Reflections And Advice on Atheist/Christian Discussions

As a campus minister for the past six years on a large college campus, I have talked to my share of atheists. I have listened to them and asked questions. As a recent t-shirt says, “I love atheists, I just don’t agree with their worldview.”

Socrates once said, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Perhaps some of the resurgence in atheism has finally forced Christians to ask, “Is an unexamined faith worth having?” I am saddened to say that one of the predominant reasons our culture rejects our faith is because of a lack of information. If parents or pastors cannot articulate what they believe to a teenager or a college student, they may be showing that their faith is not important to them. In an age of intellectual skepticism, both teenagers and college students walk away from the faith because of unanswered questions.

Apologetics is a branch of theology that is concerned with presenting an intelligent defense of faith in Jesus. I am happy to see that the new atheism is creating a hunger for apologetics among God’s people. It is long overdue.

The only way for a healthy dialogue to exist between theists and atheists is to listen and ask questions. It is through healthy conversations that clarifications are made and people can go forward in building relationships.

I want to provide some reflections and perhapsSOME tips in the discussions between atheists and Christians on the God question. Here goes:

1. What Do You Mean? Clarify Terms

One of the keys to engaging in productive conversations is to always remember to clarify terms. Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense. The problem of equivocation is seen in several of the debates between theists and atheists. Terms like “evidence,“ “proof,” and “faith” all need clarification. When an atheist tells me there is no evidence for God, I always ask what they mean by evidence or proof.

2. The Denial of a god or gods?

So is atheism the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods? If so, is there really a need to posit the possibility of many gods? After all, if God is infinite, there can’t be more than one infinite Being. To distinguish one being from another, they must differ in some way. If they differ in some way, then one lacks something that the other one has. If one being lacks something that the other one has, then the lacking being is not infinite because an infinite being, by definition, lacks nothing. So there can be only one infinite Being. Also, is it more simple to posit that there are many gods instead of one God?
3. The Scientific/Empirical Method?

Let’s look at this argument:
1. If we God can’t be verified using the empirical/scientific method, God does not exist.
2. God can’t be can’t be verified using the empirical/scientific method.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

What is wrong with this argument?

First, it must also be remembered to insist that God must be a visible object which can be observed with the five senses is to commit a category mistake. A category mistake is to assign to something a property which applies only to objects of another category.

Obviously, from the Orthodox Christian view, God has no composition. He is not a material object. The Hebrew word for one is “echad” which leaves room for a plurality within a unity of substance- but there is no implication of a plurality of beings or parts within a being. Scripture admonishes mankind about making any physical image of God (Exodus 20:4). God is pure spirit ( John 4:24). He has no parts and is an immaterial Being. Hence, the God of the Bible is unmade.

Second, while the Christian worldview is not opposed to science, it does recognize the limitations of science in relation to the discovery of human knowledge. In some cases, scientism tends to reduce all legitimate knowledge (epistemology) to the scientific method. Therefore, this form of science ends up committing the reductive fallacy by taking one area of study and reduces all reality to this one area alone. Furthermore, to assert that all truth claims must be scientifically verifiable is a philosophical assumption rather than a scientific statement.

Third, it would be helpful to read some writings of those who integrate both science and theology. Two of the most prolific authors on the relationship between science and religion are former atheist Alister McGrath who teaches at Oxford-see his website here, and John Polkinghorne. John Polkinghorne is a physicist who happens to be priest as well- see his website here:

Fourth, let’s remember what is called The Verification Principle. The atheist or skeptic can be overly focused on the verification principle. Verification has to do with how to test the meaning or truth of a claim. A. J. Ayer, following David Hume, originally claimed that for a statement to be meaningful it had to be either true by definition or else empirically verifiable through one or more of the senses. This principle was a dominant view in philosophy departments during the 1960’s. This view proved to be too narrow and self-defeating since on this ground the principle of empirical verifiability was not itself empirically verifiable itself. Therefore, it is meaningless as well.

Hence, the verification principle has broadened out to other kinds of verification tests such as experiential, historical, and eschatological.

4. Intelligent Design?

To all atheists. Take my advice and stop saying Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise. Read the literature! See our post here:

5. What About the Clifford Objection?

Philosopher William Clifford made the evidentialist objection famous by stating the following: “If a belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by giving us a sense of power which we do not really possess, but it is sinful, because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind.That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence which may shortly master our body and spread to the rest of the town. To sum up: It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

Many people attempt to apply Clifford’s objection to religious belief. However, as much as the skeptic likes to rely on the Clifford objection, there are three problems with it. First, Clifford’s evidentialism is governed more by a desire to avoid falsehood than the desire to arrive at the truth. Second, Clifford’s objection is self-defeating. When a statement is included in its own subject matter and fails to satisfy its own standards of what qualifies as a justified belief, it is self-defeating. Third, if the Clifford objection works in principle, we as humans would be forced to abandon most of our beliefs. Many of our beliefs are self-evident (they don’t require any justification), while many of our other beliefs such as memory, testimony, etc, don’t require an extensive evaluation of the evidence.

