
turned Hero as he rose over adversity, whilst providing an incredible chronological timeline
of a richly detailed, complex, and nuanced deconversion process in the Maltese context. His
story features many side characters including his religious alter-ego, God Himself (and his
death) and His Earthly clergy, some of whom turned to antagonists, and others remained as
allies. The main Sub-plots include Independence, Irreverence towards the Holy, Rebellion
against Authority, Loss & Betrayal, and Acceptance & Reconciliation.

61
5. Discussion
I shall utilise this final section to reflect systemically on my findings and to highlight
both similarities and divergences of my results to relevant literature. Given the word-count
limitations, some frameworks are consciously left out of the discussion.
5.1 Social Constructionism and Atheism: Deconversion as a Not-Knowing Stance
“In the ‘both–and’ reality […] many simultaneous descriptions are possible […]
without considering one point of view to be right and another wrong”
- Seikkula (2011, p.185)
My epistemological inclination towards Social Constructionist theory stems out of
resonance with atheism and religious agnosticism – no one’s truth is absolute, not even so-
called ‘religious truth’ and its claims of exclusivity over a ‘One True God’. Social
Constructionism (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gergen, 1999; 2009) is not only relevant to my
own researcher-position when discussing/analysing the results, but directly features in all my
participants’ narration of deconversion. They asserted their position as atheist/non-religious
in a tentative, uncertain nature, accepting “life’s ambiguity and of the non-exclusiveness of
any so-called truth” (Skonovd, 1981, p.182), acknowledging their perspective as one
subjective variation out of an infinity of other possible constructs. To deconvert means
constantly residing in a position of not-knowing (Anderson & Goolishan, 1992), or a stance
of knowing not to know (Larner, 1994; 2000) tolerating polarities, as reflected in Holly, Kate
and Hal’s simultaneous referencing to their religious selves as they explored their non-
religious ones.

62
5.2 Identity Issues: Deconversion & Identity Co-Construction
“I am who I am”
- Exodus 3:14
“In a world that is existentially uncertain, we all create stories to keep us moving,
and faith and religion are one such story. We live the stories we tell.”
- Saliha Bava (2016)
The mere existence of phrases such as “Christian man”, “Muslim family” or “Hindu
country” in our socio-cultural lexicon is evidence enough of religion’s weight in forming
personal, familial, even national identities. Just as religious belief as an item of identification
can be assimilated into the multiplicity of selves (Gergen, 2008), “deconversion narratives
[also] offer rich insights into aspects and understandings of atheist identity” (Scheidt, 2018,
p.32).
In my participants’ stories, it clearly emerged that the transition towards atheism
proved to be more than just a move of spiritual, cognitive, and moral significance, but also an
assertion of ‘personal identity’ in its wider, systemic sense. Studies also show that the atheist
identity is built on the available “cultural tool kits” (Swidler, 1986) of both secular and
religious cultures in order to draw from legitimised elements of established, creditable
individual and collective identities (Sumerau & Cragun, 2016), what is described as an
achieved identity (Smith, 2011; Pérez & Vallières, 2019). A ‘moral’ atheist identity can
include both religious and secular artifacts in it as was reflected in my results, since all
participants share elements of religious values in their eclectic secular value system.
Cragun (2014) also states that adopting a ‘good’ atheist identity is a preoccupation
faced by many in their deconversion identity work, yet this was not reflected in my
participants’ stories. Their preoccupation was more on how their immediate familial,
professional, and relational contexts would react to their shifting spiritual identity. In fact,

63
deconversion and the quest for an alternative spiritual lifestyle can be a socially-expensive
journey (Hookway & Habibis, 2015; Scharp & Beck, 2017), as was the case for Hal. Leaving
religion is not merely an organisational exit (Hinderaker & O’Connor, 2015), and existing
research shows it “can pervasively disrupt a person’s sense of self” (Scharp and Beck, 2017,
p.133). For Roma, Jack, and Hal this disruption was reflected in their narrative sub-plots of
confusion and incongruency. This rationale can be adopted to the local, tightly-knit
community where religion is intertwined with everything else in a person’s immediate
context, maybe even more so in the island of Gozo, where for Kate (and myself) refusing or
abandoning religious activities (considered compulsory life-transition rituals and social
obligations) can have a weightier currency than simply leaving a club – it’s almost as if
you’re leaving reality itself (Lee & Gubi, 2019).
Scharp & Beck (2017, p.135) argue that “narratives constitute our way of being in the
world” which overlaps with the function of “identity (re)construction” (Scharp & Beck,
2017) – in instances of identity disruption (Fisher, 1987), or biographical disruptions
(Riessman, 2008), my participants’ expectations for continuity were raptured. They all made
sense of events through story-telling (Reissman, 2008), narrating how they relate to the world
differently now. In my research I viewed identity as a socially-constructed, systemic concept,
or “identity as performed” (Lövheim, 2013), opening avenues to conceptualise the atheist
identity formation in a richer, context-bound sense (Tomlins & Beamon, 2015). ‘Identity’ is a
conglomerate of stories capable of re-authoring and re-storying (White & Epston, 1990),
enabling people to create, destroy, or repair identities (Bamberg, 2011). Therefore, the
performance of stories functions as a negotiator to stabilise identity (Linde, 1993).
I find this line of reasoning too linear. Research surrounding ‘identity’ used to focus
on the modernistic approach of a fixed, unwavering identity, and the quest to “stabilise” it
(Linde, 1993). Why must identity be ‘stable’? If we take into consideration Davies & Harre’s

64
(1990) Positioning Theory or Moghaddam & Tan’s (1995) notion of Reflexive Positioning,
isn’t identity always in a state of flux? If we continuously evolve, there should be no end state
of a ‘perfectly’ evolved identity, without need of revisions or adjustments, also because from
an ecological perspective (Bateson, 1972) our context is constantly shifting and changing –
adapting to us, and us to the environment. I believe that my participants’ stories are clear
testament of this fluid “performance… which is necessarily relational” (Scheidt, 2018, p.35).
5.3 Language of the Godless: Atheism & Deconversion in the Maltese Context
“Just as with religion, precisely what any given individual means by atheist
would have to be situated in that person’s context.”
- Cragun (2016, p.8).
In adopting a deconversion perspective (Fazzino, 2014; Pérez & Vallières, 2019), I
am particularly sensitive about my participants’ “reaction against the hegemony of religious
worldview that is often taken as the default ideology” (Pérez & Vallières, 2019, p.3). This is
highlighted mostly in Jack’s story and his refusal to identify with the term ‘atheist’ due to its
one-down position to ‘theism’. Thus, “because privileging religion necessarily subordinates
that which is other to religion, those who leave religions should not be labelled using the
terminology of the religious. They should be allowed to self-identify and self-label.” (Cragun,
2016, p.11) as Jack, Holly, and Kate did.
Literature also shows that the term ‘atheist’ can be something “individuals either
avoid using […] or [else] refer to themselves as something less ‘risqué’” (Quillen, 2015, p.1)
such as Jack’s Non-Conforming, Kate’s Spiritual not Religious, and Holly’s Pantheist
Agnostic titles. It is important to highlight these less-than-popular-identities because as
Sumerau & Cragun (2016, p.1) state, “openly nonreligious—and especially atheist
identified—people face considerable harassment, marginalization, and discrimination” in
contemporary society, as reported mainly by Hal, and all other participants in varying

