Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, meaning a defense or an answer. For a Christian, apologetics is defending the claims of the Bible by way of evidence; giving reasons why one believes what he believes. Skeptics of Christianity hold a false view that Christians have blind faith in God and the Bible. While a Christian is a person of faith, it’s not blind faith, its faith based on evidence. For example, a Christian has faith about what’s to come based on the evidence of what’s been. So, if anyone asks a Christian, “Why do you believe you’ll be in heaven after you die?”, the Christian ought to be able to provide evidence to defend his hope. This essay aims to expose the value of apologetics and to encourage Christians to prepare themselves to articulate what they believe and why they believe it.
In one of his letters to the church, the apostle Peter encourages believers to stand boldly in the defense of the faith. He warns that believers will be stirred up, slandered, and intimidated by others who hope to squelch their faith (1 Peter 3:14-16). Anticipating this, Peter teaches believers to, “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you,” 1 Peter 3:15. This isn’t about simply winning an argument, but rather explaining the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and believing that God would use the evidence to compel the individual toward faith in Jesus.
We see examples of defending the faith in Scripture. The apostle Paul visited the city of Thessalonica and went into the synagogues and, “reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead,” Acts 17:2-3. Elsewhere, Paul reiterated that part of his ministry was, “the defense and confirmation of the gospel,” Philippians 1:7. In Athens, Paul was, “reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles,” or conversing with philosophers, or engaging people in the street (Acts 17:17-18).
It’s important to know that apologetics is only effective when someone is genuinely interested in learning. As Proverbs 18:2 says, “A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.” One wise way to help discern if an individual is truly interested in considering the evidence, is to ask, “If Christianity were true, would you believe it?” This approach has been made famous by apologist Frank Turek. This question exposes whether a skeptic is willing to concede truth if it is provided. If the individual responds, “I won’t trust the Bible no matter what!”, then you know it’s of no value to pursue a discussion.
When engaging someone in an apologetic discussion, it’s wise to establish some foundational principles at the start. One thing you’ll need to agree upon is that objective truth exists. I say this because there are people who challenge the reality of truth itself. A good initial question to ask is, “Do you believe in objective truth?” Objective truth means that a truth claim is independent of one’s opinion. Examples of objective truth would be that gravity exists on earth, or 1+1=2, or that “dog” is spelled with the letter “o.” Oddly enough, some people claim that truth is relative, and that each one of us can decide what is true for ourselves. You might have heard someone say, “I’m going to speak my truth.” This statement is nonsense. We don’t get to have our own truth, only our own opinion. So, when anyone claims, “There is no objective truth,” simply ask, “When you say there is no objective truth, is that a true statement?” Any way they answer, they prove that objective truth exists. The point being, claiming that truth is relative is a self-defeating position to hold.
Another way to establish the reality of objective truth is to ask, “Can a person tell a lie?” A lie presupposes truth. If someone can be accused of telling a lie, then doing so insists that truth is objective. Once people can agree that objective truth exists, then the conversation can go into its intended direction, which is to argue for the reality of God, the validity of the Bible, or other important claims of Christianity.
Another key principle to agree upon is that when someone makes a truth claim, it’s his responsibility to bear the burden of proof. Atheism is a claim to know something, specifically claiming to know that there is no God. The burden of proof is on the atheist to provide evidence for this claim. Too often though, when atheists are challenged to provide evidence, they usually respond, “Well, prove to me there is a God!” That’s when you need to stop and insist, “No, you’ve said there is no God, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.”
In the same way, theism is a claim to know something. Theism claims there is a God. When a theist makes that claim, he is now burdened with the proof to support it. Then there’s agnosticism, which is a claim to not know something, i.e. “I don’t know if God exists.” Agnosticism ought to be the position that a skeptic takes, not atheism. Meaning, that if you don’t trust the evidence you’ve been shown regarding the existence of God, then it would be hasty to leap to the conclusion that therefore God does not exist. If there is a default position it should be agnosticism, “I don’t know.”
Lastly, it’s important to know the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive argument. A deductive argument is one where the conclusion logically follows the premises. Meaning, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. For example, “A bachelor is a single man. John is a man who is not married. Therefore, John is a bachelor.” Here, the premises are true, therefore the conclusion is certain.
