Atheist Archives - CrossExamined

Tag Archive for: Atheist

HELP! I Want to Believe! Atheist Woman Shares Her Struggles on the Quest for Truth

Are you willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads? What if it goes against everything you previously believed to be true? In this solo episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’, Frank unpacks a thought-provoking email from an atheist in France, who’s innate fear of death now has her questioning everything she was taught about the world. Tune is as he addresses her many questions and concerns, and shares her journey from staunch materialism to becoming open to Christianity. During the episode he’ll tackle questions like:

Is it possible that Jesus had a twin brother that nobody knew about?
Is believing in miracles totally irrational?
Would frequent miracles help the case for Christianity?
Which one should we trust more–the evidence or our feelings?
Is being a Christian like believing in Santa Claus?
Do we always have to see something to believe it?
Should Christians always carry the burden of truth?

Whether you identify as an atheist, agnostic, or are struggling through your own season of doubt, this episode is packed with some of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity and will challenge you to critically examine your worldview, explore the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and consider what’s at stake if Christianity is true. You don’t need all the answers right now, but our hope is that this conversation will inspire you to investigate further—and maybe even take a step toward embracing THE truth. If Christianity were true, would YOU become a Christian?

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Frank Turek
BOOK: Stealing from God by Frank Turek
BOOK: Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer
BOOK: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
Blog Series: Does God Whisper? by Greg Koukl
Sean McDowell YouTube Video – The Top 5 Verified Near-Death Experiences

Download Transcript

February 11, 2025/by Frank Turek

Would It Have Been Better If God Had Not Created Us?

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

There has always been evil and suffering in the world, and how to make sense of it is a principal object of Christian apologetics. Often, the argument is made that God gave us free will, and as a result, people have the liberty to choose to do evil. But this answer does not satisfy the atheist; often, he will challenge God’s goodness, with comments such as the following:

You claim your God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering…or alternatively only create those humans who will freely choose God, and eliminate the possibility of their suffering.

This challenge has much intuitive appeal. We all rail against the suffering that each of us must face, to varying degrees, as our lives progress. We realize the fragility of our human condition, and how inhospitable this creation seems to be to flesh and blood mortals. It is frightening, indeed, to think of all the ways that our lives can be tragically altered, or ended. But does the harshness of this reality “prove” that God is not “good”?

What do you mean by “Good”?

The first step in responding to this challenge is to get a better idea of what is meant by “good.” Generally speaking, “good” is a measure of quality; how a thing or an idea measures up to a standard of performance. A “good” knife is one that appropriately performs its function, or its intended use. A “good” person is one that lives up to a standard of behavior. But how can one determine what that standard should be? For example, any time two opposing things are in conflict, whether they are teams, or armies or ideas, the quality of the outcome will necessarily be decided from the unique perspective of each of the involved parties. For instance, the American victory in World War II was a “good” outcome for Western democracy, but a decidedly “bad” outcome for those who staked their future fortunes on the Nazis. A good outcome for my favorite baseball team is when the other side loses. In short, and at the risk of sounding flippant, when it comes to conflicting worldviews or ideas, a “win” is the outcome which is good for the winner and bad for the loser.

With this basic distinction in mind, it would seem that, at least preliminarily, answering whether it was “better” to have “foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering” would depend on the person being asked. For those spending eternity in heaven with a God of infinite power, who intends to allow us to live eternally and joyfully in his presence, He certainly did the right thing in creating us and in giving us this opportunity. Infinite and eternal joy and fulfillment versus, well, oblivion – that’s not a difficult choice. By contrast, for the person suffering torment in hell, realizing that he will spend eternity aware of, but separated from, this awesome being, it will probably seem “better” that man was never created.

Who decides what’s “better?”

But let’s take it to a deeper level. How does one decide which of two sides is right in claiming that a successful conclusion according to their desires is an objectively “good” outcome. For example, the Nazis deemed victory in Europe a good outcome. Would their victory actually have made Nazi domination of Europe a “good” result? The Nazis would argue that in the period of a few short years they transformed Germany from a beleaguered nation experiencing great suffering because of the Versailles Peace Treaty to an economic powerhouse, a state marked by efficiency and great industry. They sought to expand that “efficiency” to the rest of Europe, what they would claim to be a good result. The Allies countered that their victory was not good simply because their side won. As the victors, they did not simply assert that they were right and then impose punishment on the vanquished. Instead, they tried the Nazi leaders in what is known to history as the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the purpose of which was to establish that crimes against humanity had been committed. The underlying premise was that the “good” accomplished by the Allies was not a subjective good, i.e. we’re glad we won and you lost, but an objective good, i.e. Nazi officials were guilty of conduct that was objectively evil, and therefore justly punished. The premise of the trials was that such objective knowledge of good was available to us, and not that the might of the victor makes right. But how can this objective assessment be made, if each side can claim that “good” is what suits them? This, of course, is a frequent argument of the theist. While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality, because only the existence of a transcendent being provides the basis for judging objectively the “good” or “evil” of any conduct under consideration.

