How to Evangelize Skeptics and Atheists

“All who call upon the name of the Lord shall me saved” (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:17-20; Rom 10:13).

About 15 years ago, I decided to find a better method of evangelizing or (at least) engaging skeptics and atheists. This was about the time when the attendance decline that had marched through the mainline denominations started to visibly progress through the evangelical ones, most notably in the Southern Baptist Convention which saw (and continues to see) declines in attendance and baptisms. This decline was the impetus for my search.

I had grown frustrated with the seemingly universal evangelical approach of using apologetics and reasoned arguments to win hearts and minds for Christ. I certainly questioned the effectiveness of such an approach, as well as its legitimacy. Exactly what fruit were we seeing from reasoned discussions with atheists about the existence of God? What were the results? Had anyone gone from atheist to Christian based upon reasoned arguments? When I’d ask this last question to Christian supporters of apologetic evangelism, the reply was always the same: Lee Strobel. No other example was ever given. In my own mind, I questioned whether a single example of success was warrant for an entire wing of evangelical methodology. Such an approach was only slightly better than taking an atheist to the Middle East and have him travel between Jerusalem and Damascus, Syria because that’s how Paul was converted. Even then, I and other Christians before me have questioned the authenticity of Strobel’s account of his investigation into the Faith, pointing to timeline discrepancies, his methodological approach, and whether his was more leap than logic.

Other apologetic evangelists, however, were far more realistic and measured in their understanding of their method’s effectiveness. They state that their approach was not to reason skeptics into the Faith but to remove issues and problems that hindered the skeptic from hearing the gospel. I still think theirs is a valid reason, which quite rightly puts the onus upon the Spirit himself to regenerate the individual to repentance and belief. But since it is God himself who brings about the change, perhaps there was a swifter or easier way to bring this about.

I began considering approaches which largely avoided apologetic arguments for the existence of God, though they occasionally do appear. While certainly there is a limited place inside the Church itself for epistemology, ontology, the theory of value, William Lane Craig’s Kalām Cosmological Argument, and the reduction ad absurdum of the presuppositionalists, as evangelistic methods of outreach, they harden the mind far more than they soften the heart. Even if there is rational proof for the existence of God, it is a proof which largely escapes the notice of most people for whatever reason. Certainly, whatever rational arguments are currently out there have been found lacking by the most prominent of atheist minds. Whatever reason the apologists offer for the failure to provide convincing arguments for the skeptics, only concedes the point that reason has its limits. If anything, most people are largely irrational, particularly about religion (whether for it or against it), and everyone is somewhat irrational. Indeed, few seem to reason their way into Christian doctrinal beliefs but are rather born into it, inculcated within the religious community. Which is why Presbyterians usually give birth to Presbyterians rather than Roman Catholics. Put yourself in the position of a skeptic by imagining speaking with an adherent to Islam: “Your father was a Muslim, your Grandfather was a Muslim, you’re great Grandfather was a Muslim, and your great great Grandfather was a Muslim … but you yourself became a Muslim thru reasoned arguments. Really? You don’t say?” A somewhat flippant analogy, but that’s how atheists and skeptics look at most Christians. But even if there were a common, reasoned argument for the existence of God and the individual was at the peak of rational thought, the nature and problem of sin nevertheless interferes with both hearts and minds. Many good Calvinist theologians have claimed that while every human being has been granted the capacity to know God (sensus divinitatis), it does not work properly in some or all humans due to sin’s noetic effects. Our capacity then to know God thus requires divine intervention in the form of the Spirit’s influence upon hearts and minds. Again, as noted above, if it is God himself who brings about the change, perhaps there was a better way to bring this about.

By the time I had begun thinking along these lines, I had been reading Soren Kierkegaard and the neo-orthodox theologians for several years and had been highly influenced by them. I was intrigued by Christian existentialism, the theology of encounter, and the revelation of God. While not discounting the objective nature of the Christian Faith and biblical truths, I came to appreciate the idea that objective, biblical truth was of little use to the individual unless it had a subjective effect. Eventually, all these thoughts came to a head, and I conceived of an evangelistic method of proof so simple that it can be wielded by the smallest child. Therefore, fifteen years ago, I wrote the following:

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 Southern Baptist Convention and evangelicalism in general. As I see it, the problem with atheism is not that they demand proof of God’s existence, but, rather, they refuse to do what is necessary to get the proof which they say they require. Atheists principally state they require objective proof or, more precisely, scientific proof. They require proof that can be tested, repeated by many others so that all those who perform the exact test will always independently get the same results. From this repeatable test, 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.