An inductive argument is one where the premises provide generalizations, not absolutes, so then the conclusion is likely but not necessary. For example, “Last Christmas it snowed. It snowed each of the last five Christmases before that. Therefore, it will snow again this Christmas.” Here, the conclusion is not certain and is only probable based on the premises provided. Both deductive arguments and inductive arguments have value when used properly.
Apologetics and Critical Thinking
The absence of critical thinking skills will ruin a person and a society. Around 2015, our world saw a rise in non-critical thinking. I attribute this in large to social media platforms where people make up their minds about faith, politics, truth, morals, etc., often from things as trivial as ten-second videos splashed across their phone screen.
I’m reminded of a recent news report that magnified societies lack of critical thinking. A person walked around at a state fair asking people to sign a petition for banning dihydrogen monoxide, claiming that it’s in our lakes and streams, and now it’s in our sweat, urine and tears. She collected hundreds of signatures. Dihydrogen monoxide is the chemical name for water (H2O). This experiment revealed how conditioned people are to believe something that seems politically correct. It’s far too easy to indoctrinate people, especially when people aren’t willing to ask for evidence, like asking, “What’s dihodrogen monoxide anyway?” We’re all born ignorant, but not stupid.
College students too often provide examples of how easy it is for someone to leave home thinking one thing, and in a short amount of time, they can be conformed to an entirely different set of values. Students learn to become lazy, trusting, and to not employ critical thinking skills; hearing one side of an issue and quickly becoming galvanized in their belief without considering the other side. Instead of learning how to think, students are taught what to think. A great example of this happened when a professor put two circles of equal size on a power point slide, one colored red and the other blue. He asked the class if one circle was bigger than the other. He got a mixed reaction. He then claimed the blue one was larger and asked them to look again. After watching students stare intently at the circles again, he asked them to re-vote. Overwhelmingly the class indicating that they could see that the blue circle was bigger. It was then that the teacher said the circles are the same size. Without asking for a measurement, the class was persuaded because of the teacher’s authority. He’d convinced them to believe something that wasn’t true even when they had the evidence right in front of them. This reflects the world of politics, and the world of faith. We tend to trust a politician or a religious figure, without doing the hard work of critical thinking for ourselves. Apologetics aims to know what you believe, based on evidence, and that you have the skills to articulate both your belief and the evidence to support it. All of this requires critical thinking.
Too often, people react instead of think and learn. The most important knowledge is the knowledge of our own ignorance, i.e. “I don’t want to be mistaken, so please help me understand.” Society is full of people who hold to certain views, but these same people can’t explain why their view is correct. It’s important to learn why point A and B are different and to know which one has the best evidence to support it.
Apologetical Approaches in Defending Christianity
Historical Apologetics – This focuses on secular writings outside of the Bible that validate the people, places, and events spoken of within the Bible.
Manuscript Apologetics – This emphasizes textual reliability by virtue of compiling and examining the thousands of copies of ancient manuscripts which contain whole and partial versions of all sixty-six books of the Bible. For examples of historical and manuscript evidence, see my essay titled “Why Trust the Bible?”
Philosophical Apologetics – These emphasize evidence for God based on morals and purpose.
Scientific Apologetics – This focuses the evidence that science provides regarding the intelligent and fine-tuned design of the universe.
Experiential Apologetics – This focuses on the transformative effect of Christian faith on the lives of believers; demonstrated by life-change and testimonies. For example, why would the disciples of Jesus live in fear and be in hiding after Jesus’ crucifixion, only to shortly afterwards spend the rest of their lives dynamically proclaiming that Jesus is God, even when faced with their own death? What experience changed them?
Does God Exist? / The Cosmological Argument
This is one of the key questions that apologetics explores. The cosmological argument claims that God is the rational explanation for the origin of the universe. I think the argument shows that God is necessary and the only plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. The argument starts with the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. It’s a matter of fact, that from nothing, comes nothing. And since the evidence shows that the universe had a beginning, then it’s necessary that they universe had a cause.
Even atheists concede that the universe had a beginning. One scientific fact that demonstrates this truth is the second law of thermodynamics. This law shows that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe existed throughout eternity past, then it would have depleted itself of energy. Other evidence showing us that the universe had a beginning is the measurable expansion of the universe. Experts in the fields of physics, astrophysics, and cosmology, men like Albert Einstein, Alexander Friedmann, George Lemaitre, and Edwin Hubble, agree that the expansion of the universe is measurable. Science reveals that the universe is not only expanding, but cannot be eternal in the past and certainly has an absolute beginning.