“While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality.”

Without such an objective and transcendent judge, the atheist’s conclusions are mere opinions, mere statements of likes or dislikes. By that standard, the challenger here is left saying that having people end up in hell displeases him. To conclude that allowing anyone to suffer in hell is worse than not creating at all, the atheist must appeal to a standard of good and evil, a standard of goodness. But what is that standard?

Christians can at least make sense of this standard: it is for the Creator to decide. As applied to my World War Two example, which side had objective good on its side is not difficult to determine. Granted, this does not mean that the Allies did no wrong, or where completely free of evil action. No, the law and rules applied to them as much as to the Axis powers and history shows that there were indeed transgressions by the western powers. But only an Allied victory could be deemed an objectively good outcome, one consistent with God’s desires. Contrary to Nazi philosophy, all human beings are made in God’s image and are therefore endowed with God-given rights that no government can justly take from them.

It’s for God to Decide

Returning to the question raised by the challenger, the answer is the same: it is for the Creator to decide. Given his perfect knowledge, He is in a better position to judge which is a better outcome. Indeed, challenging God in this fashion seems rather presumptuous. The Creator of this universe is obviously immensely intelligent and powerful. That we should decide what He should do in creating – how He should go about assigning a value to competing options – makes about as much sense as my dog giving me advice on careers or on moral issues. Without the proper frame of reference, a proper sense of humility should prevent us from telling God how he should have approached His creative work.

In the end, foregoing creation would not have been a “good” solution for the many individuals who responded to God’s gift and are, or will be, experiencing eternity in His presence. When you combine this with the realization that people who are separated from God are separated by their own choice and not simply chosen at random, then it would not be fair to deprive so many of such joy when those who have refused God’s gift have done so of their own volition.

Recommended Resources:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

March 6, 2023/by Guest

An Atheist’s Call To Make Our Case

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

St. Francis of Assisi may have died 800 years ago, but his influence still looms. He was a man who venerated nature and lived a life of great sacrifice in service to God and his church. But within the Christian ecosystem, he has become most famous for an adage that strikes a chord with anyone who is serious about sharing their faith:

Preach the Gospel always. If necessary, use words.

The modern interpretation of Assisi’s exhortation is clear. Our charge is to love people into the kingdom, not argue them there. If you’ve bought into that mindset it may surprise you to learn that it’s not accurate. And it may surprise you even more to learn that it flies in the face of an atheist’s call to make our case.

Here’s why.

A Gospel Without Words?

On one level there is no denying that, “who you are speaks so loudly that no one can hear what you say.” We certainly don’t want the life we live to deny everything about the faith we claim to represent. But is the Franciscan inversion of this exhortation also true? Can we proclaim the message through our actions alone?

The problem here is that the Gospel makes propositional truth claims about the nature of the world, the nature of man, and the remedy for man’s rebellion against God. It’s a story about reality. And it’s only “good news” if it’s actually true. So, how can we share the propositional truth claims of such a message and explain their implications without using words or giving answers?

I contend that we can’t. Furthermore, the attitude that says we can is not only harmful, but it also does violence to the Gospel it claims to love. This contention is not my own. A rabid atheist will back me up.

The Gift of a Bible

Penn Jillette and his partner, Raymond Teller, have been entertaining Las Vegas audiences for years. Their mixture of magic, music, and commentary – the Penn & Teller show – is the longest-running show at the same hotel in Las Vegas history. Jillette is a magician, actor, and inventor. He is also a hard-core atheist – so adamant about his denial of God’s existence that at one point in his life he is said to have owned three cars with vanity license plates that read: “atheist,” “nogod,” and “godless.”[i] “Strangely enough,” says Jillette, “they wouldn’t give me ‘infidel.’ He was also a happy participant in YouTube’s viral “blasphemy challenge,” in which participants publicly mock and denounce the Holy Spirit.

Penn Jillette is no friend of Christianity. But he has a message that every Christian should take to heart.

In July 2010, Jillette posted a video online[ii] in which he shared the story of a man who approached him after one of his performances. The man was extremely complimentary of the Penn & Teller show. He said he enjoyed Jillette’s honesty, his use of language, and his talent. The man was polite and humble. And he came bearing a gift.

“I was here last night,” said the man, “I brought this for you.” The man handed Jillette a pocket Bible containing the New Testament and the book of Psalms. Penn Jillette was genuinely humbled and impressed by the actions and attitude of this kind Christian man. And he is quite direct about how he received the gesture.

I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. If you believe there’s a heaven and hell … and if you believe that people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life … and you think that it’s not worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward … How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a truck was bearing down on you and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that (emphasis mine).

Misquoting Assisi

Most of us don’t have a lot in common with a rabid atheist Las Vegas showman who mocks the Holy Spirit. But every Christian would do well to take seriously Penn Jillette’s reflection. Not only does it fly in the face of the just-love-them-into-the-kingdom mindset, but it also comports with what Assisi actually said … and with what he did.