However, there are some strengths to the evidentialism model. For example, when we state that each of us has an epistemic responsibility, this means that we as humans are responsible for the beliefs we acquire. Justification is a term that means a belief is justified in the sense that it is more likely true due to the fact that it is based on solid grounds or good reasons. Our goal is to proportion our beliefs to the strength of the evidence that is available to us.

Without using an evidential approach, we would be unable to evaluate the differences between contradictory revelatory claims. Therefore, reason is always a necessary element in evaluating any religious claim. In their book, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective: Norman L. Geisler and and Paul D. Feinberg show the relationship between reason and revelation. This is where reason helps in evaluating the evidence for a supposed revelation from God. They say the following:

(1) “Reason is over revelation” is correct in that reason is epistemologically prior to revelation. The alleged revelation must be tested by reason. (2) “Revelation is over reason” is right in the ontological sense. God created reason and it must be His servant, not His master. (3) “Revelation only” is correct in the sense that ultimately and ontologically all truth comes from God. (4) “Reason only” has some truth, since reason must judge epistemologically whether the alleged revelation is from God. (5) “Revelation and reason” is correct because it properly assigns a role to each and shows their interrelationship. One should reason about and for revelation, otherwise he has an unreasonable faith. Likewise, reason has no guide without a revelation and flounders in error.

6. Inference to the Best Explanation

In my opinion, the best approach to God’s existence is what is called ‘inference to the best explanation.’
Inference to the best explanation is a method that is commonly used in science, history, etc. This type of explanation is commonly called “abduction” since it is a type of reasoning that is different from induction and deduction. Inference to the best explanation is commonly utilized by apologists that use the cumulative case method. In a cumulative case method, each argument has evidential value but will never lead to any kind of mathematical or logical certainty (which is unnecessary).

The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. For example, since we can’t observe gravity directly, we only observe its effects. And since we can’t observe God directly, we can draw general conclusions from specific observations. Has God left us any pointers that might help us in finding Him?

7. “Not Enough Evidence”-The Issue of Subjectivity and Proofs

Lionel Ruby in his text, Logic: An Introduction says: “Every person who is interested in logical thinking accepts what we shall call the “law of rationality,” which may be stated as follows: We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence…. By “adequate evidence” we mean evidence which is good and sufficient in terms of the kind of proof which is required. There are occasions when we require conclusive proof, as in mathematics, and there are occasions when it is sufficient to establish the probability of a given conclusion, as in weather prediction. But in all cases the evidence must be adequate to its purpose.” (1960, p. 131, emp. added).

In my own experience, I have been told by some atheists that they just want sufficient evidence. But they just can’t get there. But in reality, this really translates as what Ruby just stated as “conclusive proof” as in mathematics and logic. While the atheist waits for the “conclusive proof,” they are allowed to live a life in complete autonomy from God.

Also, remember the advice of the late Ronald Nash about the issue of proofs. As Nash said:

“What tends to be forgotten is the subjective nature of proof. First, proofs are person-relative. In other words, proofs are relative, which is simply to admit the obvious, namely, that the same argument may function as a proof for one person and result in little more than contempt for someone else. Second, proofs are relative to individual persons. A person’s response to an argument will always reflect varying features such as their past and present personal history. Proofs also may be relative to persons in particular circumstances. Therefore, proofs must pass tests that are not only logical but also psychological. No argument can become a proof for some person until it persuades a person.”

Atheists may say they left the faith for intellectual or evidential reasons, but my experience shows me there are always emotional or volitional issues involved in the process. In approaching the God question, is it true that all of us are completely objective? Not a chance. Furthermore, in SOME cases atheists really don’t care if Christianity is true. Also, if they have decided to be an apologist for atheism, not much will persuade them.

8. Can Chance and Undirected Natural Laws Do It Alone?

Let me present a general outline here:

In his book An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity Is Better Off With Religion Than Without It, author Bruce Sheiman gives a general outline for us: Human Life = Laws of physics X chance + randomness+ accidents+ luck X 3.5 billion yrs:

The laws of physics for our present universe arose by chance (from a multitude of possible universes); the first forms of life developed by chance (arising by primordial soup combinations that resulted from the laws of physics plus accidents); the first concept of life developed purely by chance (genetic mutations and environmental randomness); and humans evolved by more improbable occurrences.