This forces us to ask, “What then is the cause that brought the universe into existence?” Either the universe came from nothing with no external cause; a position that rejects science and reason. Or, the universe came from an uncaused first-cause; a source that would necessarily exist outside of the universe and is therefore unaffected by time, space, and matter. The plausible answer is that the universe came from an uncaused first-cause. To further explain this point, consider the following. Suppose a skeptic says, “Fine, I’ll admit that God created the universe. But then where did God come from?” This question suggests an infinite regress of causes, which is illogical. In other words, there cannot be an infinite number of backward steps. It’s illogical because you would be forever asking, “Then what created that…and what created that…and what created that,” and so on. If someone insists on an eternal regress of causes, then by default nothing could ever be explained. Logic insists that there must be an uncreated being from which all other things exist.
Even if an atheist is willing to concede that there must be an uncaused first-cause, they might still argue that unless we know for certainty who the Creator is, then they can’t acknowledge a Creator at all. Simply put, if they can’t understand or explain God, then they won’t accept God as the Creator. This argument is also illogical, as shown by the following illustration. Suppose an archeologist digs up a brass statue of a man riding a horse. All of the proportion is correct, and the horse has diamonds set into its eyes. The archeologist would be right in assuming that what he found had a designer. But suppose he didn’t know who the designer was. Would he be right to toss aside the statue and claim, “Since we don’t know who designed this, we can’t conclude that it had a designer at all. Therefore, we can only conclude that the object we found is a result of natural sedimentary changes that occurred over millions of years within the rock bed.” Obviously, that would be a fool’s conclusion. Even if he doesn’t know the designer, he would still assume it was designed by a previous civilization and not randomly formed by sedimentary change. In the same way, when atheists reject an intelligent Creator simply because they can’t explain who the Creator is, it doesn’t remove the fact that an intelligent designer is still the only plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. Therefore, you don’t need to explain an explanation in order to accept it as valid.
Evidence suggests God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. In order to create a fine-tuned universe, God would need to have the following characteristics; uncreated, immaterial, space-less, timeless, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The existence of this kind of God is a cogent (sound, logical) conclusion.
Atheism is a Religion
It must be noted that although atheism claims that there is no God, nonetheless, atheism is a religion. I say this because a religion is a belief system serving as a foundational principle in one’s life adhered to by a degree of faith. Atheists adhere to the belief in miracles; many miracles in fact. But contrary to Christianity, their miracles have no evidence to support them. Here is a list of miracles that atheists must adhere to if they want to be consistent; faith in the belief that nothing produces everything, faith in the belief that non-life produces life, faith in the belief that randomness produces fine-tuning, faith in the belief that chaos produces information, faith in the belief that unconsciousness produces consciousness, and faith in the belief that non-reason produces reason.
Logical Fallacies to Be Aware of – #1 Question Begging
As evidence continues to debunk the claims of atheism, atheists are left to invent increasingly clever arguments as to why they continue to dismiss the reality of God. Take the late Stephen Hawking for example; a famous physicist, atheist, and author who taught at the University of Cambridge. In his book “The Grand Design,” page 181, he wrote, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists.” Hawking’s conclusion here is an example of a logical fallacy known as “question begging” or “begging the question.” This is a logical fallacy because the statement uses an assumption as its proof, or, uses a claim as evidence for itself. Another way to put it is that the premise doesn’t explain how the conclusion could be true. Here are other examples of question begging, “Because coffee wakes you up in the morning, you need coffee to wake up,” or, “Since water bottles are bad for the environment, we know they’re destroying the planet,” or, “The reason I’m the boss is because I’m in charge.” None of these explains the conclusion that they assert.
Hawking’s premise, “Because there is a law like gravity,” doesn’t provide any explanation or evidence to then conclude, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” In reality, science shows us that gravity doesn’t create anything, it only describes what happens to some things which are created. Hawking’s premise doesn’t explain his conclusion.
In another of Hawking’s books, “A Brief History of Time”, in chapter eight he acknowledges the fine-tuning of the universe and says, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers…The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded…One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation or as support for the strong anthropic principle.” Instead of conceding a divine Creator, Hawking evokes the “Strong Anthropic Principle.” The Strong Anthropic Principle is a theory within the scientific community which suggests that Darwin’s “Big-Bang” produced countless universes, and of the countless universes, we happen to live in the one that by chance became so fine-tuned that it explains the origin of life and why humans exist. Let’s try to put this into perspective by imagining the following scenario. Suppose a thousand six-sided dice are put into a bucket and all tossed onto the floor. The goal is to have them all land on the number 4 in a single toss; the ultimate “Yahtzee!” If you rolled a thousand dice at once, and kept repeating this until all of them land on the number 4, the odds are so improbable that it would never happen. Nonetheless, atheistic and evolutionary scientists believe that our radically fine-tuned universe came about by something even more improbable than this.
Atheists used to claim that the “Big-bang” produced the known universe, which just happened to be amazingly fine-tuned. It’s bizarre to me how any rational person could believe in the “Big-bang” theory, as all evidence shows that explosions cause chaos, not order. Nowadays, atheists realize the foolishness of this theory and have adopted a new “Big-bang” theory, one where the “Big-Bang” produced endless universes, and we just happen to be the one universe that all fell into place, creating the illusion of a designer. In summary, the strong anthropic principle is a non-sensical “multi-verse” answer to appease the minds of those who continue to try to convince themselves that God doesn’t exist.
Richard Dawkins is another famed author, atheist, and evolutionary biologist who works at New College, Oxford. Dawkins has developed his own theory for the explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe; a theory that mirrors the strong anthropic principle. His theory is known as the world-ensemble hypothesis. Dawkins claims that an infinite number of parallel universes exist, and our universe is just a random one that happens to be magnificently fine-tuned. For guys like Dawkins, the multi-verse theory is easier than admitting a designer. When confronted with the idea of a designer, Dawkins regurgitates the same illogical answer as previously mentioned. He says, “If you assert a designer, then you have to answer the question, “Who designed the designer?” This question, as stated before, creates the logical fallacy of eternal regress.
In his book, “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins has titled chapter four, “Why there almost certainly is no God.” Among other things, Dawkins argues, “We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can’t disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can’t disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.” This is another example of question begging. Dawkins asserts that since he can’t disprove leprechauns or fairies, then God almost certainly does not exist either. However, one has nothing to do with the other. A logical response to Dawkin’s claim would be, “Let’s put proof aside and ask, is there evidence for leprechauns? Evidence for God?” These are questions with answers!
Logical Fallacies to Be Aware of – #2 Appealing to Authority
Another trap to watch out for is called arguing from authority, also known as appealing to authority. When someone makes an argument from authority, they are basically saying that because they’re some sort of authority figure, like a teacher, professor, doctor, etc., then therefore they are correct. This is a logical fallacy since one’s authority doesn’t make one’s claim true. For example, if someone said, “My professor says the Earth is flat. He’s right since he’s got a PhD.” Professors who teach theories like evolution and atheism are often counting on their students to be trusting. So, when professors like Stephen Hawking claim that the universe created itself, many people are inclined to believe him simply because of his authority. John Lennox, a philosopher and mathematician at Oxford University, and a born-again Christian, said it best by saying, “When brilliant scientists talk nonsense, it’s still nonsense.”
Speaking of John Lennox, he points out another glaring problem within the atheistic community, pertaining to how scientific experiments are conducted. The following is a summary of Lennox explaining a simple point that he’s discussed with many atheists. “I often ask atheists in the scientific community, what is it that you do science with? They start to say they do science with their mind, but then catch themselves as they realize the mind is a reality that can’t exist in a naturalistic worldview. So, the say they do science with their brain. At which point I ask them to tell me about the origin of their brain. Some have told me that the brain is the end product of a mindless unguided process. I respond by asking them, why trust a brain that you claim is the product of a mindless unguided process? I go further by asking them that if the computer in their lab was the end product of a mindless unguided process, would you trust your computer? The answer I always get is, no.” What Lennox demonstrates here is that atheism undermines itself. It undermines the very rationality that one needs in order to do science, or to even conclude whether atheism is true or false.
