Question

Your idea is explicit: the religious person interprets his friend who went secular as something psychological, while the secular person interprets his friend who became religious as something psychological. Both of them do not explain the change as stemming from philosophical awareness.
I wanted to ask you: I agree with the description, and with the message that one should examine things on their own merits, etc. But specifically regarding the description above, seemingly it is quite understandable. That is, since I think there is a God because of rational arguments, and since I have spoken with many people and subjected the arguments to criticism and still have not heard a winning argument, it is therefore difficult for me to say that my friend left religion because of intellect, since I know that intellectually I am right. So necessarily some other reason remains. It is certainly possible that I am mistaken, but in the current state of affairs, where I have no reason to know that I am mistaken, it is hard for me to accept that through intellect one can reach conclusions opposite to my current position. 
The alternative is to say that my friend is a very poor philosopher. But apparently the assumption is that psychological reasons are preferable to a warped way of thinking. Especially since in most cases a person knows his friend and knows that he is not a poor philosopher.
What do you think?