65
degrees. To the contrary of research, Hal and Roma brandished their atheist-identity proudly
and irreverently, purposefully to differentiate and dissociate themselves from theism.
Traditionally, Atheism has been seen both as a negative and a positive referent,
meaning: describing on one hand only what someone does not believe in, versus indicating
also what other things the person believes in, e.g., critical thinking, humanism, plurality, and
advocacy for generally progressive ideas (Cragun, 2016). Holly and Roma, for example,
challenge dominant negative referent definitions of atheism. Their narrative is “related to
atheism that indicates more of what those who use the label do believe rather than what they
don’t” (Cragun, 2016, p.15), e.g., new-found respect for nature; believing in ‘love’. While
atheism and deconversion are usually used synonymously, my results clearly show that not
all deconverts identify as atheist.
The process of coming out as atheist is also acknowledged in research, and “is a
powerful way for individuals to disclose, constitute, and perform membership in stigmatized
identity categories” (Cloud, 2017, p.1). For Hal, coming out was a risky experience, for Jack
it was double-fold (as non-religious and gay), whilst in Kate’s case, atheist disclosure is
repressed in her Gozitan context, only allowed to come out in the safety of her husband’s
presence. The fear of being ‘found out’ is not insignificant, especially in a religiously-
saturated context, where religion is granted the privilege of serving as a moral yardstick
whereby people may interpret the character of others regardless of their actions (Barton,
2012) as was in Hal’s story and his eventual shunning from his community. In the wake of
momentous scandals of systemic sexual abuse within the Catholic Church (Haines-Eitzen,
2021; Mancini, 2022), religious identity has become “demoralised” (Sumerau & Cragun,
2016, p.2), hence in contemporary secular society it is the absence of religion that suddenly
facilitates the formation of valuable selves (Guenther, 2014).

66
5.4 A Recipe for Making Atheists?
Deconversion is synonymous with individuation. According to Brewster (2014, as
cited in Pérez & Vallières, 2019, p.4) “deconversion in the United States, where the majority
is religious, is related to a process of individualization such as leaving the family home to
attend college”. This is similar to my own process of individuation from my Gozitan context
when I travelled to live independently whilst studying at the University of Malta, providing a
context of exploration for my bubbling atheistic curiosities. This mirrors Kate’s narrative too.
This process featured in all of my participants’ stories in some form of another,
especially when they studied subjects like philosophy and psychology – encouraging critical
thinking and reflexive introspection, coupled with living independently. These major life
transitions coupled with openness to new ideas can contribute to lessened religious
commitment (Pérez & Vallières, 2019).
Others think that deconversion into atheism comes out of misfortune or extreme
hardship. Cachia (personal communication, 2021) claims “the term 'deconvert' is […] a
denial of one's [spiritual] needs who, precisely because s/he may have not found this innate
need, still yearns for something more meaningful”. This exposes how oftentimes, even in
academia, the deconversion perspective relies on crisis rhetoric, situating spiritual struggle at
the narrative core (Cragun & Hammer, 2011; Fazzino, 2014), which clearly is not always the
case (Streib & Keller, 2004), e.g., my participants did not always depart from a point of crisis
in their lives. My results also challenge notions about who is the Atheist supposed to be and
believe/not believe in. Therefore, as far as ‘recipes’ go, there are none for baking a batch of
consecutively identical atheists.

67
5.5 My Research as a Transformative Deconversion Tool
In my research I moved away from ‘deconversion’ as a phenomenon out there, and
towards deconversion as a live-concept, because “the storyteller […] constructs and tells his
or her story with an audience in mind. The audience co-constructs the story in both content
and form” (Rober, 2005, p.480). Thus “all accounts are simultaneously descriptions of events
and part of the event itself” (McNamee, 2014, p.93), hence my participants’ narration not
only recounts but actually constitutes the deconversion (Avance, 2013; Stromberg, 1993).
Self-narrations serve both as constructions and claims of identity (Burck, 2005), and
sometimes its imbued co-creativity gives rise to transformative moments such as during
Roma’s interview. According to Roma, she never saw her exposure to both religious and non-
religious FOO members as a central plot in her deconversion story, until she disclosed it out
loud during the research interview. Hence, the interview itself functioned as a tool for
Roma’s coherence of her own deconversion narrative, admitting that this was a
transformational experience for her:
“Iva, iva, iva, issa ġejt fiha ta! Għax ‘qas’biss kont ħsibtha qabel, to be honest din [li
kont exposed għaż-żewġ options]… Issa qed niġi fiha…” (lines 311-313)67
This shows that when the participants narrated their deconversion processes, this was
not a mere re-enactment of past events but an in vivo process of active co-construction.
Hence, “the plot does not recount a separate level of events, rather the writer understands the
plot as the deconversion itself” (Stromberg, 2020, p.329), were both parties emerge changed
by the story-telling encounter (Simon, 2014), something which changed my perspective on
the impact of my research as a deconversion tool as well as my position as an active
audience (Rober, 2005).

68
6. Limitations, Recommendations & Clinical Relevance
Keeping in mind the qualitative nature of the study, my results cannot be generalised
for the whole population, since here I privileged depth over breadth. Moreover, given the
lack of research on the topic locally, most of the studies cited are from other countries with
varying degrees of social, religious, and cultural differences which might not be resonant
with the local scene. On this line, and against any intention, all my participants came from a
Roman Catholic background pre-deconversion. It would be interesting to replicate such a
study with atheists hailing from other religions in Malta, e.g., Ex-Muslims.
This study is pertinent to any clinician in the psychotherapeutic field since
approximately 10% of clinical clients report that they do not believe in God (Weisman et al.,
2006), particularly for the Family Therapist given the systemic nature of deconversion
processes. Knowing how uncomfortably unprepared therapists might be to address issues of
religion and spirituality (Errington, 2017) such studies are therefore significant to the family
therapy field.
The study of deconversion might seem narrow and overly-specific, yet “it is a general
process not specific to religious roles” (Krueger, 2013, p.2) and parallels can be drawn from
it to therapeutic themes of role-exit and disaffiliation. This can be helpful in supporting
clients/families transitioning between roles (professionally, or from a family-life-cycle
perspective), helping them understand other processes they (or others) may be undergoing
(sexual orientation/gender transitions, spiritual/existential crises), or in dealing with clients
with stigmatized identities.

69
7. Conclusion
“…and thank you to God for making me an atheist.”
- Ricky Gervais (2011)
My research took a strength and resilience-based perspective on local atheists and
non-religious people, in contrast to discriminatory stereotypes and discourse also cited in
literature (Cragun & Hammer, 2011; Fazzino, 2014), with atheists and non-believers labelled
the “most hated minority in America” (Foust, 2009). By shedding light on the sensitive and
complex process of atheist deconversion, I empowered and elicited acknowledgement
towards the ever-growing (Smith, 2011; Zuckerman, 2009; Marmara`, 2023) minority of
people who choose to defy our de facto socio-religious standards and expectations. My
research challenged this marginalization, also evidenced in our homeostatic social discourse
(Foucault, 1991; Rabinow, 1991) promoting the powerful hegemonic idea that religion is a
privileged position and nonreligion is not (Cragun & Hammer, 2011).
Finally, this dissertation helped transforming my own personal meaning-making of
my deconversion narrative through the careful deployment of language – I did not convert to
Atheism, I deconverted from Christianity; and with that, took on board other universal,
humanistic, and yet, secular values to live a ‘good/moral’ life, without the need of invoking
god/s or other divine middlemen (e.g., Jesus). Values and principles such as honesty,
equality, tolerance, love, humility, autonomy, scientific curiosity, empathic benevolence, and
social justice, amongst others, all form part of my, and my co-researchers’ ever-evolving
moral identity (Sumerau & Cragun, 2016). This work serves as a declaration of my
nonconformist, post-modern stance, and a continuation of my irreverence (Cecchin et al.,
1993) towards tightly-held, ‘holy’ traditions; my assertion that no idea is above criticism or
scrutiny (Nawaz & Harris, 2015).