Atheist Stephen Pinker is forced to admit exactly what Dr. Lennox had concluded. Pinker said, “Some parts of our subjective experience are parts of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The tastiness of fruit, the scariness of heights and the prettiness of flowers, are features of our common nervous system. If our species had evolved in a different ecosystem, or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction of right and wrong were also the product of brain wiring, why should we believe it to be any more real? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?”
In short, even the atheist must concede that science cannot account for everything. You’ve probably heard a skeptic claim, “If science can’t validate it, then I won’t believe it.” In reality, there are many things science can’t account for but that are still rational to accept as true and valid. For example, love, or any other emotion for that matter, are realities that all humans experience with no measurable way to scientifically validate them. Moral and ethical statements are not scientifically valid, yet mankind generally accepts them, like saying, “He was wrong for cheating on the test.” Judgments about beauty cannot be accessed by the scientific method, yet mankind collectively calls certain things beautiful. Science is a great, but obviously limited.
Other Common Logical Fallacies to be Aware of
Circular Reasoning – Question begging is a form of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning happens when a person begins with what they’re trying to end with, going around in a circle and demonstrating nothing. Here are some examples. “The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true.” Or, “The age of the fossil is known by the strata of ground it’s found in, and the age of the strata is known by what fossils are in it.”
Synonym Substitution – This is a form of circular reasoning disguised with synonyms; explaining a word with a word that has similar meaning. For example, “A man is a dude.” Here, the word “dude” doesn’t explain what a man is. Instead, a logical answer would be to say, “A man is an adult male with XY chromosomes.” This provides a description based on evidence.
Non Sequitur – This is a statement where the claim and the reason don’t logically connect. For example, “You don’t love me since you haven’t bought me a pony.” Here, the fallacy is that love is demonstrated by the purchasing of a pony, and without having done so, one person can’t love the other.
Strawman Argument – This happens when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument with a weaker point, rather than addressing the actual argument. For example, if I say to a pregnant woman, “You’d be committing murder if you abort your daughter.” Suppose she responds, “As a woman, I have the right to do with my body as I see fit. My body, my choice!” Here, the woman has diverted away from the topic of aborting her daughter and has argued that she ought to do with her body as she pleases. To that I would respond, “You’re making a strawman argument. I’m not talking about your body. Feel free to do with your body as you please. What I’m speaking about is your daughter’s body; her body which is inside of you. You don’t have the right to murder her body.” So, when people say, “My body, my choice,” you should direct them back to the point of the argument, which is that abortion is murder.
Loaded Question – This happens when a question contains an unsupported assumption that makes the other person look guilty. The result is that no matter how the person answers, he is made to look guilty. For example, “Are you still cheating your way through school?” If the person says, “no,” it implies he had been cheating but has now stopped. The correct way to answer a loaded question is to attack the invalid assumption and then defer your answer to the rest of the question. For example, “I’ve never cheated and I’m working my way through school based on hard work.”
Gaslighting – This happens by using sustained and strategic misinformation to attempt to cause someone to doubt their memory, perceptions, or sanity. In short, gaslighting happens when one person tries to get another person to deny reality, usually by either lying about the facts, telling someone they’re too emotional, or trying to convince someone that their thinking is racist or bigoted in some way. The term originates from a 1938 British play called Gas Light where a husband gradually turns the gas light down in the room, and when the wife responds to the dim light, he treats her like she’s delusional. Examples of gaslighting are – “You’re not upset, you’re just tired,” or, “I wasn’t flirting with her, you’re just too emotional,” or, “If you don’t vote this way then you’re a racist.”
False Dichotomy – This fallacy happens when two options are presenting as being opposed when they aren’t necessarily opposed. For example, “Which do you want, freedom or safety?” This was the type of false dichotomy spread by media with regards to getting a Covid shot. Freedom and safety were presented as though they can’t coexist; one must be picked over the other. Atheists today will pit God and science against each other, as though they don’t harmonize, “Pick one, God or science, but you can’t think both are valid!”
Red Herring – This fallacy distracts from the real debate, or is any off-topic argument used to persuade and influence. A red herring can appeal to emotion, fear, honor, popularity, and can attack a person instead of his argument. For example, if the teacher asks why you didn’t turn in your report last week and you reply, “You give us too much homework,” then you’ve used a red herring to distract from the topic at hand with the hopes of persuading the teacher. Red herrings shift the focus from what matters. A famous example is from the OJ Simpson trial, regarding the infamous leather glove, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” This was an obvious distraction from whether or not OJ was guilty.
Ad Hominem – This happens by attacking a person’s character or motivations rather than his position or stance on a subject. For example, two politicians are having a debate on stage. One says, “My plan will cut the budget by 50%. What’s your plan to reduce spending?” Instead of addressing budget cuts, the opponent says, “Why should we trust you? You cheated on your wife last month.”
False Dilemma – This fallacy happens when only two options are presented when more options actually exist. For example, “We can either save money or go on vacation.” This is a fallacy since one can look into affordable vacation options to work within a budget. Another example is, “It’s either surrender or be killed.” Here, other options could be to fight, or offer a compromise, or pray for God’s intervening deliverance, etc.
“God of the Gaps”
The “God of the Gaps” theory says that God is just an answer used by scientists who come upon a scientific mystery that they can’t explain. In other words, God is a sort of hypothesis to explain certain gaps that science has yet to find an answer for. For example, someone who doesn’t know where lightning comes from might hypothesize that Zeus or Thor was the source of the lightning in the sky. Therefore, a “god” was the explanation for what they couldn’t explain. Naturally though, as scientific understanding grows and a person discovers how lightning forms, the need to evoke “God” as an explanation would gradually decrease.
Atheists continue to accuse Christians of simply inserting God into places that God doesn’t belong. For example, if we’re looking for the cause of the origin of the universe, the atheist might say, “We believe in the Big-bang, but science hasn’t yet revealed how the Big Bang came about.” The Christian on the other hand would say, “I believe God is the origin of the universe.” At this, the atheist would accuse the Christian of using the “God of the gaps” theory to explain where the universe came from. The atheist treats “God” as a lazy excuse for what science cannot explain. However, God is the logical explanation for the evidence provided by science.
Years ago, John Lennox debated a known atheist, Christopher Hitchens, author of the book, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” Hitchens had stated, “Thanks to the microscope and telescope, religion no longer offers an explanation of anything.” Hitchens of course was a believer in the “God of the gaps” theory. Lennox responded in the debate by saying, “I find it impossible as a scientist myself, to take such a statement seriously. As if using a microscope on a Rembrandt painting could disprove the existence of Rembrandt himself. The idea that saying God and science are mutually exclusive explanations of the universe is as wrong as saying that internal combustion and Henry Ford are mutually exclusive explanations for the automobile. They are complimentary explanations. One explains how it works, the other why it exists. To think that as the reach of our instruments increases, the greatness of God the Creator is somehow diminished, is to make the mistake of confusing mechanism with agency. When Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity he didn’t say, ‘Now I know how the universe works, I don’t need God.’ Instead, his wonder at the law of gravity increased his admiration for the Creator who’d made gravity that way.”
The “Dilemma” of Evil & Suffering
A common debate in the world of apologetics is the dilemma that atheists bring up surrounding the existence of evil and suffering. Atheists argue that the Christian God, who is described as loving, good, and all-powerful, must not exist since there is so much evil and suffering in the world. Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher born 341 B.C., and an atheist, posed the following statements.
- If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then God is not powerful.
- If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing, then God is not good.
- If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then how can evil exist?
- If God is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?
- Therefore, it’s logically impossible for God and suffering to both exist. And since we know full well that suffering exists, therefore God does not.
Is Epicurus’ conclusion sound, based on the premises he’s provided? No, it is not. Let’s expose why his conclusion is a fallacy, by examining each of his premises. First off, the posing of “if” statements often use hidden assumptions that are meant to manipulate the reader. Epicurus begins with, “If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to, then God is not powerful.” Here, the hidden assumption is that preventing evil is the will of God. On the contrary, the Bible says that God is willing to allow evil as a demonstration of man’s free will. Mark 7:21 says, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts.” Though God allows His creation to choose evil, nonetheless, God is sovereign over all creation and uses that evil to bring about a greater good, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good,” Romans 8:28. An example of this is seen in Joseph’s story, where his own siblings tried to have him killed, but God used their evil to save many lives, “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive,” Genesis 50:20.
Next, Epicurus writes, “If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing, then God is not good.” The false assumption here is that the qualification of goodness is established by the forbidding of evil. This is an example of a non sequitur fallacy, where the claim and the reason don’t logically connect. Goodness isn’t established by the forbidding of evil. Instead, goodness is established by the ability to rightly execute justice and mercy in the face of evil. Isaiah 30:18, “Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore He exalts Himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice.”