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 experiments that can be tested, repeated, and generally agreed upon by learned consensus. Certainly, there are certain doctrinal agreements that are made by the individuals in a community of believers, but these agreements are made based on the assumption that individuals in that community have had that independent and subjective experience of God.

There are good reasons why God would choose to provide proof of his existence by subjective means.  For the purposes of this article, I note two: First, the individual’s experience of God is profoundly relational. When God first called Abraham to be a part of his plan to renew creation, he made a personal promise and agreement with the patriarch (Gen 12). A similar promise was made with Jacob (Gen 28). All through the book of Genesis, God engages with humans on a personal level, making promises, predictions, agreements, and warnings. Indeed, when he appears before Hebrews he often identifies himself and is identified as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 26:24; 28:13; 31:29, 42, 53; 32:9; 46:1; Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5), noting his personal relationship. When God appears to Moses, he identifies himself as Yahweh, which means “I was who I was, I am who I am, I will be what I will be.” (Exod 3:14). The main point of this name is not to affirm existence, but to affirm his personal commitment as a god who can be personally trusted. All these references emphasize a personal relationship which by its very nature is subjective.[1]

Second, 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. 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, not universal humanity. God is just and fair and wishes all to relate to him. Therefore, God gives everyone the ability to relate to him, not just the learned.

               In this vein, atheists also have the ability to relate to God. Atheists have within them the method by which they can prove God’s existence, at least to themselves. However, most atheists and skeptics 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, most refuse to ask. Indeed, atheists and skeptics state that they will not relate to God until they have evidence of his existence. The problem is that proof for his existence comes from that relation. To give an analogy of the situation: If one wants to solve a mathematical equation one works the problem out. By 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 himself 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. Yet, 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 have no proof of his existence. Indeed, experience has shown me that the skeptic’s prerequisite that such proof be presented apart from their selves is evidence of their hesitancy to become personally involved in the pursuit of such proof.

For this reason, when I meet a skeptic who states that he or she doesn’t believe in the existence of God 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 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 skeptic and urge him or her to seek a relationship with God.

Apart from a few fixes, deletions and clarifications, everything I noted above was written by me 15 years ago. In the years since, I’ve used this simple, questioning method in many different occasions. My experience has been that it works, and much more so than the various apologetic methods. Many atheists and skeptics have wanted to argue with me on the existence of God and the problem of evil. But I prefer to set the rules of engagement myself. “Ask God to prove his existence to you. You’ve nothing to lose."

Atheists and skeptics know all the clichéd arguments that atheists have made over the years, and all the Christian responses to those clichés. However, when I personalize the issue, I’ve undercut them, making all their traditional arguments irrelevant. They aren’t expecting that. It catches them off guard, makes them vulnerable. That’s to our advantage. Again, in my experience, this method has worked. Skeptics will later tell me that they now do believe in God’s existence. Their rationale is frequently illogical, gapped, and far more of a leap than a step-by-step rationale, but there they are.

            Up until now, I’ve never had the opportunity to record such discussions using my method. A few months back, in two posts open to the public, I wrote the first paragraph under “ME” below. Two skeptics about the existence of God (who I’ll identify as A1 and A2) chose to respond to my post. As you will see, both were very respectful about my religious beliefs and really wanted to discuss the matter in a reasoned and thoughtful manner. Pay close attention to dialogue below.

ME: “If God exists, the fact that humans know means some form of proof has been offered & accepted. If God exists, then enough proof's been given to convince 95% of the population. Those who don't believe in God claim they need proof; those who believe already have the proof they need. 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.”

A1: “What is necessary?”

A2: “I think this is an odd way to consider the issue. I mean, you don't run around ‘doing what is necessary to get proof of Mbombo.’ You just remain unconvinced if his existence. You're a non-believer regarding Mbombo.[2] I'm a non-believer regarding your god. No need to fret.”

ME: “Would you or would you not want there to be a god? We'll define ‘god’ simply as a supreme being who creates everything but himself and can create a personal relationship with a human being?”

A1: “It’s not about desire. I don’t believe there’s a monster under my child’s bed just because he said there was. Until evidence presents itself of such an extraordinary claim then I’ll not believe it. Regardless of how much I or anyone else want it to be true.”

A2: “You're attempting to alter the trajectory of this conversation. You originally suggested the problem with atheists is that they don't do enough to search for the evidence for god … I pointed out that you don't search for evidence for Mbombo; You simply remain unconvinced.”

ME: “Actually no, I am not altering the course of the conversation. In fact, this is precisely the same course I've followed on this subject for nearly 15 yrs. I'm offering atheists a way to be convinced that there is a God. And it's not that atheists aren't doing enough, but not doing what's necessary. And believe me, I myself am not going to try and convince; I’m suggesting a far easier way. Would you like to know what it is?”