70
Reference List
Adams, D. (1995). The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Penguin Random House.
American Atheists. (2021, February 10). What is atheism? Retrieved December 13, 2022,
from https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to
therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp.
25–39). Sage Publications, Inc.
Andrews, S. (2012). Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason. Outskirts Press.
Aquilina, J. (2021, June 4). Live - State of the Nation: Majority of Maltese do not feel
comfortable mixing cultures. The Malta Independent.
https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2021-06-04/local-news/Live-State-of-
theNation-60-say-they-are-happy-with-their-lives-6736234056
Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social psychology of religion. Routledge.
Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2014). The psychology of religious behaviour, belief and
experience. Routledge.
Avance, R. (2013). Seeing the Light: Mormon Conversion and Deconversion Narratives
in Off- and Online Worlds. Journal of Media and Religion, 12(1), 16–24.
Baggini, J. (2003). Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Baker, J. O., & Smith, B. G. (2015). American Secularism: Cultural Contours of
Nonreligious Belief Systems. NYU Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. University of Texas Press.

71
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson, M. Holquist, & V.W.
McGee (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). University of Texas
Press.
Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 139–
147.
Bamberg, M. (2011). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory &
Psychology, 22(1), 3–24.
Barbour, J. D. (1994). Versions of Deconversion. Autobiography and the Loss of Faith.
University of Virginia Press.
Barton, B. (2012). Pray the Gay Away: The Extraordinary Lives of Bible Belt Gays. NYU
Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected essays in Anthropology,
Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chandler Pub. Co.
Bateson, G., & Bateson, M. (1987). Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred.
Hampton Press.
Bava, S. (2016). Making of a Spiritual/Religious Hyperlinked Identity. In D. Bidwell (Ed.),
Spirituality, Social Construction and Relational Processes: Essays and Reflections
(pp. 1-17). TAOS Institute Publications.
Bell, R. J. (2014, March 2). A Year Without God: A Former Pastor's Journey Into Atheism.
Huff Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-year-without-god_b_4512842
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor.

72
Bering, J. (2013). The God Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of
Life. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Bill decriminalising vilification of religion approved. (2016, July 12). Times of Malta.
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160712/local/bill-decriminalising-
vilification-of-religion-approved-a-sad-day-for.618649
Bullivant, S., & Ruse, M. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press.
Burck, C. (2005). Comparing Qualitative Research Methodologies for Systemic Research:
The Use of Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis and Narrative Analysis. Journal of
Family Therapy, 27, 237-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.00314.x
Caplovitz, D., & Sherrow, F. (1977). The religious drop-outs: Apostasy among college
graduates. Sage.
Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W. (1993). From Strategizing to Non-intervention: Towards
Irreverence in Systemic Practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19(2),
125-136. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1993.tb00972.x
Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (2004). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in
Qualitative Research. Jossey-Bass.
Cloud, D. (2017). Rewriting a Discursive Practice: Atheist Adaptation of Coming Out
Discourse. Written Communication, 34(2), 165–188.
Corbin, J., & Morse, J. M. (2003). The Unstructured Interactive Interview: Issues of
Reciprocity and Risks when Dealing with Sensitive Topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3),
335-354.
Cragun, R. T. (2014). Who are the ‘New Atheists’? In S. Tomlins & L. Beamon (Eds.),
Atheist Identities: Spaces and Social Contexts (pp. 195–211). Springer.

73
Cragun, R. T., & Hammer, J. H. (2011). “One Person’s Apostate is Another Person’s
Convert”: What Terminology Tells Us about Pro-Religious Hegemony in the
Sociology of Religion. Humanity & Society, 35(1–2), 149–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016059761103500107
Cragun, R. T., Hammer, J. H., & Smith, J. M. (2013). Atheists in North America. In S.
Bullivant & M. Ruse (Eds.)., The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (pp. 601–620). Oxford
University Press.
Cragun, R., (2016). Defining That Which Is “Other” to Religion: Secularism, Humanism,
Atheism, Freethought. in P. Zuckerman (Ed.), Religion: Beyond Religion (pp. 1–16).
MacMillan Publishing Company.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Dallos, R., & Draper, R. (2015). An Introduction to Family Therapy: Systemic Theory and
Practice (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Dallos, R., & Vetere, A. (2005). Researching Psychotherapy and Counselling. Open
University Press.
Davies, B., & Harre`, R. (1990). Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.
Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Mariner Books.
Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press.

74
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. (5th
ed.). Sage Publications.
Di-Cicco Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The Qualitative Research Interview. Medical
Education, 40, 314–321. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
Durkheim, É. (1912). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Oxford University Press.
Ebaugh, H. R. F. (1988). Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. The University of
Chicago Press.
Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research:
living by words. Routledge/Falmer.
Errington, L. (2017). The Uncomfortably Important Place of Spirituality in Systemic
Therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 38(1), 168–178.
doi: 10.1002/anzf.1196
Etherington, K. (2001). Writing qualitative research — A gathering of selves. Counselling
and Psychotherapy Research, 1(2), 119-125. doi: 10.1080/14733140112331385158.
Evan Ashworth. (2021, March 26). Discourse Analysis [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2o743ikYeY
Farrugia, C. (2021, June 4). 83 per cent of Maltese have always voted for same political
party. The Times of Malta. https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/82-per-cent-of-
maltese-have-always-voted-for-same-political-party.876785
Fazzino, L. L. (2014). Leaving the Church Behind: Applying a Deconversion Perspective to
Evangelical Exit Narratives. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 29(2), 249-
266. DOI: 10.1080/13537903.2014.903664

75
FFreeThinker2. (2011, January 17). Thank You To God For Making Me An Atheist! [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgYDI7zUqSc
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason,
value, and action. University of South Carolina Press.
Forgas, J. P. (2002). The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal and intergroup perspectives.
Taylor & Francis.
Foster, C. (2012). Wired for God? The Biology of Spiritual Experience. Hodder & Stoughton.
Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punish: the birth of a prison. Penguin.
Foust, C. H. (2009). An Alien in a Christian World: Intolerance, Coping, and Negotiating
Identity Among Atheists in the United States. [Master’s dissertation, Wake Forest
University].
https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/14661/Foust_Thesis.pdf
Frank, A. W. (2010). Letting Stories Breathe. University of Chicago Press.
French, C. C., & Stone, A. (2014). Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief
and Experience. Red Globe Press.
Gehart, D. R. (2014). Mastering Competencies in Family Therapy: A practical approach to
theories and clinical case documentation (2nd ed.). Brooks/Cole.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity
analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122–130.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to Social Construction. Sage Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (2008). Therapeutic Challenges of Multi-Being. Journal of Family Therapy,
30(4), 335-350.