The atheist may find this completely plausible. But the theist will say it takes some faith/trust to believe in this. Physicist Paul Davies says that the probability of producing a small virus from Earths primordial soup is after a billion years is 1 in 10 to the 2-millionith power which is greater than the chances of flipping heads on a coin six million times in a row.

After all, natural laws do nothing and set nothing into motion. A “law of nature” is a description of what happens when no agent (whether it be divine, human, etc) is interfering or intervening into the casual order. Their effects are produced by natural forces whose processes are an observable part of the ongoing operation of the physical universe. Deists have no problem in asserting that God created the natural laws in such a way so that we arrive at our present universe.

Some view chance as a real cause itself, only a blind, rather than an intelligent cause. For example, both Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick both admit that while the world shows every indication it is designed and have purpose, they add one qualification; it only looks that way. In other words, while the design is evident, it can be explained without resorting to any Designer. When we observe the effects in the world, we can infer there are two kinds of causes-natural and intelligent.

Since Crick and Dawkins (as well as other atheists) only accept natural causes, this means the phenomena we observe can be explained by chance alone. But when it comes to explaining chance, two usages are commonly used: chance as a mathematical probability and chance as a real cause. Remember, chance is just a word; it has no casual power to do anything. This is why it really doesn’t bother me when atheists say, “Science will figure it all out.” Science is a slave to philosophy.

Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism (as currently discussed and advocated by Richard Dawkins, some atheists, etc) is not a discovery of science. It must always be viewed as a presupposition of science as presently practiced. The question is whether undirected natural causes are able to account for a wide variety of phenomena that we observe. Do undirected natural laws allow for a life-permitting universe which in turn allows life to come from non-life? Furthermore, who cares if they find another universe. That will only demonstrate impressive design and beg the question as to what the mechanism it is that generates such universes. Once again, we ask, are the laws of physics set up in such a way to perform the most amazing such a task? Is it just by “chance,” or they are tweaked to do these things?

9. Is The God of the Old Testament a God of Genocide?

Another large emotional issue seems to be the question, Is The God of the Old Testament a God of genocide? Christian scholars have provided solid answers to this issue. It takes good hermeneutical skills to answer this objection. If you want to read further, here are two links- here, and here:

10. The Relationship Between Beliefs and Actions

This argument goes like this:

1. If religious beliefs lead to wrong actions, God does not exist.
2. Religious beliefs lead to wrong actions.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

The counterargument is:
1. If religious beliefs lead to correct actions, God exists.
2. Religious beliefs lead to correct actions.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So what if Christianity makes a pragmatic difference in the lives of people? Does this mean it is true? How about every atheist reads the following article about an atheist discussing the difference Christian missionaries are making in Africa. Would atheists would walk away thinking God exists? I doubt it.

The point is that this argument is probably going nowhere. The theist can point out the thousands upon thousands of positive things that Christianity/religion has done for the world. Both historically and statistically, Christianity has led the way to alleviate suffering in the world. Just to name a few of these organizations that continue to alleviate suffering in the world are Samaritans Purse, The Salvation Army, The Red Cross, World Vision, Christian Foundation for Children and Aging, United Methodist Committee on Relief, ChildFund International, Catholic Relief Services, Operation Blessing, Lutheran World Relief, Prison Fellowship Ministry, and Habitat for Humanity. Not to mention the countless of efforts by local churches and the hospitals that have been built all around the world.

Despite some inconsistent living in the lives of Christians, we can conclude that God could still exist and Jesus could be the Messiah.

For more on this, see our post here:

11. A Few Comments About the New Atheists

For one reason or the other, Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’ The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Christopher Hitchens’ How Religion Poisons Everything, and Daniel Dennetts’ Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon have made an impact. I know that some atheists are not wild about these books. In relation to Dawkin’s philosophical skills, philosopher Alvin Plantinga said in his review of The God Delusion that, “You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.” And on the cover of Alistar and Joanna McGrath’s book The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, philosopher and Darwinian advocate Michael Ruse says, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”

Some of these books by atheists have been best sellers. It should be no surprise that The God Delusion has sold over one million copies. I have written a small review of The God Delusion here: See Rob Bowman’s review of The New Atheism here:

12. Jesus’ Existence

For those that ask, “What is your evidence that Jesus existed?” please drop this one. It is equivalent to asking, “What is your evidence that Caesar existed?”

The late F.F. Bruce in his popular The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? said:
“Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.” (Bruce, The New Testament Documents. 123.)

Also, the comment “Well, he probably did exist, but we can’t know much about Jesus” is problematic as well. If the one who makes that statement is an advocate of historical skepticism, then that is something that has to be dealt with before making such a claim as “We can’t know much about Jesus.” I don’t see anyone making this statement about anyone else in antiquity but Jesus. How inconsistent!

See more here: