The Problem of Atheism and Its Solution: A Call to Abandon Apologetics as an Evangelical Method

"The scientific approach to the examination of phenomena is a defense against the pure emotion of fear." Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1967, page 17 in Grove edition)

Recently, as I read through selective chapters of Veli-Matti Karkkainen’s book The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction, I came across the chapter which discusses the work of Roman Catholic scholar Hans Kung and his work, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today.

I began to consider the issue of atheism (which Kung understands so well) and the problem with this position.

Despite the efforts of modern atheists to urge for cautious skepticism and for a secular society divorced from the religious practices of that society (whether Christian or Buddhist, etc.) and despite the doomsday scenarios preached from fundamentalist pulpits about the incipient atheism that was resulting from evolutionary theory, the percentage of the population that believes in God is still within the ninetieth percentile rage and usually that above 95%. Atheism is a vastly unpopular opinion and has always been the minutest minority of any human culture.

I’ve always had several problems with the battles of reason that have existed between atheists and apologetic Christians. I’ve always argued that apologetics is a tool by the Church and for the Church and not to be used as an evangelical method. Why?

1) Reason cannot prove the existence of God. At most, it can only prove the existence of the idea of God.

2) Even if we could logically prove the existence of God that would not automatically point the person towards Christ or a personal deity. I think one of the main problems with fundamentalist apologetics that seek to disprove evolution is that they argue that evolution leads to atheism. Fortunately, that is not the case as all surveys suggest. The response by fundamentalists is usually that the majority of those 95% do not hold to the God of the Bible. And that’s true! It’s so true that it proves my point: the absence of evolution would not necessitate the acceptance of Christ.

3) If we cannot prove the existence of God by reason then reasoning with atheists is pointless. If reason can prove the existence of God, then the atheist is unreasonable and reason won’t work. Why do we always believe that if we have the right argument that people will understand the truth and will convert? Jesus was the God-Man and had great arguments but the people didn’t listen to him. What chance then have we?

Over the past six months I have sought to update the evangelistic method in the wake of the current Evangelical Crisis that has befallen the SBC in particular and Evangelicalism in general. Much of my thinking along these lines is desire to abandon the methods of modernity as it was understood in the Enlightenment and (more particularly for conservative evangelicals) Post-Enlightenment. I must admit that much of my thinking along these lines can be attributed to my love of reading Kierkegaard and both Barth and Brunner, particularly the latter. I must further admit that my particular interest in this matter results from my agreement with the neo-orthodox scholars that the Jesus of History is not as important as the Christ of Faith. I have less interest in proving the historical accuracy of literature (divinely inspired or not) than actually explaining what this literature means to the lives of individuals as they relate to God, their neighbor and themselves.

In this regard, I postulated about what is the real problem with the position of atheism.

The problem with atheism is not that they demand proof of God’s existence. Rather, the problem with atheism is that they refuse to do what is necessary to get the proof which they say they require.

Atheists require objective proof or, more precisely, scientific proof. By this I mean that atheists require proof that can be tested, repeated by many individuals so that the many individuals always independently get the same results from the test and a general consensus from the learned community is reached as to the certainty of that repeated test. This sort of proof is objective and impersonal.

Now science and its objective form of proof and inquiry are splendid tools and marvelous gifts from God. This method of learning and studying experience has had unquestioned success and achievement in human experience. However, while scientific and objective proofs are certainly excellent methods of gaining knowledge, they are not the only methods.

The method by which God proves His existence to a fallen world is not by objective proofs but by subjective ones. God’s proof is very personal and not separate from the individual seeking that proof. Furthermore, God’s proof does not come by tests that can be tested, repeated, and generally agreed upon by learned consensus. Now there are certain doctrinal agreements that are made by the individuals of a community of believers but these are made following the assumption that each of these individuals has had that independent and subjective experience of God.

There are many good reasons why God chooses to provide proof of His existence by subjective means. With regards to this discussion, here are two of the more important reasons:

The individual’s experience of God is relational. We experience God by means of a personal relationship with Him. A personal relationship by its very nature is subjective. We cannot prove our personal relationship with God by the scientific method anymore than we can prove our personal relationships with our husbands and wives, our family and friends, and any other person. Relationships are not as simplistic as objective methods of examination allow.

The possibility of experiencing God is universal. One might assume that the necessity of subjective proofs to prove God’s existence complicates the matter but this assumption would be incorrect. A subjective proof is much simpler and much more accessible to the individual human. This is, in itself, a gift from God. We do not need doctorates and excessive education in order to relate to our Creator. We only need the ability to relate personally. If we did need an advanced education to relate to God then the ability to experience God would be limited to particular individuals and not be a universal. God is just and fair and wishes all to relate to Him. Therefore, God gives everyone and not just the learned the ability to relate to Him.

Atheists have the ability to relate to God. Atheists have within them the method by which they can prove God’s existence. However, atheists refuse to apply this method in order to prove God’s existence. In order to irrefutably prove God’s existence, atheists only have to ask God to prove His existence to them. If they ask, He will answer. However, atheists refuse to ask.

Atheists state that they will not relate to God because they will not do so until they have evidence of His existence. The problem is that proof for His existence comes from that relation.

Here is an example: If one wants to solve a mathematical equation one works the problem out. My working out the mathematical equation one gets the answer. An atheist wants to know the answer of that mathematical equation before he or she solves the problem. For atheists, only by knowing the answer before they solve the problem do they feel secure with the answer they get.

And I think security is the right word. Again, atheists want objective and impersonal proof. They want God to prove His existence apart from themselves. God is required to prove His existence over there but not here. God is required to prove His existence in an impersonal way, to the general consensus of the community and not to the particular recognition of the individual.

But God does not relate that way. God is a personal being who relates to individuals in a personal and subjective way. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they should not complain that they do not have proof of His existence. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they are no better than the scientist who refuses to apply the scientific method in order to prove the atomic mass of a chemical element yet complains that he does not have proof of the answer. If atheists refuse to apply the relational method of proving God’s existence then they are no better than the person who wishes to know what a new food tastes like but refuses to taste the food.

In short, the refusal of the atheist to apply the proper method of gaining knowledge of God is evidence of the futility and tragedy of their position.

Their prerequisite that such proof be presented apart from their selves is evidence of the atheist’s hesitancy to become personally involved in the pursuit of such proof.

So what are the reasons for this hesitancy?

1) Pride: All sin is based upon pride and the individual’s focus on his or herself.

2) Selfishness: This is closely tied to pride (of course) but focuses more upon the individual’s desire to not give up what he perceives to be the benefits of a life independent of a proper relationship with God.

2) Fear: While I think the previous two reasons are correct, I think the more specific and particular reason is the atheist’s fear of being confronted by God and being in that personal relationship with Him.

The atheist fears such a relationship and avoids it at all cost. At most the atheist wants to test the waters of an experience with God, desiring that He prove Himself at a distance before the atheist will wade in the infinite ocean that is God.

To a certain extent God does this. God is gracious and merciful and therefore provides evidence for His existence by proving His existence to other individuals apart from ourselves. God proves His existence to others and changes their lives, letting them become witnesses to His existence.

But God’s use of others as His witnesses does not constitute proof but only evidence. Real proof comes from that subjective, personal encounter with He Himself.

Until the atheist personally asks God for His personal proof then the atheist will never get that proof.

For this reason, when I meet an atheist who states that he or she doesn’t believe because of the lack of proof, I always ask a few questions:

1) You do not believe in God. Okay, do you want there to be a God? Why or why not?

2) What do you think would be the benefits of there being a God?

3) How does the non-existence of God affect your life?

4) How would the existence of God affect your life?

5) Why not you ask God if He exists? Why not ask God to prove His existence to you and wait to see what the answer is?

The purpose of these questions is to personalize the issue for the atheist and to urge the person to seek a relationship with God.

I am not trying to make a better argument or even to win the argument. I am not trying to argue at all. Why?

1) Arguing only polarizes the opponent into his position. This opinion comes from one who loves a good debate. However, when I do debate, my reasons do engaging in such a practice is not to win over the other, or even to win the argument, rather, my reason is to test my knowledge of an issue. Nothing else. If anything, winning the argument may lose you the person.

2) Arguing does not prove that the person who wins the argument is right but only that he knows how to argue. Again, this comes from a good debater. I can really argue what I believe. But I can also really argue what I don’t believe.

3) What is the point in my arguing with an atheist? To win the argument or to win the person? As I look at the life of Jesus (see John 4 in particular) I notice that Jesus was more interested in winning people than winning arguments. Furthermore, Jesus won all His arguments with the Pharisees but did not win that many Pharisees.

No, our goal is to win people and become “fishers of men” and not “fishers of wins-on-the-high-school-debate-team”.

But even this is not adequately the case. We do not save people; God does. We do not draw people to God; God does. At the most, we as witnesses to Christ help facilitate the process by which the lost person comes to a proper relationship with God.

For these reasons, I submit that we should abandon apologetics as a tool of effective evangelism and focus our efforts and resources toward a relational methodology. In this way, we can overcome the problem that atheists impose upon themselves and answer the real need of man: a proper personal relationship with God.