76
Gergen, K. J. (2008). Therapeutic Challenges of Multi-Being. Journal of Family Therapy,
30(4), 335-350.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational Being: Beyond self and community. Oxford University Press.
Gergen, K. J., & McNamee, S. (2000). From disordering discourse to transformative
dialogue. In R. A. Neimeyer & J. D. Raskin (Eds.), Constructions of disorder:
Meaning-making frameworks for psychotherapy (pp. 333–349). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10368-014
Gooren, H. (2010). Religious Conversion and Disaffiliation. Tracing Patterns of Change in
Faith Practices. Palgrave MacMillan.
Gooren, H. (2011). Deconversion: Qualitative and quantitative results from cross-cultural
research in Germany and the United States: A review essay. Pastoral Psychology,
60(4), 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-011-0369-0
Graham R. Gibbs. (2015, February 21). The Analysis of Narratives [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJbnPKJmrpY
Guenther, K. M. (2014). Bounded by Disbelief: How Atheists in the United States
Differentiate Themselves from Religious Believers. Journal of Contemporary
Religion, 29(1), 1–16.
Haines-Eitzen, K. (2021). Catholic Church ‘systemic abuse’ dates back to the beginning.
Cornell University. https://news.cornell.edu/media-relations/tip-sheets/catholic-
church-systemic-abuse-dates-back-beginning
Hansen, A.W. (2017). The lived experience of atheist and irreligious youth living within
religious households. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia].
https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/hansen_anthony_w_201708_phd.pdf

77
Hardy, A. C. (1965). The Living Stream: A restatement of evolution theory and its relation to
the spirit of man. Collins.
Harris, S. (2004). The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W.W.
Norton & Company.
Harris, S., Kaplan, J. T., Curiel, A., Bookheimer, S. Y., Iacoboni, M., & Cohen, M. S. (2009).
The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief. PloS one, 4(10), e0007272.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007272
Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational
settings. The Guilford Press.
Hinderaker, A., & O’Connor, A. (2015). The long road out: Exit stories from the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Communication Studies, 66(5), 509–527.
Hitchens, C. (2008). God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Atlantic Books.
Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An empirical
approach. (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Hood, R.W., & Chen, Z. (2013). Conversion and Deconversion. In S. Bullivant, & M. Ruse
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (pp. 449-459). Oxford University Press.
Hookway, N. S., & Habibis, D. (2015). ‘Losing my religion’: Managing identity in a post-
Jehovah’s Witness world. Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 843–856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313476981
Huxley, T. H. (1869). Agnosticism. The Popular Science Monthly, 34(46), 768.

78
James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience. A Study in Human Nature. In
Kuklick, B. (Ed.), William James: Writings 1902-1910 (pp. 1-477). Literary Classics
of the United States, Inc.
Josselson, R. (2006). Narrative research and the challenge of accumulating knowledge.
Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 3–10.
Kim, J. H. (2016). Understanding Narrative Inquiry: The Crafting and Analysis of Stories as
Research. Sage Publications.
Kosmin, B. A., Ariela, K., Cragun, R. T., & Navarro-Rivera, J. (2009). American Nones: The
Profile of the No Religion Population. Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society
and Culture.
Krueger, J. (2013). The Road to Disbelief: A Study of the Atheist De-Conversion Process.
Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1, 1-9.
Larner, G. (1994). Para-modern family therapy: deconstructing post-modernism.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 11–16.
Larner, G. (2000). Towards a common ground in psychoanalysis and family therapy. Journal
of Family Therapy, 22, 61–82.
Lee, K. A., & Gubi, P. M. (2019). Breaking up with Jesus: a phenomenological exploration
of the experience of deconversion from an Evangelical Christian faith to Atheism.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(2), 171-184. DOI:
10.1080/13674676.2019.1623767
Linde, C. (1993). Life stories: The creation of coherence. Oxford University Press.
Lodge, C. (2015, January 5). 'Year without God' pastor: The world makes more sense without
God. Christian Today.

79
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/year.without.god.pastor.the.world.makes.mor
e.sense.without.god/45378.htm
Lövheim, M. (2013). Identity. In H. Campbell (Ed.), Digital Religion: Understanding
Religious Practice in New Media Worlds (pp. 41-56). Routledge.
Luhmann, N. (2013). A Systems Theory of Religion. (A. Kieserling, A. Brenner & A.
Hermann, Eds. & Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1998).
Mancini, C. (2022). A test of faith: Exploring the attitudes and experiences of Catholics in the
aftermath of the Church's child sexual abuse scandal. Journal of Criminal Justice,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101933
Marmarà, V. (2021a, June 4). State of the Nation Survey. [National Conference]. President’s
State of the Nation report, Malta. https://president.gov.mt/wp-
content/uploads/2021/07/pr211066g_compressed.pdf
Marmarà, V. (2021b, June 4). State of the Nation Survey: Extract for Gozo. [National
Conference]. President’s State of the Nation report, Malta. https://grda.mt/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/GRDA_State-of-Nation-Survey-Report.pdf
Marmarà, V. (2022, June 9). State of the Nation Survey. [National Conference]. President’s
State of the Nation report, Malta. https://president.gov.mt/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/pr220757d.pdf
Marmarà, V. (2023, June 2). State of the Nation Survey. [National Conference]. President’s
State of the Nation report, Malta. https://president.gov.mt/wp-
content/uploads/2023/06/Rapport-l-iStat-tan-Nazzjon-2023-VM-Final-
Presentation.pdf
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

80
McNamee, S. (2010). Research as Social Construction: Transformative Inquiry. Health and
Social Change, 1(1), 9-19.
McNamee, S. (2014). Research as Relational Practice: Exploring Modes of Inquiry. In
Simon, G. & Chard A. (Eds.), Systemic Inquiry. Innovations in Reflexive Practice
Research (pp. 74-94). Everything is Connected Press.
McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (1992). Therapy as Social Construction. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Miles, B. (2010). Discourse Analysis. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research
Design (pp. 367-370). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288
Moghaddam, F. M., & Tan, S. L. (1995). Reflexive positioning and culture. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 25(4), 387–400.
Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic Research: Design, Methodology and Applications. Sage.
Mykhalovskiy, E. (1997). Reconsidering “table talk”: critical thoughts on the relationship
between sociology, autobiography and self-indulgence. In Hertz, R. (Ed.), Reflexivity
and Voice. Sage.
Nagle, J. M. (2017). How We Get Somewhere Religiously: Religious Education and
Deconversion, Religious Education, 112(3), 255-263,
DOI:10.1080/00344087.2017.1309114
Nasheeda, A., Abdullah, H. B., Krauss, S. E., & Ahmed, N. B. (2019). Transforming
Transcripts Into Stories: A Multimethod Approach to Narrative Analysis.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–9.

81
Nawaz, M., & Harris, S. (2015). Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. Harvard
University Press.
Parker, C., Scott, S., & Geddes, A. (2019). Snowball Sampling. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont,
A. Cernat, J.W. Sakshaug, & R.A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE Research Methods
Foundations. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036831710
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Sage Publications.
Pérez, S., & Vallières, F. (2019). How Do Religious People Become Atheists? Applying a
Grounded Theory Approach to Propose a Model of Deconversion. Secularism and
Nonreligion, 8(3), 1–14.
Pew Research Centre. (2022). National Public Opinion Reference Survey (NPORS). [Fact
Sheet] https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/fact-sheet/national-public-opinion-
reference-survey-npors/
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. State University of
New York Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5-23.
Quillen, E. G. (2015). Discourse analysis and the definition of atheism. Science, Religion and
Culture, 2(3), 25-35.
Rabinow, P. (1991). The Foucault Reader: An introduction to Foucault’s thought. Penguin.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Sage Publications,

82
Riessman, C. K. (2005). Narrative Analysis. In: Narrative, Memory & Everyday Life.
University of Huddersfield, pp. 1-7.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Sage Publications.
Rober, P. (2005). The Therapist's Self in Dialogical Family Therapy: Some Ideas About Not-
Knowing and the Therapist's Inner Conversation. Family Process, 44(4), 477-495.
Sacks, O. (2013). Hallucinations. Vintage.
Scharp, K. M., & Beck, A, L. (2017). “Losing my religion”: Identity (re)constructions in
Mormon exit narratives. Narrative Inquiry, 27(1), 132-148.
DOI:10.1075/ni.27.1.07sch.
Scheidt, H. (2018). Practicing Atheism: Culture, Media, and Ritual in the Contemporary
Atheist Network. [Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University]. Index
Theologicus.
Seikkula, J. (2011). Becoming Dialogical: Psychotherapy or a Way of Life? The Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Family therapy, 32(3), 179-193.
Shermer, M. (2011). The Believing Brain: From Spiritual Faiths to Political Convictions –
How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. Robinson.
Simon, G. (2014). Systemic Inquiry as a form of Qualitative Inquiry. In Simon, G. & Chard
A. (Eds.), Systemic Inquiry. Innovations in Reflexive Practice Research (pp. 3-29).
Everything is Connected Press.
Skonovd, L. N. (1981). Apostasy: The Process of Defection from Religion Totalism.
[Master’s Dissertation, University of California Davis]. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing.