The next premise is, “If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then how can evil exist?” Again, the fallacy Epicurus implies is a false dichotomy; that it’s irrational for God and evil to coexist. This simply isn’t true. God can certainly exist while allowing His creation to make evil choices of their own free will.
Epicurus’ fourth premise states, “If God is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?” This is an example of a non sequitur fallacy, implying that any so-called deity that would allow evil to exist, certainly can’t be divine. Contrary to Epicurus’ assumption, and as previously addressed, the allowance of evil doesn’t demonstrate a contradiction in the character or nature of God.
This bring us to Epicurus’ conclusion, “It’s logically impossible for God and suffering to both exist. And since we know full well that suffering exists, therefore God does not.” This is the fallacy of question begging since the presence of suffering does not demonstrate how God must not exist.
There are helpful ways to address a skeptic who asks, “If God is good and powerful, then why does evil exist?” One way to help the skeptic see the flawed reasoning in this question is to ask, “How do you know evil exists? What’s your standard to determine what is evil?” The atheist will have to borrow from Christianity in order to even make this statement, since calling something evil implies that there’s a moral law-giver to tell us what is and isn’t evil. For evil to be real, then good must exist, and for good and evil to exist, a moral law-giver must exist. Without a moral law-giver, evil is just a subjective word that can change from person to person. In other words, the concept of evil is an objectively moral concept. Ultimately, atheism wrongly assumes that the goal of life is happiness, and when anything challenges that, it must be inconsistent with goodness. On the contrary, God’s goal for humanity isn’t happiness, but that humans enter into communion with Himself, freely.
Objective Morality
An atheist will argue that a Christian’s morality is based on the Bible and that Christians are trying to force the Bible’s moral standards upon society. On the contrary, neither Christians, nor anyone else, gets their morality from the Bible. The Bible simply codifies (arranges) the morals that man has already received innately by our Creator. Consider this, would a non-Christian who picks up the Bible for the first time say, “Wow, stealing and murder are wrong! I didn’t know that.” Instead, the opposite would be true, his reading would simply affirm what he already believed. This is because every human has an innate (having in since birth) moral compass. This is why ancient civilizations like the Babylonians and Mesopotamians, long before the Bible was written, had laws that mirrored much of the ten commandments.
The founding fathers of the United States said that morals are self-evident. The apostle Paul said they are written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). The moral laws impressed upon us are evidence of a moral law-giver and Creator. When we consider that all people groups throughout human history regard virtually the same moral standards, such as don’t lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, etc., we can reason from effect back to cause and see God as the only plausible source of mankind’s moral code. If nature or environment could produce morals, then morals would be subjective. In other words, remove God from the equation and right and wrong are strictly one man’s opinion.
God exists and has created human beings in His image, loves them, and has endowed them with intrinsic moral value and inalienable (absolute, unchangeable) rights. By this reality we have every reason to treasure every person as worthy and valuable. Apart from God, there’s no reason to treat people with equal worth.
Moral Epistemology & Genetic Fallacy
Moral epistemology examines the origin or morality. The key question within moral epistemology asks, “How do we come to know moral values?” The atheist will claim that humans only have moral values by way of their environment; parental and societal conditioning. For example, if a particular society thought it would be good to hate and kill fat people, then that society would raise it’s young to hate and kill fat people. Therefore, the atheist would be forced to argue that the youth of that society would be justified in hating and killing fat people. But would the atheist be correct in this assessment? While it’s true that parents and society can shape moral values, it’s false to suggest that moral values originate there. In the example above, the atheist is guilty of genetic fallacy: rejecting or accepting a moral standard based its source of origin, from who or where it came from, instead of evaluating it based on its content or merit.
How a person came to embrace a moral position doesn’t determine whether that moral position is objectively good or not. Afterall, Germany’s Nazi party believed the world would be better without Jews, thus the Nazis killed millions of Jews. An atheist would have no reason to say the Nazi’s were objectively morally wrong, since killing Jews was the consensus of the Nazi party. If we remove God from the equation, no one can say that killing people simply for being Jewish is objectively wrong. In short, there can be no moral absolutes without the existence of God.