It turns out the legendary quote attributed to St. Francis is nothing but a modern corruption of the words he actually wrote in 1221 AD:

Let none of the brothers preach contrary to the form and institution of the church … Nevertheless, let all the brothers preach by their works.

Notice that Francis did not render preaching the gospel a contingent option. Instead, he linked words and actions directly together.

Francis of Assisi devoted himself to the kind of life for which he is now known after being convicted by a sermon he heard in 1209. He took a vow of poverty, felt connected to nature and the beauty of the creation, and demonstrated empathy for others. But he was also known for the powerful sermons he delivered. He lived out the Gospel, and he was happy to tell others about it.

Words Are Always Necessary

Arguments and evidence are far from arrogant intellectual add-ons to the Gospel.[iii] They are integral to it. God saturated our world with truths that could never be adequately expressed through our actions alone. There are plenty of examples of militant atheists who have turned to God after hearing about them. C. S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace[iv] come to mind. Penn Jillette isn’t on that list – yet. That’s his choice, not ours. Don’t hate him for it. Be winsome and kind. But by all means, don’t be silent.

Footnotes

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8

[iii] https://truehorizon.org/the-gospel-requires-us-to-give-answers/

[iv] https://salvomag.com/article/salvo24/the-evidentialist

The Pendulum Problem: A Warning of Extreme Beliefs

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

I have a dog and a cat.

Max is my dog whose personality is likened to a lovable, furry, hyperactive toddler. As an anxious dog, nobody is safe from his “watchful” eye. When the doorbell rings, my ferocious dog barks an explosive cry so loud that it vibrates throughout the entire house. His hair stands up, and he aggressively pushes his nose to the door to somehow intimidate his arch nemesis: the poor Amazon delivery dude. “Don’t you hoomans see the problem!? I’m protecting you from the bomb just delivered to our door!” Is a mom walking her baby down the street? A kid riding their bike? Oh, he must inform us about this potential threat by alerting us with all the gusto he can muster because it very well could be an ax murderer, for all we know. Everything is a threat. He must always be on constant exaggerated alert because he feels like this is how he will protect his family.

Dusty is my cat, a seal-point Siamese who is calm and passive and lives for food and sleep. Her personality is like, well… a cat. When someone comes to our door, she pays no mind. She likes routine and comfort. The end.

Like one end of a pendulum to the other, both are polar opposites. Some people can relate in some way to the personality traits Dusty and Max exhibit. I use my pets as an example to show the extreme views that I sometimes see in religion. Some people are highly apathetic, while others are constantly on guard. I know it’s not as black and white as this, but I’m sure many people somewhat understand what I’m talking about. Think of a swinging pendulum. Its weight forces itself from one side to the other, making it the opposite of its previous position. When someone leaves a particular belief system where maybe they’ve been deeply hurt, they want to be so far away from the said belief that they ‘overcorrect’ and go off the rails in the opposite direction.

This is the essence of what I call the “Pendulum Problem.”

Maybe someone had a bad experience in a very legalistic religious setting that was ridgid and cultlike. So they self-heal by distancing themselves from anything that has to do with organized religion, perhaps becoming an atheist or just “spiritual” with a very fluid view of morality and truth. It could also be the opposite, where someone feels they have been deceived by the devil with their spirituality. They become so careful and scared of being deceived again that they become overly cautious, critical, and legalistic in their religious convictions. Personally, I went through both sides of the pendulum to some degree. I went through about a four to five month time period where I demonized almost everything I saw. It was “worldly” and “demonic.” I came across as judgmental… and I really was. I didn’t want to be involved with anything or anyone that seemed remotely new age on any level out of fear. Then there came a time when I didn’t want to be seen as a religious Bible thumper and became too apathetic with few spiritual boundaries. I was in error both times.

So why is this an issue? Because extreme beliefs can create confirmation bias and unhealthy echo chambers. I believe this hinders the effective spread of the Gospel.

As Christians, do we need to have discernment? Yes. But do we need to live in a state of mind that functions more out of fear of deception than a love for the lost? No, we don’t. Do we need to be loving? Yes. But do we need to conform to the world to the point that we’re indistinguishable from it for the sake of peace? No, we don’t.

Another issue is that this goes even deeper than allowing thoughts to swing too far the other way. Our thought-life reflects our actions. I have often observed a fixation with throwing punches against what they came out of and immersing themselves with people and teachers that speak against it. They filter more and more of their worldview through this new paradigm. They can’t tolerate any compromise or nuance of an opposing view. Even if there was some lousy theology in their previous group, they will go to great lengths to defend themselves and be around people they know are “safe.”In this way, they reinforce what they already believe because the only voices they hear are those that are agreeable and never challenge them. A “challenge” is seen as the Amazon delivery man dropping off your new houseshoes, but better run for cover because it might be a false teacher instead. They’re steering clear of otherwise decent people that are more nuanced than they’re comfortable with.

What the Pendulum Problem really is? It’s a theology of experience. The hermeneutic for people in this phase is based on their experience: positive or negative. That’s the lens through which they see the world and define theology and their worldview. That’s another reason why this is a major problem. It’s based on negative history.