83
Smart, N. (1996). Dimensions of the sacred: An anatomy of the world's beliefs.
Harper Collins.
Smith, J. M. (2011). Becoming an atheist in America: Constructing identity and meaning
from the rejection of theism. Sociology of Religion, 72, 215–237.
Smith, J. M. (2011). Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and Meaning
from the Rejection of Theism. Sociology of Religion, 72(2), 215-237.
https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srq082
Souto-Manning, M. V. (2005). Critical Narrative Analysis of Brazilian women's schooling
discourses: Negotiating agency and identity through participation in Freirean culture
circles. [Doctoral Thesis, University of Georgia]. Ex Libris Esploro.
https://esploro.libs.uga.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Critical-narrative-analysis-of-
Brazilian-womens/9949333971002959
Souto-Manning, M. V. (2014). Critical Narrative Analysis: The interplay of Critical
Discourse and Narrative Analyses. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 27(2), 159-180
Sprenkle, D. H., & Piercy, F. P. (2005). Research Methods in Family Therapy. (2nd ed.).
Guilford Press.
Streib, H. (2014). Deconversion. In Rambo, L.R., & Farhadian, C.E. (Eds.), Oxford
Handbook on Religious Conversion. Oxford University Press.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195338522.001.0001
Streib, H. (2020). Leaving Religion: Deconversion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 139-
144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.007

84
Streib, H., & Keller, B. (2004). The Variety of Deconversion Experiences: Contours of a
Concept in Respect to Empirical Research. Archive for the Psychology of Religion,
26(1), 181-200. DOI: 10.1163/0084672053598030
Streib, H., & Klein, C. (2013). Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates. In Pargament K. I.,
Exline, J. J., & Jones, J. W (Eds.) APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion and
Spirituality: Vol. 1. (pp.713-728). Amercian Psychological Association.
Streib, H., Hood, R. W., Keller, B., Csöff, R-M., & Silver, C. F. (2009). Deconversion:
qualitative and quantitative results from cross-cultural research in Germany and the
United States of America. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
20(4), 303-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2010.507701
Stromberg, P. (1993). Language and Self-Transformation. Cambridge University Press.
Stromberg, P. G. (2020). Narrative and Autobiographical Approaches to Leaving Religion. In
Enstedt, D., Larsson, G., & Mantsinen, T. (Eds.) Handbook of Leaving Religion (pp.
323-334) Brill. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004331471_027
Sumerau, J. E., & Cragun, R. T. (2016). ‘I Think Some People Need Religion’: The Social
Construction of Nonreligious Moral Identities. Sociology of Religion, 77(4),
386–407.
Swaab, D. F. (2014). We are our Brains: A Neurobiography of the Brain, from the Womb to
Alzheimer's. (J. Hedley-Prôle, Trans.). Spiegel & Grau/Random House.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological
Review 51, 273–86.
Szasz, T. S. (1973). The second sin. Anchor Press.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2011). Hendrickson.

85
These are the 4 types of atheism. (2022, July 29). Big Think in partnership with The
Templeton Foundation. https://bigthink.com/the-well/four-types-atheism/
Thomson, J. (2022, November 27). Not believing is the second biggest “belief” in the U.S.
Big Think. https://bigthink.com/thinking/types-of-atheism/
Thomson, J. A., & Aukofer, C. (2011). Why we believe in god(s): A concise guide to the
science of faith. Independent Publishers Group.
Tomlins, S., & Beamon, L. (Eds.). (2015). Atheist Identities: Spaces and Social Contexts.
Springer.
Wagstaff, M. P. (2015). Deconversion: A Phenomenological Study on Becoming an Atheist.
[Masters Dissertation, University of Colorado].
http://digital.auraria.edu/content/AA/00/00/32/84/00001/AA00003284_00001.pdf
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem
formation and problem resolution. W. W. Norton.
Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Routledge.
Weingarten, K. (1998). The small and the ordinary: The daily practice of postmodern
narrative therapy. Family Process, 37(1), 3–15.
Weisman, A., Duarte, E., Koneru, V., & Wasserman, S. (2006). The development of a
culturally informed, family-focused treatment for schizophrenia. Family process,
45(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00089.x
Wertz, F. J. (2005). Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.52.2.167

86
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. W. W. Norton & Co.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc.
Zuckerman, P. (2009). Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How Findings of Social Science
Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Sociology Compass 3(6), 949-971.
*

87
Appendix A
Letter of Invitation
Losing My Religion: Storying Atheist Deconversion & Religious Exit Narratives in the
Maltese Context.
Dear Participant,
I am currently reading for a Masters in Systemic Family Psychotherapy with the
Institute of Family Therapy, Malta (IFT-Malta). I am working on my final Thesis, under the
guidance of my research supervisor, Ms. Yanica Richards Chircop.
I would like to invite you to participate in my research process exploring the Atheist
Deconversion Narratives of adults in Malta. I am interested to bring to light the unique stories
of people who identify as non-religious/atheist within the Maltese context, and to understand
better what contributed to their exodus from religious faith, and how they narrate their
deconversion journey within their idiosyncratic contexts, from their own point of view, in
relation to their personal, familial, and socio-cultural relationships.
The research will be carried out through semi-structured interviews which will take
approximately one and a half hours. Interviews can be carried out face-to-face or online as
necessary. The information will be digitally recorded and transcribed. I will be treating your
stories and experiences with respect, ensure confidentiality and anonymity in the write up of
my thesis and any identifiable information will be changed or omitted if necessary. I will only
have access to this information and recordings. Only if needed and necessary this information
can also be accessed by my research supervisor Ms. Yanica Richards Chircop, who is also
bound by confidentiality. I will ensure that all the recordings and audio files will be deleted
permanently after the research is completed in 2023.
I will provide you with a copy of the findings after the finalisation of the work, upon
request. A copy of this thesis will also be available at IFT-Malta. I wish to ensure that this
research may not cause any distress during the interviewing process and thereafter. Thus, I
may ask you to withdraw from the study at any point in time, should I notice that the research
is not safeguarding your psychological and emotional well-being. I will further suggest the
adequate support if deemed necessary.

88
A debriefing time will also be dedicated, following the interview, so that you have
space to express the research experience and any positive or negative emotions, which may
have arisen. I will provide the necessary interventions and support or refer you to the
adequate services, should this be required.
Your involvement in this study is strictly voluntary and no compensation for
participation will be given. I am open and available to discuss any queries you may have,
including fears, doubts, areas of discomfort, prior to the interview for further clarification
about your decision to participate or not in this study. You may choose not to participate or
withdraw from participation at any point in time, during and after the interview process.
May you wish to participate, kindly sign the attached consent form. This research
proposal has been reviewed and approved by the IFT Research Ethics Committee.
Your contribution in this area will be very helpful.
Thank you very much in advance.
Yours truly,
Melvin Calleja – Masters in Systemic Family Psychotherapy Student
Mobile Number: 79325812
Email: melvincalleja7@gmail.com

89
Ittra ta' Stedina
Losing My Religion: Storying Atheist Deconversion & Religious Exit Narratives in the
Maltese Context.
Għażiż Parteċipant,
Bħalissa qed naqra’ għal Masters f’Systemic Family Psychotherapy mal-Istitut tat-
Terapija tal-Familja, Malta (IFT-Malta). Qed naħdem fuq it-Teżi tiegħi, taħt il-gwida tas-
superviżur tar-riċerka tiegħi, Ms. Yanica Richards Chircop.
Nixtieq nistiednek tipparteċipa fil-proċess ta’ riċerka tiegħi li tesplora n-narrattivi ta’
Dikonverżjoni Atea f’adulti f’Malta. Jien interessat li nitfa’ dawl fuq l-istejjer uniċi ta’ nies li
jidentifikaw bħala irreliġjużi/atei fi ħdan il-kuntest lokali, u biex nifhem aħjar
x’ikkontribwixxa għall-eżodu tagħhom mill-fidi reliġjuża, u kif jinnarraw il-vjaġġ ta’
dikonverżjoni fil-kuntest idjosinkratiku tagħhom, mill-perspettiva tagħhom, fir-rigward tar-
relazzjonijiet personali, familjari, u soċjo-kulturali tagħhom.
Ir-riċerka se ssir permezz ta' intervisti semi-strutturati li se jieħdu madwar siegħa u
nofs. L-informazzjoni tkun irreġistrata u traskritta b'mod diġitali. L-intervisti jistgħu jsiru
wiċċ imb’wiċċ jew b’mod virtwali onlajn skond l-eżiġenzi. Se nkun qed nittratta n-narrattivi
u l-esperjenzi tiegħek b'rispett u nassigura l-kunfidenzjalità u l-anonimità fil-kitba tat-teżi
tiegħi u kwalunkwe informazzjoni identifikabbli tinbidel jew titħalla barra jekk meħtieġ.
Jiena biss ser ikolli aċċess għal din l-informazzjoni u r-recordings. Jekk ikun neċessarju biss,
din l-informazzjoni tista wkoll tkun aċċessata mis-superviżur tar-riċerka tiegħi Ms. Yanica
Richards Chircop, li wkoll hi marbuta bl-istess kunfidenzjalità. Se niżgura li r-rikordji u l-
awdjo files kollha jintremew b’mod permanenti wara li r-riċerka titlesta fl-2023.
Jien ser nipprovdi tas-sejbiet wara l-finalizzazzjoni tax-xogħol, jekk dan jintalab.
Kopja ta’ din it-teżi se tkun disponibbli wkoll fl-IFT-Malta. Nixtieq niżgura li din ir-riċerka
ma’ tikkawża l-ebda tbatija matul il-proċess tal-intervisti u wara. B’hekk, nista’ nitlobkom
tirtiraw mill-istudju fi kwalunkwe ħin, jekk ninnota li r-riċerka mhix qed tissalvagwardja l-
benessri psikoloġiku u emozzjonali tiegħek kif ukoll nissuġġerixxi l-appoġġ ta’ servizzi
adegwati jekk ikun meħtieġ.
Se jkun iddedikat ukoll ħin ta’ debriefing, wara l-intervista, sabiex ikollok spazju biex
tesprimi l-esperjenza tar-riċerka u kull emozzjoni pożittiva jew negattiva, li setgħet inqalgħet.

90
Jiena nipprovdi l-interventi u l-appoġġ meħtieġa jew nirreferik għas-servizzi adegwati, jekk
dan ikun meħtieġ.
L-involviment tiegħek f'dan l-istudju huwa dejjem volontarju u l-ebda kumpens għall-
parteċipazzjoni m’hu ser jingħata. Jien miftuħ u disponibbli biex niddiskuti kwalunkwe
mistoqsija li jista' jkollok, inklużi biżgħat, dubji, oqsma ta' skumdità, qabel l-intervista għal
aktar kjarifika dwar id-deċiżjoni tiegħek li tipparteċipa jew le f'dan l-istudju. Tista’ tagħżel li
ma tipparteċipax jew li tieqaf tipparteċipa f’kwalunkwe punt u ħin, kemm matul u kif ukoll
wara l-proċess tal-intervista.
Jekk tixtieq tipparteċipa, jekk jogħġbok iffirma l-formola tal-kunsens mehmuża. Din
il-proposta ta’ riċerka ġiet riveduta u approvata mill-Kumitat tal-Etika tar-Riċerka tal-IFT.
Il-kontribut tiegħek f'dan il-qasam se jkun ta' għajnuna kbira.
Grazzi ħafna bil-quddiem.
Dejjem tiegħek,
Melvin Calleja– Student tal-Masters in Systemic Family Psychotherapy
Numru tal-Mobile: 79325812
Email: melvincalleja7@gmail.com

91
Consent Form
Losing My Religion: Storying Atheist Deconversion & Religious Exit Narratives in the
Maltese Context.
I, undersigned, hereby agree to voluntarily participate in the study carried out by Mr.
Melvin Calleja entitled: “Losing My Religion: Storying Atheist Deconversion & Religious
Exit Narratives in the Maltese Context.” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of
the Masters in Systemic Family Psychotherapy with the Institute of Family Therapy, Malta.
I have read the letter of invitation with all the information about the above-entitled research. I
have had the opportunity to consider the information and clarify all my concerns about my
participation in the research. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction.
• I understand that all data will be kept confidential and my anonymity will be
respected.
• I also understand that the researcher and his supervisor Ms. Yanica Richards Chircop
will use the information obtained for the sole purposes of this research.
• I also understand that the following research may be published and I will be consulted
before any publication.
• I understand that audio files and transcripts will be destroyed after the completion of
the thesis. All the information will be treated according to the Maltese Data Protection
Act (Cap 586) and the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).
• I also understand that my participation is voluntary and that I can refrain from the
research at any point in time or be guided by the researcher to refrain from the
research if he may deem necessary for my well-being.
• I also understand that the researcher will refer me to the appropriate support/services
as necessary.
I therefore agree to take part in the above-mentioned study.
__________________________
Participant’s Signature
Date: _______________
__________________________
Melvin Calleja
Masters in Systemic Family
Psychotherapy Student

92
Formola ta' Kunsens
Losing My Religion: Storying Atheist Deconversion & Religious Exit Narratives in
the Maltese Context.
Jien, hawn taħt iffirmat, b’dan naqbel li nipparteċipa volontarjament fl-istudju li sar mis-
Sinjur Melvin Calleja bl-isem: “Losing My Religion: Storying Atheist Deconversion &
Religious Exit Narratives in the Maltese Context.” sottomess bi twettiq parzjali tar-rekwiżit
tal-Masters in Systemic Family Psychotherapy mal-Istitut tat-Terapija tal-Familja, Malta.
Qrajt l-ittra ta’ stedina bl-informazzjoni kollha dwar ir-riċerka hawn fuq. Kelli l-opportunità
li nikkunsidra l-informazzjoni u niċċara t-tħassib kollu tiegħi dwar il-parteċipazzjoni tiegħi
fir-riċerka. Il-mistoqsijiet kollha tiegħi ġew imwieġba għas-sodisfazzjon tiegħi.
• Nifhem li d-data kollha ser tinżamm kunfidenzjali u l-anonimità tiegħi se tkun
rispettata.
• Nifhem ukoll li r-riċerkatur u s-supervizur tar-ricerka tiegħu Ms. Yanica Richards
Chircop se jużaw l-informazzjoni miksuba għall-iskopijiet uniċi ta’ din ir-riċerka.
Nifhem ukoll li r-riċerka tista’ tiġi ppubblikata fil-futur u ser niġi kkonsultat/a qabel
kwalunkwe pubblikazzjoni.
• Nifhem li l-audio files u traskrizzjonijiet se jinqerdu wara t-tlestija tat-teżi. L-
informazzjoni kollha tiġi ttrattata skont l-Att Malti dwar il-Protezzjoni tad-Data (Kap
586) u r-Regolament Ġenerali dwar il-Protezzjoni tad-Data (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679.
• Nifhem ukoll li l-parteċipazzjoni tiegħi hija volontarja u li nista' nwaqqaf il-
parteċipazzjoni tiegħi mir-riċerka f’kwalunkwe ħin jew inkun iggwidat mir-riċerkatur
biex noqgħod lura mir-riċerka jekk ikun hemm riskju għall-benesseri tiegħi.
• Nifhem ukoll li r-riċerkatur se jirreferini għall-għajnuna/servizzi xierqa kif meħtieġ.
Għalhekk naqbel li nieħu sehem fl-istudju msemmi hawn fuq.
__________________________
Firma tal-Parteċipant
Data: _______________
__________________________
Melvin Calleja
Student tal-Masters f’Systemic
Family Psychotherapy