Apologetics and Miracles
An atheist might ask, “Why doesn’t God reveal Himself plainly, removing any doubt that He exists? God could certainly do more to reveal Himself to all people. He could use the stars to spell out a daily Bible verse if He wanted to. However, there’s a difference in convincing people that He exists versus bringing people into a loving relationship with Him. The Bible teaches that God has indeed revealed Himself to all people and that all men know God exists. Romans 1:19-21 talks about people who reject God, saying, “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God.”
Creation is one way that God has revealed Himself to all people, as creation reveals God’s attributes; His eternal power and divine nature. This is evidenced by the fact that even the simplest of minds can deduce that the earth has an intelligent-designer. Regarding miracles though, some people in history have been privileged to see miracles while most of us have not. God knows that doing more miracles doesn’t mean more people will engage Him in a loving relationship. The Bible records many accounts of God doing miracles before men who still wouldn’t believe. In other words, no one is lacking sufficient evidence by which to know and trust the Lord.
One could argue that the idea of Jesus constantly appearing and revealing Himself to doubters, could likely serve to annoy and turn off those that are merely interested in pursuing their own selfish desires. People who say “I want to see a miracle, then I’ll believe,” are deflecting from their responsibility to evaluate the evidence that’s already been revealed to them. For more on this point, see my essay titled, “Prove it, and I’ll believe!”
Meaning of Life – If God doesn’t exist then life has no objective meaning or purpose. Despite this, an atheist might say, “Without God my life still has purpose and I can do meaningful things. I decide that my life has purpose by what I choose to pursue. If I spend my life caring for cancer patients, then that shows that my life has purpose! I don’t need God for this.” Here’s the fallacy in this reasoning. While it’s true, caring for people can be considered meaningful in the short-term, but without God, how could any act be considered meaningful in the long-term? Atheism claims that after a person dies they simply cease to be, as though they never existed at all. Atheism denies any afterlife or spiritual reality. Additionally, atheism claims that the whole universe will eventually just die out and cease to be. Atheism forces the conclusion that nothing has any ultimate purpose, value, or meaning. In other words, with atheism, everything comes to nothing, which is why atheist Bertrand Russell says, “We must build our lives on the firm foundation of despair.”
Consider the following scenario. Two atheists are searching for purpose. One has decided that the meaning of his life is to care for cancer patients. The other decides his purpose is to start a bottle-cap collection. The person caring for the cancer patients spends his day feeding and bathing patients, keeping them warm, etc. The one caring for his bottle-cap collection spends his day cleaning and polishing his bottle-caps, holding them and adoring them. Now, fast forward a hundred years. The two atheists have died, along with the cancer patients, all of them now “ceasing to exist.” The bottle-caps have long since been tossed in a landfill. Ultimately, everything just ends the same. In atheism there’s no ultimate value in caring for people or caring for bottle-caps, as no choice can result in any outcome beyond eventual nothingness.
At this, the atheist will likely argue, “Although it’s true that there’s no ultimate long-term value in life’s choices, there can still be temporary significance. Helping cancer patients has temporary value.” This claim is also a fallacy in an atheistic world view based on the following reasoning. Caring for people who battle cancer could demonstrate temporary significance, but only if that person has objective moral worth. But, in the absence of God there can’t be any objective moral worth, not even for humans. Therefore, when the atheist claims an argument for temporary significance, that still only works if they are willing to claim that the cancer patient has objective moral value. Otherwise, the cancer patient doesn’t have any more value than a bottle-cap. The bottom line is, without God, atheism can’t make any objective claim that any choice is more significant than any other choice. In order for something to be significant, it needs to make a difference, and in an atheistic world view, all choices ultimately end up the same, which is nothingness.
Conclusion
Atheist Thomas Nagel, in his book “The Last Word”, pages 130-131, he writes, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
A person like Nagel can simply refuse to be convinced that God exists, no matter what the evidence holds. Therefore, when it comes to apologetics, there are volitional factors (the ability to choose or determine) at play as well as rational factors. Sometimes, no amount of rational information can compel someone’s volition to choose wisely. Always Remember, when someone holds a strong opinion in the face of little evidence, it’s a sign that they’re not using critical thinking skills. Belief should follow the facts, not come before them. What a person wants to believe, shouldn’t dictate what they believe. The key to learning is valuing truth.