So what do we do about this once we recognize the problem? First, It’s valuable to know why we do this and maybe what we can do about it. Have I just been hurt, and this is my way of protecting myself? Am I angry at the people whom I now disagree with? Am I functioning out of hurt? Do I need to forgive? I think it’s important to understand that, to some degree, we’ve all done this or have seen it. Once we can recognize that our interactions with people are imbalanced, we can move forward with healing from this. Second, we do this out of a sense of trying to do the right thing. We want to do what’s right. But sometimes we overcorrect and we need to stabilize. We can function out of hurt kidding ourselves into thinking we’re being protective but it’s actually causing damage. People really do experience hurts, and it’s important to be sensitive to that hurt. I don’t think people actually intend to do this. There are legitimate traumas that they’ve experienced and they need understanding, prayer, and love. Third, Scripture should be our guide and Jesus should be our example. I clearly see a healthy balance when it comes to truth in love.

Don’t believe me? Check for yourself!

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Andrew Cowley

When I was 14 years old, I publicly (and sincerely) denied the existence of God. I was wholly convinced that God didn’t exist and those who believed in God were delusional, unintelligent, naïve, and emotionally weak. Belief in God was the thing of fairy tales—not something intellectual or rational. As an atheist, I stood on the shoulders of giants like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I reveled in the idea that it was totally in my right to make snarky remarks to believers and to smugly laugh when a believer said they had “faith” in what they believed. “Faith”? That’s reserved for children and Santa Claus, not a modern intellectual who relies on empirical evidence and logic!

A month after my 28th birthday, I began to read books on the resurrection, historical Christianity, and Christian apologetics–objectively and with an open mind.

A funny thing happens when you start objectively looking and learning about the thing you so vehemently criticize and dismiss without a second thought… You begin to notice things you would never find in the New York Times, a blog post written by an Objectivist, or a meme that was shared thousands of times on Facebook that claims Jesus is just a rip-off of that pagan god that existed a long, long time ago. You start to take note of the historical evidence that seems to point to the same conclusion over and over again. You begin to read books by ancient historians that have nothing to do with the authors of the Bible, yet still talk about someone they called “Jesus” and what a group of “Christians” had been doing since His death and resurrection.[1] Books like The Resurrection of the Son of Man by N.T. Wright suddenly look like brilliant works of historical survey that can not only disprove empty claims that Jesus wasn’t unique but lay an irrefutable foundation of why Christ’s resurrection was a real event that took place and is the best explanation for why those closest to Christ lived and died for Him. The books of the Bible no longer look like manufactured pieces of fairy tales–they are pieces of history that can be attested to by the people that were actually there. The authors of the Bible are seen as independent eyewitnesses (and witnesses who actually spoke to those that were there) that are reliable and accurate.

It was an extremely hard thing to do to set aside my biases and look at the evidence for what it was: the Bible is a historical document written by real people that experienced real things. Jesus actually lived and walked on this earth, He had hundreds (if not thousands) of followers that were tortured and killed for believing He was the Son of God, and they wrote about it. The Bible (and more specifically, the Gospel) was written by people who were actually there. In fact, St. Paul makes a challenge to all those who doubt by telling us that if we don’t believe him, go and ask the hundreds of people who were there. They’ll most certainly agree with what he’s telling you.[2]

That’s quite the claim for a “fairy tale” and it’s certainly not belief in something that can’t be proved. Let’s not forget, St. Paul actively persecuted Christians and spoke out against Christ before his conversion. In other words, St. Paul didn’t want to believe Christ’s claims, but couldn’t deny it once he saw, and experienced it, for himself. Essentially, Paul hated Christ and His followers, yet couldn’t help but to believe.

Although, I must admit, believing in the resurrection does seem to fly in the face of what we experience from day to day. People don’t just resurrect from the dead, not in our experience anyway. As you read about the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, you begin to seriously question what is or is not possible. For someone claiming to be God, they’d better have an amazing argument–and proof–on why we should believe them. After all, anyone can claim to be God and rise from the dead–but the claim alone doesn’t make it true. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, as they say.

Conveniently, Christ understood this and acknowledged our skepticism. Christ knew that there would need to be undeniable proof that he was the Son of Man and had fulfilled everything He set out to accomplish. Not only did Christ rise from the dead (just like He promised), he publicly revealed his resurrected body for all to see. Even still, some of the Disciples couldn’t believe their eyes[3]–frankly, I don’t blame them. Seeing Christ in His glorified form must have been truly terrifying and joyous all at once. Yet, Christ absolved all doubt. He told them to touch His body and feel His very real wounds. Not even the best scientific study under the best circumstances can claim to have such undeniable proof such as what the Disciples (and many others) experienced!

After Christ’s appearances, no one could convince the witnesses anything other than believing Christ Himself appeared to them in a glorified, resurrected body. Not torture, death, public execution, or anything else could change their minds. They know what they saw, and what they saw actually happened.