93
Appendix B
Main Interview Questions
- Take me through your journey from religious belief towards
atheism/deconversion. / What is your story of the journey from religion to
non-belief?
- Are there any prominent stories from your deconversion journey that are
significant to you?
Narrative follow-up Questions
- If you had to narrate your deconversion story as a novel/script, what genre
would it be? (tragedy? Heroic? Bildungsroman? comedy?). What title would
you give it?
- Who, if any, would be the secondary characters in this story? Are there any
significant others who contributed and participated in your deconversion
journey/process?
- What differences were observed in yourself and others, in your relationships?
- How did your relationship with spirituality/existentialism evolve?
- During your deconversion process, how did you adjust your atheist identity to
the local religious context?
- How do you negotiate living as an atheist in a strong religious Maltese
context? How are you marrying the two?
- How do you think your religious exit impacted your family and relationships?
How do you think your family and those around you lived your deconversion
process? Are there any stories you can share?

94
- If your ‘religious self’ was here with us today, what conversation would they
have with you? What would they think/say/feel? What would your
‘deconverted self’ reply back? How do you reconcile these 2 selves? (eg: iz-
zewg melvins)
- Take me back before your deconversion – what values and beliefs did your
‘religious self’ hold close? How do you see the world differently now? How
did you change or stay the same through your deconversion journey?
Basic Demographic Questions:
• Age,
• Gender,
• Education,
• Employment,
• Marital status (church or state),
• Spiritual identification (if any),
• Pseudonym of choice.

95
Appendix C
English Translation of Interview Quotes
Holly
1. “Once I asked this priest whether he believes in exorcism, and he told me ‘no, I don’t
believe in such fairytales’, and he’s a priest!... he said, ‘for me those are all silly
things!’…(laughs) I was left aghast at that time!”
2. “I used to believe, but no longer liked going to church”
3. “When I was 15 or 16… I used to date someone for five years and he had, like, very
religious parents, to an extreme… meaning that it’s blasphemous to not go to church
on Sundays and wanting us to go by force, and not wanting us sleeping together”
4. “So it’s like from there, so when I was 15/16, was when I started rebelling against
religion”
5. “…for example I wouldn’t make the sign of the cross, so I would go to church and
just, I wouldn’t pay attention”
6. “when I no longer was with this person, then it was like I was free, because then I
could choose to not go, no longer listen to the moaning… and that kept hammering in
me that I no longer want to frequent church”
7. “the in-laws I had at the time; those were like the nail in the coffin! (laughs) it’s like
pushed me to rebel even more…[they helped me] in other ways…”
8. “And it’s like I came up with this idea which in my opinion… (exhales) God is
nature. Meaning, I very much believe that… the universe is God, basically, not God
who we imagine in Christianity”
9. “I don’t view it as if I left religion… as in left it, completely left it.”
10. “one particular time I had psychology of religious experience… and the lecturer was a
priest… although he was a priest, he was very open though. Like, even if you go and

96
tell him ‘look I don’t agree with you and I think that what you’re saying is bullshit’…
he would discuss with you… you’d explain why you hold such beliefs, and no one
was going to tell you ‘no, go to church!’”
11. “His mother never told me, for example ‘come with us to River of Love’… One, I
would have told her ‘no’, square and plain… I wouldn’t have done as I did when I
was 16 and attending church just to please her… (smiles)”
12. “being assertive is important in life for everything… and especially on religion,
because to stay going to church just to warm the seat… or so that your neighbours see
you, I would just not go, you know?... what’s the use of praying just for the sake of
praying if I’m not believing what I’m saying?”
13. Holly: “For me nature, like, I worship it… as in not worship it in the Christian sense,
but I do take care. I mean, I believe a lot”
Researcher: “it’s like you honour it”
Holly: “I honour it, exactly!”
Jack
14. “From the beginning of my life… I felt, like I never had that stable relationship with
religion”
15. “because of this I couldn’t even do the Holy Communion with my friends, so I did it a
year after”
16. “I think that was the whole feeling of it all, yeah, it’s like I was feeling left out from
the religious world…”
17. “I remember asking questions about- for example why was I like, shunned from the
Church because my parents weren’t married? And I never really got a good enough
answer to me…”

97
18. “I used to do a prayer and one of the things I used to pray for (laughs) and it’s a bit
depressing, is the fact that I truly used to pray and wish that my mother and father
would love each other again (smiles) […] And I remember thinking, [God] does all
these things but this one simple thing it’s like it was… it just seemed unreachable”
19. “all in all I can say that I completely lost my faith probably around Form 2, actually
so I remember even when I did my Holy Confirmation, at that time I was already… it
all seemed a bit unbelievable”
20. Jack: “I remember that the priest actually started shouting at her-”
Researcher: (shocked look)
Jack: “-during the ceremony and getting angry at her, because somehow the
conversation came up and she told him that she’s not married to my father, and… my
mum ended up literally crying in the middle of the church…”
21. “I feel that it was never really in my books to be religious”
22. “As a matter of fact I see it very strange when someone if gay, for example, and
they’re religious… it’s something which truly doesn’t make sense for me, that you’re
believing in an institution that doesn’t believe in you”
23. “because for me, it’s like if he does the sign of the cross then he believes in it, in the
sense… otherwise, it’s literally just like doing the YMCA symbol… (smiling)”
24. “I don’t- not that I don’t relate to the word ‘Atheist’… it’s like for me to call yourself
‘Atheist’ is… it’s like giving power to religion… in my perspective the fact that you
call yourself ‘atheist’ it’s like you’re segregating yourself from the world of religion,
when in truth I don’t believe that the is a world of religion. I believe that there’s a
world, and religion is only part of it… maybe it’s a stupid example, but I don’t go
over to people and tell them ‘I’m not Italian’… you get me? Because in the sense, it
doesn’t really relate to my life”

98
Kate
25. “Once I visited a nun’s convent and it’s like I saw- felt their peace… and sort of, I
wished for that, but then when you start growing up things start to change”
26. “then when you start growing up and living independently, and go to Malta,
University… you’re no longer devout…”
27. “it’s like then… you no longer feel the need, to a certain extent.”
28. “it’s like when you start living on your own your ideas begin to take shape further…”
29. “you start saying ‘but, yeah, do certain things actually exist?’ […] questioning 2how
can it be that the Madonna remained a virgin and birthed Christ?’”
30. “for example when a small child dies, for argument’s sake, or a small child is sick
with cancer… if we say that Jesus is there to help us, and wants what’s best for
everyone, then why did He give him sickness, you understand? It’s like you start to
question a lot of things”
31. “when you’re little it’s like you swallow everything you hear… when you start
growing up it’s like you start reflecting on your own and through certain experiences
you go through”
32. Kate: “‘live in faith for now if you feel that you have to, but always question things,
because- yeah, it will help you grow’ I think… when you question things…”
Researcher: “mhm, so ‘questioning helps you grow’…”
33. “because at home we had some family issues… I used to go to church sort of to go out
and escape. For those few moments… and I think that I had so much chaos at that
time when I was younger- because my mother had her addictions, my father with his
own addictions, so it’s like… I had no one to fall onto… there was no trust-person.
Maybe I used to find that “trust”, sort of indirectly in the Church, religion, whatever.

99
Maybe that’s why I used to say that I wanted to become a nun for the sense of
peacefulness that I had felt… compared with home”
34. “I don’t know if I can use the term ‘atheist’ to be fair. Because it’s like I still feel that
there is something, but I don’t call it ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’… it’s more that I live the
spiritual aspect of things, in the sense that there’s no need to go inside a church to feel
at peace, I just go outside in nature for example and reflect and meditate”
35. “it’s like I feel that it makes much more sense for me to find my inner peace… rather
than religion or, excuse the word… but having to go swallowing the holy wafer in
order to feel good about myself”
36. “my grandma… who goes to church everyday, and you know, is devout, told me
‘close your eyes, keep walking, don’t mind it!’… I didn’t feel that I had to keep
walking, it didn’t feel right. Now I don’t go to church every day, but I feel that,
look… this person needs help, so I stopped anyways and helped this person by calling
them an ambulance”
37. “in truth- I’m going to be honest, I don’t feel comfortable saying ‘look, I don’t
believe’… I don’t say that I believe, either, I just don’t say anything about these
things! (laughing)… especially with people who I know are closed-minded… in the
sense that- they’re not open to listen to other ideas”
38. “she keeps pressuring and pressuring me ‘oh, come on’- because for us that’s also
important, ‘who knows what people might say, who knows what people might say!’…
that used to be very present, what the other people would say”
39. “I could say that maybe [his deconversion] confirmed a bit what I was thinking, yes”
40. “so we love arguing sometimes about these things sort of to- I don’t know, sense of
communication, argument… in the sense, to question more I think…”
Roma

100
41. “the truth right, because that’s what I think, that that’s the truth, that nothing exists.
That’s my truth, after all”
42. “my mother always complaining so I go to mass on the weekend, meaning I had
started going out with friends on outings, you know? In my youth… and always
‘make sure you come to church with us!’, then I started becoming vengeful- I go with
my friends so that I don’t go to church… but little by little I started decreasing,
instead of going to church, I go to the playing fields (smirks)… and seeing how I can
avoid it. I remember once I hid under the stairwell of our own home in order not to
go! (laughs)”
43. “I remember asking a lot of questions, sort of, ‘if God exists how come there’s all this
suffering?’ and trying to reason it out, ‘why should there be faith?’ and ‘why should I
follow what the Church says?’
44. “I never wanted to be the person who believes without question, because of hope,
with faith- faith, that’s what I question! Faith…what is faith? Because nowadays I see
it as something which keeps people from maybe having a bit of a breakdown… it’s
like having the excuse of religion”
45. “at school I used to rebel a lot during religion class. I used to ask a lot of questions
which not even the teacher would know how to start answering”
46. “I remember one ‘if they hit you… you turn the other cheek so they give you another’
for example… that was something which we tried to challenge. So does that mean
that you have to stay submissive to violence?”
47. “it’s like [music] was always my passion, meaning it could be that music came
instead of religion for me- because it’s like, I follow many idols in music, and not
only how they compose but also how they live their lives, like- that could be like a
religion as well…”

101
48. “because when you see people reasoning with ‘because that’s what God’s wanted’,
‘that’s because God willed it’… ‘because Jesus has something better for you’- those
who believe these things, it’s like, well, a way of life”
49. “‘because that’s what Jesus wants’, ‘because God wills it’. If you made a mistake you
have to own up for it as well, in the sense. You take responsibility. Not give
responsibility to someone else, right!”
50. “when you go into existentialism you’ll get more questions and more crises… ‘what
am I doing with my life?’ and I think that what helped me was the fact that I always
wanted to work in the social helping sector- it’s like that’s my life’s purpose… I
always felt this need of belonging”
51. “the lead singer had said that he believes in love, not in God. And that really stayed
with me, because it resonated with me a lot… that you have to love people
unconditionally”
52. “when I was in a relationship with someone who was separated and with a child, my
mother told me ‘you don’t have values like us’…”
53. “I truly was not expecteing that reaction from mum… for her it wasn’t ‘I’m first
because I am happy’… family values came first, and how we’ll be seen as a family…
I, who believe so much in love, couldn’t understand how the daughter who you’re
supposed to truly love comes after your own beliefs!”
54. “…my mother agrees with abortion when a woman is in danger of dying. So there I
see a certain humanism in my mum as well… and that gives you a bit of courage in
saying ‘oh! Wow, alright! So there is someone…!’”
Hal

102
55. ““There is no purpose in life outside of me, I create my own purpose… I am now in
control! And that is the humanism part of it, sort of, the human is the centre of my
life, not God.”
56. “it’s a process, it’s a journey which I think never ends, at the end of the day”
57. “with hindsight I say that there was always that something which tells me ‘but, does
this really make sense? Is it because I was always brought up like this? I was always
taught like this?’ and it’s like there was always that splinter in your mind… that
doubt”
58. “that doubt I always used to dismiss, ‘noo! That’s just normal’, kind of, ‘don’t mind
it!’ Eventually, when I was at university, I started telling myself, ‘look, you’re in
denial!’… ‘You are not really a believer, for you it’s just easier because that’s how
you were always brought up, all your friends are religious’… so, I kind of said, it was
my comfort zone, if I was to say ‘look, I’m not a believer anymore’, emm, practically
I’ll end up excluded and alone”
59. “eventually I came out with my friends and even with my spiritual leader and sort of
told him, ‘look, this is my position’… I told him ‘voluntary work is still my passion,
sort of, but I mean, I am not religious anymore’ and he was very accepting”
60. “I did the same, sort of, confession with him. He told me the same things, but after a
year, year and a half he had second thoughts… and he decided that I no longer fit in
there… and sort of told me ‘I don’t want you to attend anymore’”
61. “the spiritual director waited for the concert to happen… and sent for me to tell me…
the very next day after the project’s closure… ‘please don’t come anymore, your
services are no longer required’… and it’s like I felt used and discarded”

103
62. “there was a group of people who actually left as well in protest… yes. And I
remember joining forces… with another religious group (smiling). So I still remained-
joined another religious group as an atheist!”
63. “I remained a believer- I used to believe in God still… but I no longer believed in the
Eucharist. For me the Eucharist was bullshit. It’s not true that the holy wafer
transforms into the real body of Christ and the wine into the real blood of Christ”
64. “The final one was… kind of then overnight where I said ‘look, Hal, mate, you’ve
always been denying it… you are in denial, stop kidding yourself and not seeing your
doubts”
65. “look, all your life attending mass, believing in God, praying… talking and having a
relationship with God… it’s a grieving process… it’s like your friend died, at the end
of the day… because your purpose in life was given to you by God. When God isn’t
in the equation, you lost purpose… you’re finished. There’s no more purpose in life.
And that can turn suicidal!”
66. “Because at the end of the day, I found my own purpose… because instead of me
coming into this world, practically I don’t have a free will, and there’s God’s plan
who created me to follow… this plan he has for me, now that plan is finished… now
the plan of what I want to do with my life, now I’ll do it myself!”
67. Roma: “yes, yes, yes, now I’m realising! ‘Cos I never thought of it like this before,
[the fact that I was exposed to both options]!... Only now I’m seeing it…”
*