A2: “I'm certainly open to being convinced god exists. However, it's not my responsibility to seek her out. Either she wishes to convince me, or she doesn't.”[3]

ME: “Here me out on this, friend. If there was a God, would you want to be convinced of it to your own satisfaction?”

A1: “Absolutely. If something is real, I’d want for science to show it and would defend its existence.”

Me: “Would you be willing to be convinced outside of scientific verification?”

A1: “Such as?”

Me: “Here's what I want you to do. I want you to sincerely ask God to prove his existence to you. Just say something to the effect of God, if you exist, let me know. Then just be patient over the next few weeks and months and see what happens. It can't hurt to try. Nothing to lose.”

A2: “If your god wishes to make his existence known to us, I'm sure she's capable of doing so instantaneously. Really, it's quite simple: Either your god exists, or she doesn't. If she does, she either wishes to convince us of her existence, or she does not. It's her choice.”

Me: “Why don't you ask her if she exists? Just sincerely ask her and then be patient. Give a few weeks or months. What do you have to lose?”

A2: “Why? If she wants to convince me of her existence, she's free to do so at any time.”

ME: “Please don't take offense to this ... It's not my intent to offend ... But you are sort of proving my point in a way.”

[“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.”]

A2: “You can see how this wouldn’t satisfy someone as proof right? I think the fundamental difference is believers are happy with faith and speak to personal experiences. I personally don’t trust things not based in science with verifiable evidence. A key part of being a sceptic.”

ME: “The complexity of the universe is such that it's difficult for our finite minds to grasp it's wonders. On top of that is our nurtured prejudices, biases, worldviews, & unconscious desires. Mostly, we don't know what we don't know. I'm simply suggesting a way to find out.”

A1: “So god of the gaps? We used to think god lit a fire every morning to raise the sun. Then we learnt. We used to think we were the center of the universe, then we learnt. We keep plugging these knowledge gaps with science. The absence of knowledge is not proof of god.”

ME: “No, no. Never "God of the gaps". I'm saying we're all finite & prejudiced to some degree or other. I'm also offering a way to find out a little bit of the truth about the existence of God, which should be easy to do, presumably without downside. Just give it try and be patient.”

A1: “Would you also be open to challenging your own faith? Perhaps by searching for one single piece of physical evidence that proved conclusively god’s existence?”

ME: “Sure. What would it look like? At the same time, will you follow my suggestion to sincerely ask God to prove his/her existence to you, and then wait patiently for a response?”

[These two questions went unanswered.]

A2: “You’re under the impression the burden of proof for your assertion falls upon my shoulders. It doesn’t. Again, either your god exists, or she doesn’t. If she does exist, she either desires to convince me of her existence, or she doesn’t. Really, it’s no skin off my back.”

ME: “Not really. If I said the answer to a question was written in the first line of a book's paragraph, perhaps you have the burden of reading the line, but, apart from that, the argument is being made by someone else completely. The burden isn't in the questioner, only the answerer. But let me ask you: Why do you think you're having such difficulty simply asking the question? I mean, our discussion began with my assertion that people refuse to make the request.”

[A1 responds to the following statement by me from above: “Here's what I want you to do. I want you to sincerely ask God to prove his existence to you. Just say something to the effect of God, if you exist, let me know. Then just be patient over the next few weeks and months and see what happens. It can't hurt to try. Nothing to lose.”]

A1: “You’re right there’s nothing to lose. But what sign would I be looking for? Aside from real verifiable evidence of gods existence what would this be? How would I know I wasn’t the victim of personal bias?”

ME: “My experience indicates various "signs". I'd prefer not to suggest anything; it often happens to people in ways I couldn't guess. Just try it and see what happens. With regards to personal bias, I suspect you'll have to reflect on the experience yourself and make that decision.”

A1: “But that’s the point right. Any conclusion I make would be based on personal experience and be biased in some way.”

ME: “Try it and see. You said you agreed that there's nothing to lose by asking. Give it a try and see if you're dissatisfied with the results.”

A1: “I’m not sure I would know how to do it. Which god would you like me to contact? How do I do that? How do I confirm I have the right god? What’s my control? What should I ask for? How long do u wait? How do I distinguish between things that were going to happen via sign?”

ME: “Let God figure all that out. Just sincerely say, ‘God, let me know you exist.’ Then be patient. Again, no harm in trying.”

A1: “To be clear my issue is not belief. I’ll march and protect the day they try and stop you from believing whatever you want to believe. I have just never seen proof of any gods. If we ran any other part of our world this way, we’d consider it crazy.”

ME: “I appreciate that. If I didn't believe, I hope I'd have the same respect for those who did. My experience is that proof comes via subjective experiences. This might seem odd, but it's proof that can be grasped at any intelligence level, not just the best at objective sciences.”

A1: “We wouldn’t manufacture drugs based on personal bias, we wouldn’t want criminals convicted without physical evidence. We wouldn’t trust a pilot who believed he had enough fuel instead of doing the calculations and checking the instruments. Why do we allow religion special rules?”

ME: “I wouldn't say religion has any unique rules. Christianity, at least, makes particular claims to history. With history, the discovery is more towards witness, documentation, probability, value judgments, and the interpretive consensus of a recognized expert community. Certainly, the scientific method can play a part in the discovery of history, but only a part. For example: we can know Caesar probably crossed the Rubicon, we can explain (scientifically) how he did it, but then there's the more subjective question of why it was significant. All such thinking, in terms of Christianity, is important down the road, but not usually the best way to start. If I were you, I'd start with direct questions to this God (who may or may not exist for you) and see how he responds. Be honest to him; he really doesn't mind.”

Our conversation then ended with respectful appreciations on all sides.

Now, what did you notice about this discussion? What stuck out? There’s much to analyze about their responses to my statements.

As I noted in the beginning of our conversation, and apparently the comment that drew their attention: “The problem with atheism is that they refuse to do what is necessary to get the proof which they say they require.”

Throughout this good-natured discussion, the two skeptics would not do, or say they would do, the very thing I said would bring them proof. Even when I mentioned that they were proving my first comment to be true, they continued their refusal. Instead, they were trying to think up reasons to not get the proof.[4] They were applying rational thought with great irrationality. Why did they refuse to do it? As I said, and what A1 confirmed, they had nothing to lose. Don’t you find that odd? What do you make of it? Why do you think they (as with many other skeptics in my experience) refuse to ask God to given them proof of his or her existence? Again, this is not an isolated event. I’ve had many similar discussions with skeptics over the years, including incidences that occurred before I wrote my original article over 15 years ago. What holds them back?

Which is why reasoned arguments for the existence of God are of little use. Most atheists and skeptics will be irrational. They’d rather lose the argument than gain the proof. This is a serious hardening of the heart and mind, blinded by the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4; Psa 115:8; 135:15-18; Isa 6:9-10; Rom 1:23, 25; 12:2). In truth, there is very little that we can do. However, the TRUE God of this world can do something. What we can do then is invite the skeptics and atheists closer to God. We just setting up the meeting, where the person can come “face to face” with his or her creator. Then we let God do the work.

Of course, this approach will not work every time. As seen above, many will be too blind to even attempt to talk to God. Similarly, they will be too blind to recognize that something is holding them back. Anything beyond slip of a thought will be rationalized away. Nevertheless, this is a better evangelistic approach than any reasoned argument. It works in often surprising ways, overcoming the limits of reason and rationalizations.

 

 

 

---

[1] I’d add that the God of the Hebrews is one who shows emotion and concern. He laughs, is joyful, is angry, is pleased, loves, forgives, shows mercy, is patient, and shows regret and sorrow. He also shows deep concern for the poor, the widows and orphans, the neglected, the abused, the forgotten, the slaves and the kings, and intervenes to right wrongs. All of this reflects his personal character as more a subject to be experienced than an object to be studied.

[2] “Mbombo, also called Bumba, is the creator god in the religion and mythology of the Kuba people of Central Africa in the area that is now known as Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the Mbombo creation myth, Mbombo was a giant in form and white in color. The myth describes the creation of the universe from nothing. The story of Mbombo's creation tells that in the beginning, Mbombo was alone, darkness and primordial water covered all the earth. It would happen that Mbombo came to feel an intense pain in his stomach, and then Mbombo vomited the sun, the moon, and stars.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbombo

[3] It’s possible but uncertain that this person was attempting to distract me or alter the conversation at this point by referring to God as feminine. I’ve seen atheists and skeptics use similar techniques in similar conversations. Don’t get distracted by such attempts; stay on target. Certainly, don’t try to win the argument; try to win the person. This is exactly what Jesus did when he spoke with the woman at the well (John 4). When he mentions something that makes her uncomfortable (v. 17-19), she brings up a divisive theological-political issue (v. 20), possibly as a distraction to change the subject (see Acts 23:6-10). Jesus doesn't take the bait. His response is to go much deeper into the problem than in the surface, contentious matters, but still making the matter personal for the woman (v. 21).

[4] One thought I was attempting to change the subject. Again, many skeptics and atheists know the points and arguments that theists tend to make in such discussions - particularly those who seek out debates with theists. But the line of questioning which I propose is (so far) relatively uncommon. If anything, it was the skeptics who were attempting to change the subject.