I think a completely fair objection to consider is that the disciples lied about seeing the resurrected Christ. Yet, we should ask ourselves, “Why would someone hold to a lie knowing full-well they’d be killed for holding that lie?”

Keep in mind there was nothing to gain from holding such a lie, yet everything to lose. Think about that for a moment… Would you hold to a lie that you know, for a fact, didn’t happen if you faced certain death and torture? I wouldn’t and I have a hard time believing anyone would.

However, this is not the same as someone dying for beliefs that they hold (i.e., dying for some cause). There is nothing equivocal between someone dying for an event they know didn’t happen and someone dying for a personally held belief. I hope you can see the difference between these two scenarios. The sincerity of the disciples (and subsequent Christians) plus Paul’s conversion is a testament to just how powerful this historical claim is and shows the resurrection of Christ really is the best explanation–especially when considering the historical backdrop of the story.

I’m not a Christian because I want to be one, I’m a Christian because I have no other choice. God has called me into his flock and I have answered that call with all my heart, mind, and soul. My sincere prayer is that all people can hear that call too.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? A Historian, an Atheist, a Skeptic, a Theologian, and an Ex-Con Weigh In

CrossExamined

By Alisa Childers

It’s that time of year again—the time when Christians come together to celebrate the pinnacle of our faith, the resurrection of Jesus. It’s also the time when news outlets like Time, the Discovery Channel, and Newsweek unleash their skepticism about Christianity, the Bible, and the resurrection. It can be confusing to wade through the various historical evidences, personal beliefs, and opinions floating around in scholarship and the blogosphere. Here are quotes from several sources who all have unique qualifications and an interesting take on the evidence:

1. The Historian

Gary Habermas is an American historian, and the Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. He is considered to be one of the foremost scholars on the resurrection of Jesus. While researching the resurrection, he combed through the works of both secular and Christian scholars. He wrote:

I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something.[1]

There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead.[2]

2. The Atheist

Gerd Ludemann is a German New Testament scholar, historian, and atheist. He was once a professing Christian, but walked away from his faith when he became convinced that very little of what is contained in the New Testament is historically reliable. Even so, he wrote:

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.[3]

3. The Skeptic

Bart Ehrman is the Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of the most respected scholars in the field of New Testament studies—and he is agnostic. About the resurrection of Jesus, he wrote:

Historians, of course, have no difficulty speaking about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the Apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection.[4]

In a recent blog post he wrote:

The most important thing to stress is that there are two historical realities that simply cannot be denied. The followers of Jesus did claim that Jesus came back to life. If they had not claimed that, we would not have Christianity. So they did claim it. Moreover, they did claim that they knew he rose precisely because some of them saw him alive again afterward. No one can doubt that.[5]

4. The Theologian

The type of historical evidence above caused leading New Testament scholar, historian, and theologian N.T. Wright to conclude:

As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.[6]

5. The Ex-con

Charles Colson, who once served as Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon, famously went to prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal in the early 70’s. He became a Christian in 1973, largely due to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. One detail regarding Watergate was similar to the resurrection: in both cases, 12 men claimed something that would affect world history. In the case of Watergate, it only took two weeks for them to crack under pressure:

The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now, the fact is that all that those around the President were facing was embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody’s life was at stake.

But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beatings, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to their dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised from the dead. Don’t you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did.

Jesus is Lord: That’s the thrilling message of Easter. And it’s an historic fact, one convincingly established by the evidence—and one you can bet your life upon. Go ahead researchers—dig up all the old graves you want. You won’t change a thing. He has risen.[7]

Even the atheists and skeptics confirm that Jesus’ disciples claimed and believed that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. History tells us that they were willing to suffer and die for that belief. It’s reasonable to confidently agree with what the church has affirmed over the centuries—”Christ is risen. He is risen indeed!”[8]

References:

[1] Gary R. Habermas & Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2004) p. 60 (Emphasis mine)

[2] Ibid., p. 49

[3] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) p. 80

[4] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 2004) p. 234 (Emphasis mine)

[5] Bart Ehrman, “Questions on the Resurrection and My Personal Spiritual Experiences: Readers’ Mailbag” www.ehrmanblog.org, March 24, 2017, accessed April 6, 2017

[6] N.T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p. 26 (Cited by William Lane Craig, “The Resurrection of Jesus” www.reasonablefaith.org, accessed April 6, 2017)

[7] Charles Colson, “An Unholy Hoax?” www.epm.org, March 29, 2002, accessed April 6, 2017.

[8] John 11:25-26

Giving Atheists a Hand

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

My seventh-grade nephew needed some help the other night on social studies. He was working on the Paleolithic Age – the Old Stone Age – a time when man first started working with stone and bone tools. That got me thinking about the greatest “tool” of all – the human hand. It’s something that most people take for granted, but I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that modern civilization would never have arisen without it.

