"Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists" (an article from the
Witnessing Tips column of the Christian Research Journal,
Winter/Spring 1989, page 7) by Ron Rhodes.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
No one is born an atheist. People _choose_ to become atheists
as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how
strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a _belief_ system.
It requires _faith_ that God does not exist.
When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the
logical problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in
showing an atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main
claims and arguments, you are in a much better position to share
the gospel with him. Let us consider two prime examples here.
(1) *"There is no God."* Some atheists categorically state that
there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And
yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have
to be _omniscient_ and _omnipresent_ to be able to say from his own
pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable
of being in all places at the same time -- with a perfect knowledge
of all that is in the universe -- can make such a statement _based
on the facts._ To put it another way, a person would have to _be_
God in order to say there is no God.
This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist
if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.
Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items
(books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of
thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the
various academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What
percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in
this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge
and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I
guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you think
it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent
that is _outside_ your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if
the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your
point and he knows it.
(2) *"I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in
the world."* Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight
proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I
know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let
Hitler murder six million Jews."
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to
this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on
you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask
you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other
things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from
good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just _know_ that some
things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive
answer. Insist that he tell you _how_ he knows that some things are
evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his
belief system.
After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him
that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has
an infinite reference point which is _absolutely_ good. Otherwise
one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass
(i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south
without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).
The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil
can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust
the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then
there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge
something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God
does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of
Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually _requires_
the existence of God, rather than disproving it.
At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God
does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of
evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out
that God _is_ dealing with the problem of evil, but in a
progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is
that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single
act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout
all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip
power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable
for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will
ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted
in Christ for salvation will understand _just how effectively_ God
has dealt with the problem of evil.
If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human
history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you
might respond by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically
speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all
evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being
on the planet -- present company included -- would simply vanish
into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?"
The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be
available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in
such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether.
This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario
would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the
capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God
create _robots_ who act only in _programmed_ ways.
If the atheist persists and says there must be a better
solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him
about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil
that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to
violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness,
justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what
he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's
belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical
impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical
evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits
that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith
in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
End of document, CRJ0051A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists"
release A, March 25, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
GySgt James
Witnessing Tips column of the Christian Research Journal,
Winter/Spring 1989, page 7) by Ron Rhodes.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
No one is born an atheist. People _choose_ to become atheists
as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how
strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a _belief_ system.
It requires _faith_ that God does not exist.
When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the
logical problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in
showing an atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main
claims and arguments, you are in a much better position to share
the gospel with him. Let us consider two prime examples here.
(1) *"There is no God."* Some atheists categorically state that
there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And
yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have
to be _omniscient_ and _omnipresent_ to be able to say from his own
pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable
of being in all places at the same time -- with a perfect knowledge
of all that is in the universe -- can make such a statement _based
on the facts._ To put it another way, a person would have to _be_
God in order to say there is no God.
This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist
if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.
Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items
(books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of
thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the
various academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What
percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in
this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge
and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I
guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you think
it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent
that is _outside_ your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if
the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your
point and he knows it.
(2) *"I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in
the world."* Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight
proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I
know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let
Hitler murder six million Jews."
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to
this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on
you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask
you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other
things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from
good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just _know_ that some
things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive
answer. Insist that he tell you _how_ he knows that some things are
evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his
belief system.
After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him
that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has
an infinite reference point which is _absolutely_ good. Otherwise
one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass
(i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south
without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).
The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil
can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust
the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then
there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge
something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God
does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of
Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually _requires_
the existence of God, rather than disproving it.
At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God
does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of
evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out
that God _is_ dealing with the problem of evil, but in a
progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is
that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single
act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout
all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip
power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable
for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will
ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted
in Christ for salvation will understand _just how effectively_ God
has dealt with the problem of evil.
If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human
history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you
might respond by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically
speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all
evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being
on the planet -- present company included -- would simply vanish
into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?"
The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be
available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in
such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether.
This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario
would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the
capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God
create _robots_ who act only in _programmed_ ways.
If the atheist persists and says there must be a better
solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him
about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil
that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to
violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness,
justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what
he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's
belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical
impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical
evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits
that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith
in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
End of document, CRJ0051A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists"
release A, March 25, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
GySgt James