How can the atheist explain something as complex as the hand? Like the human reproductive system that I discussed in my last post, in his worldview, the hand is the product of a slow, random set of mutations occurring over a long period of time. We just happened to be lucky enough for everything to fall into place so that we – modern humans – are the beneficiaries of this entirely happenstance outcome. But think for a moment about the staggering complexity of the hand. Consider first the intricacy of the nerves that allow not just for feeling but for the fine sensitivity of feeling that exists in the fingertips. Consider the placement of the hand at the end of a flexible wrist on an arm that is also flexible. Five fingers provide the ability to grip and to manipulate objects, and the five can be used in unison or individually. Two matching hands are vastly superior to one, and the hands just happen to match in size, shape, and function. The opposable thumb may be its greatest feature, as it allows for tools to be gripped. There is a versatile muscular system that allows for objects to be firmly, or lightly, gripped, and a feedback mechanism in the nervous system that allows us to know whether we are gripping something so hard as to crush it or softly enough to caress it. All the while, it provides information on warmth and cold. On and on the list goes. It is truly a marvelous tool, and despite the best efforts of modern-day scientists, there is no way at present to even begin to replicate its complexities.

Yet we are to believe, according to the atheist, that this amazing feature of human beings is not the product of an intelligent designer, who foresaw and anticipated our use of tools to build and shape the world around us, but was instead the result of random processes occurring over time. By why should this be so? Well, the atheist will say, the hand is simply the descendent of more primitive appendages. Small, random changes conferred an advantage on some descendents, which allowed them to succeed and pass on this modification. Really? If this is so, then why haven’t monkeys, and these other more primitive forms, gone extinct, if their appendages were so unhelpful to their survival? Clearly, the development of a hand that could use tools, as opposed to one suited for climbing trees, was not needed by them in order to thrive and reproduce. Or conversely, why haven’t modern monkeys, which apparently predate humans, not yet evolved human hands, hands finely suited for using and manipulating tools?

More importantly, what happened before monkeys with primitive hands evolved? What was that earlier mammalian life form from which the arm and hand emerged? A squirrel? A rodent? What were these life forms doing, earlier still, when they had mere stumps on the ends of their limbs? Or no limbs at all? How did they survive? And why aren’t there other examples in nature of animals who randomly produced hands? Or animals that have partial hands that are somewhere on the road to evolving a complete hand?

To be fair, atheists probably think they are doing the believer a favor by arguing that science is the source of all knowledge, and that with enough time and study, answers to the questions I pose will someday be found. I suspect that most have not considered deeply the difficulty with this position. After all, the human hand is just one of dozens of fine-tuned systems in the body, each of which was constructed according to instructions embedded in the millions of lines of coded DNA information that directs the body to grow from a single cell to an adult person.

To conclude that the evolution of life forms happened randomly might have made sense in Darwin’s day, when those considering the question had no idea that information-rich DNA was directing the process of building and sustaining life. But today? Science can tell us many things about DNA and how it works. But the original source of the code, and the identity of the coder who wrote the language of DNA to provide for the life that is teeming on Planet Earth, is not something that science will find, certainly not if scientists insist on assuming that DNA assembled itself.

No God, No Justice

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Karsten Friske

The idea of protesting in an attempt to garner support to make a moral change is not new. With each movement, there exists a side that champions a series of issues and a counter-protest that opposes the change. In recent days, some have advocated for racial justice by marching to affirm the value of Black lives. Others are concerned about election integrity and the rule of law in that area. Both of these primary causes are attempting to evoke social reform and call for justice in the midst of perceived injustice. Yet, undergirding both of these cries for justice is an assumption that justice matters, that we as humans matter.

This may seem like I am stating the obvious, but the implications are buried and broad.

The fight for justice assumes that objective moral values (i.e, it is a good thing to be a firefighter) and obligations (i.e., if you see a house burning, you should call the fire department) actually exist. In other words, these moral obligations and values exist independent of subjective human opinion. If moral values and obligations were all subjective (such as your favorite genre of film), one is merely advocating for a personal preference. Yet, it seems absurd to suggest that Black lives only have subjective worth or that election integrity is a matter of preference.

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

However, in a world that increasingly follows a cultural philosophy of post-modernism and post-Christian thought, the consequences for such thinking tend to go unopposed. You may ask yourself, “what does it all really matter? People can do good things without a belief in God and can collectively make moral progress by reasoning together!”

Yes, people can do good things without ever affirming God’s existence. People can also join together and make a more just society without ever consulting Scripture. However, they cannot ground why these pursuits matter without an objective starting point.

In a world where subjective (relative) life goals and one’s own “truth” reigns supreme, there exists no room for objective meaning, purpose, truth, value, or even justice. Although this is done in the name of tolerance to prevent a violation of one’s own sovereign will, the implications are far more catastrophic than what it is trying to prevent.

In short, since nobody can be right in a relativistic framework, nobody can be wrong. If nobody can be wrong, there exists no basis to decry injustice or celebrate justice.

If all life is devoid of objective meaning, there is no difference between someone who fights for justice or works to suppress it. In the end, they are simply two groups of humans exerting energy over causes they feel deserve more attention. The signs they carry display words that demand a moral change in a world without the possibility of moral progress or absolutes. The causes that motivated protest are also just as insignificant as the people doing the marching.

The “Noble Lie”

As I hope you can see, the above worldview is incompatible with any activist or anyone who has ever felt wronged. It is for this reason that the proposed solution of a “noble lie” was introduced. In a nutshell, the view proposes that we all know life is meaningless, so we tell ourselves lies that everything we are interested in has some sort of significance, even though it ultimately does not.

The problem with the “noble lie” is that it promotes self-delusion and is self-defeating.

Remember, the problem that the “noble lie” supposedly solves is the incapability of living in a world without absolutes. Yet, it is proposed that we absolutely (or objectively) all create “noble lies” to live in the world. Furthermore, it is viewed by proponents as being “noble” or a benefit to society. How can we know it is noble when we have no ground on which to base what is noble and what is not??

This is the self-defeating web that is woven when one marches without a foundation.

So What’s The Solution?

First and foremost is to notice the great consequences these various views hold. With God, we have an objective basis for meaning, morality, truth, and justice, as these are all rooted in His nature. This is only heightened by looking at this whole problem from a Christian worldview where humans are made in the image of God and are of infinite worth. Moreover, the cross of Christ for the forgiveness of sin is open to all (old, young, rich, poor, and any color or creed).

Lastly, Christianity offers a solution to unpunished evil that occurs on Earth (remember, we have grounding to say something is evil in this worldview). God is the ultimate Judge to whom all are called to give an account. Some may choose to live what appears to be an ethical mantra of trying to “be a good person,” but these attempts are in vain.

Although they appear attainable in relation to other humans (such as comparing your sins to that of a serial killer), these aspirations soon fall short when matched to a Holy and Perfect God who is the standard of good. This is why salvation, offered through Jesus Christ as a result of His death on the cross, is a gift. It comes after surrendering a false hope in a subjective standard of good and humbly asking to receive the pardon of which none of us is worthy.

So to conclude, when calls for justice are given with an impassioned plea of “No justice, no peace!” it is my hope that the points raised here will remind you of the foundations needed to even argue for such justice. Additionally, I hope that the consequences of holding a purely relativistic or subjective worldview are clearer to you now than before your reading of this article.

9 Famous Thinkers Who Said They’d Rather Go To Hell Than Worship God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

C.S. Lewis famously remarked that “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.” In other words, the residents of the damned are there based on personal preference. It’s not because they’d rather be in heaven but only lacked sufficient information.

Echoing Lewis, Christian philosopher Dallas Williard wrote that hell isn’t “an ‘oops’ or a slip. One does not miss heaven by a hair, but by a constant effort to avoid and escape God.”

But are these famous Christian thinkers correct? Doesn’t it seem crazy that anyone would prefer hell? Based on the statements of many influential skeptics and atheists, the answer might surprise you. Many hardheartedly reject the Biblical picture of God. If such a being existed, they are emphatic about their preference for hell over spending eternity with such a God.

Let’s take a look at some notable examples:

Mark Twain, who is considered to be the father of American literature:

“I am plenty safe enough in his hands; I am not in danger from that kind of Deity. The one that I want to keep out of the reach of is the caricature of him which one finds in the Bible. We (that one and I) could never respect each other, never get along together. I have met this superior a hundred times in fact I amount to that myself.” (Personal correspondence to his wife 7/17/1889)

John Shelby Spong, author, liberal theologian:

“(The God of the Bible is) a God I cannot respect, much less worship, a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own.” (Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism)

Desmond Tutu, civil rights activist, liberal Anglican cleric:

“I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry… I would much rather go to the other place.” (Archbishop Tutu ‘would not worship a homophobic God’, BBC News)

Kingsley Amos, novelist, poet:

“I’m an atheist, yes. But it’s more that I hate Him”, explaining his view of God to Yevgeni Yevtushenko. (God Meets the Old Devil, The Independent)

Dan Barker, Founder of Freedom from Religion Foundation, said in a debate with Justin Bass:

“Even if Jesus did exist, even if I agreed with [Dr. Bass] 100%, yep, he rose from the dead, yep, there’s a God, yep, I don’t deny any of that, does not mean that he is my Lord. If he did exist…I will go happily to hell. It would be worse of a hell for me to bow down before a Lord…regardless of the legend and historicity issue…Even if I agreed 100%, I would still reject that Being as a Lord of my life because I’m better than that…I cannot accept Jesus as Lord…You’re much freer to live and enjoy your life unshackled from the demands…” (The Bible and Beer Consortium, Jesus of Nazareth: Lord or Legend? / Dr. Justin Bass and Dan Barker)

Donald Fagen, lead singer of the band Steely Dan:

When asked about the meaning of his song titled Godwacker, Fagen said, “It’s about an elite squad of assassins whose sole assignment is to find a way into heaven and take out God. If the Deity actually existed, what sane person wouldn’t consider this to be justifiable homicide?” (Eminent Hipsters by Donald Fagen)

Zora Neale Hurston, folklorist, anthropologist, and author of Their Eyes Were Watching God:

“All gods who receive homage are cruel. All gods dispense suffering without reason. Otherwise, they would not be worshiped. Through indiscriminate suffering men know fear, and fear is the most divine emotion. It is the stones for altars and the beginning of wisdom. Half gods are worshipped in wine and flowers. Real gods require blood.”

JS Mill, philosopher. Mill is considered to be one of the most influential thinkers in the history of classical liberalism:

“Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing which he shall not do: he shall not compel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply the epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go.” (An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, p 103)

William Ernest Henley, poet, in his famous poem “Invictus”:

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

Henley is quoting Matthew 7:14 and is pretty brazenly saying he is the captain of his soul, not God.

GOD GIVES PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT – EVEN HELL IF THEY CHOOSE IT

Revelation 16:9 talks about how the wicked respond to God’s wrath: “They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory.”

Similarly, Revelation 9:21 says: “The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.”

So according to the Bible, the lost are those who reject God out of the hardness of their own heart, not insufficient information. God gives them what they want: separation from Him. I see no reason to think that this type of brazen rejection here is going to somehow radically change at the time of judgment. It’s sad, but these examples bear out what the Bible and Christian thinkers like Williard and Lewis have said about hell.

In my own experience, I’ve asked skeptics if they would worship God if they had persuasive evidence. The answer has often been a resounding ‘no’.

I have to think that its attitudes like these are why skeptics have set such a high burden of proof when it comes to Christianity.

If we were preaching a God who makes us his comfortable pets and fails to take sin seriously, then I believe we would get far less pushback. But we’re not defending a god that the skeptic would probably worship, because that god doesn’t exist.

Why It Is Foolish To Insist There Is No God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today – including numerous scientists and other well-educated folks – are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. While name-calling is never productive, is there a way in which one might conclude that a person who denies God’s existence is indeed a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?

Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves and thereby make fools of ourselves. We might insist that a steady diet of fast food isn’t the reason that our clothes no longer fit the way they used to. On other occasions, it may be that we are misled. That tanning solution that promised to save you hours in the sun as left you looking a bit too orange to venture out in public. But whatever the source of our being misled, I think most would agree that a person who holds views that are inconsistent and contradictory has allowed himself to be deceived. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no active ingredients. A person who proudly expresses views that are so in conflict has fooled himself, whereas a thoughtful observer would see things as they truly are.

Now, of course, some contradictions are not as obvious as the examples I just provided. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance, anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.

The first avenue of inquiry requires consideration of just what it is that the human mind is capable of doing. We need to think about what “thinking” actually entails. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes pre-programmed with an “operating system” of sorts. This system allows us to acquire language, to use reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things. It allows us to organize creation into categories, and perhaps most amazingly, to make use of the imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to what we experience in an “I get that now” moment when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems of thought naturally and intuitively; they are part and parcel of the normally operating human mind. Of course, there is no other way since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.

One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize or to place things into understandable categories. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify as food, the object in question must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ash tray food, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists. A tree trunk in the woods can function as a “chair,” but the surface of a swimming pool cannot.

So, with this observation in view, let’s turn to the question of God. Let’s consider for a moment, not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etcetera – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter being, the being with the greater attributes, would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. Both beings have every possible attribute of perfection that can be conjured up in the human mind until one reaches the attribute of necessary existence. As I make use of my imagination and my ability to reason to flesh out what I am thinking about when I consider God, I realize that one of these two superlative beings has the attribute of necessary existence – it is not possible for this being to not exist. The other being, on the other hand, lacks this attribute. This latter being may or may not exist, or he may come into existence at some point and go out of existence and some other point. Now, as I compare these two conceptions, I immediately and clearly can see that the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater of the two. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else –anything less – simply cannot fit the conception of God.

So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary and, consequently of no value. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not in fact exist, that does not relate to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. These things aren’t “real,” even though we can conjure them up in our fantasies. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, and most importantly, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature – we can place it in its proper category mentally – even if the creature does not presently exist. This is so because the conceptualization of these things does not require that them to actually exist in the here and now. For God, by contrast, the only way to properly conceptualize Him is as a necessarily existent being. If you are not seeing Him that way, says Anselm, you are not yet thinking about God, but about something lesser.

This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to: in the recesses or our very minds, there for us to uncover with a bit of critical thinking.

Getting back then to the initial question, if Anselm is right, the fool who denies God is saying something like, “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.

The Bible says that God has written His law on our hearts. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.

Tag Archive for: Atheist

What do you mean by “Good”?

Who decides what’s “better?”

It’s for God to Decide

Recommended Resources:

A Gospel Without Words?

The Gift of a Bible

Misquoting Assisi

Words Are Always Necessary

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

​1. The Historian

​2. The Atheist

3. The Skeptic

​4. The Theologian

​5. The Ex-con

​​​​​References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

The “Noble Lie”

So What’s The Solution?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

GOD GIVES PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT – EVEN HELL IF THEY CHOOSE IT

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. The Historian

2. The Atheist

4. The Theologian

5. The Ex-con

References: