Answering Atheist Arguments: Nothing Fails Like Prayer

I was interacting with an outspoken atheist on Twitter the other day when he made a claim I wasn’t expecting.  He said, “God might exist.  I am totally open to the possibility.”

“Really?”, I said. “I find this weird considering you just spent 50 tweets or so telling me God definitely did not exist.”

He responded, “Oh God could exist.  But I know for a fact the God of the Bible does not.  He is demonstrably false.”  At this point I am really intrigued to hear what he has to say because most atheists are too cowardly to go this far with a claim against God.  I asked him to give me his strongest piece of evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.   Here is his tweet verbatim, “The failure of prayer would be one.  Its been properly tested, it never works.  YHWHs existence is predicated on the Bible being true.”

In his own words this is the best evidence that he can think of for the Bible not being true, and thus, God not existing.  Immediately looking at this tweet there is a huge problem.  What is the criteria that can be used to know if a prayer fails or succeeds?   You see, Christians believe that God is sovereign.  In other words, we believe that what God wants to do, He will do.  This is why we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.”  So I asked him, “When you say it never works, what do you mean by ‘works’.  In order to know if a prayer ‘worked’ or not, wouldn’t you have to know the will of God?”

He responded, “If God’s will determines the outcome of prayer it definitely doesn’t work. He would do it anyway!  The Bible says it works. It doesn’t.  John 14:14 says it all.”

John 14:14 records Jesus as saying the following: If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

The meaning of this verse hinges on the phrase, “in my name”.  Are these just magic words that Jesus is claiming will get you whatever you ask for?  I pray for a million dollars, in Jesus name I pray.  Ala-Kazaam!  That’s one way to look at it.  But that would mean Jesus is advocating sorcery.

No.  “In my name”, is not a magic phrase.   To pray “in Jesus’ name”, means that you are praying according to his will, or praying for the things that He would pray for.  How do I know this?  Because Jesus says other things about prayer.  For example, the prayer I quoted above about “thy will be done,” is actually something else Jesus said when he was teaching the disciples, and us, how we are to pray. (Matthew 6, The Lord’s Prayer)  There is no scripture that obligates God to answer prayer according to our will.  That is bad theology.  God is only obligated to answer prayer according to His own will.  We are required to pray that his will be done.  Jesus gave us another example of this while praying in Gethsemane, desiring to not have to go to the cross, but desiring even more that God’s perfect will be done:

My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will. – Matthew 26:39

God does not give us everything that we ask for in prayer.  As far as I am concerned, praise God that he does not.  I think of some of my prayers back when I was in junior high school...even some now.  If I would’ve got what I asked for...lets just say it would not have been the best thing for me.  Remember friends, when it comes to people, God is not primarily interested in their temporary personal comfort here on earth.   He is primarily interested in the eternal condition of their souls.

So what then is point of prayer?  Prayer is an act of worship.  Talking with God is a way of showing reverence to the One who had the idea to create you.  It is an absolutely necessary way for us to cultivate the only relationship that has the power to sustain through eternity.

God is not a vending machine.  Prayer is not equivalent to shoving a few quarters in to make your selection.  God’s will, will be done on Earth as surely as the sun rises in the east. Still, the Bible makes it clear that God wants you to talk with him.  

We get to talk to the God who created the entire Universe.  We get to participate in His plan through prayer.  Can you think of a more special thing than that? 

Theology Matters: God Probably Will Give You More Than You Can Handle

Theology Matters is a new series.  Theology is the study of God and what he is like.  It is important to understand correct theology because when we have false ideas about God, we will have false expectations about our own lives.  When we have false expectations about our lives, and things don’t happen the way we falsely expect them to, we have a crisis.  When we have a crisis, we either start doubting God’s truthfulness, or doubting that God even exists at all.  I hope that this series will help you identify bad theology; ultimately to help you get to know what the God who is there is really like.

We have all had something bad happen to us.  Some of us have had terrible things happen in our lives, others not so terrible, but we all have experienced some kind of crisis at some point in our lives.  When we encounter a crisis often times people who mean well will tell us, “It’s going to be okay, because no matter how bad it may seem, God will never give you more than you can handle.”  Is this really true?

I really don’t think this is true at all.  Throughout the Bible I see stories of people needing to be saved, because the predicament they found themselves in was WAY too much for them to handle.  So where does this incorrect cliché come from?  The closest thing I could find in the Bible about this is 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13:

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Clearly this verse has to do with temptation to sin, and not with difficult circumstances in life. 

You say – What’s the big deal?  So it’s not in the Bible, it can be a helpful truth to learn.  It can still be a comfort to people who are in pain.

The big deal is that it is not true, and it teaches the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible teaches.  The Bible’s message from beginning to end is that people are absolutely and utterly helpless in terms of living a successful life.  Especially if you consider a successful life in the same way that the Bible does.

Have you ever considered the famous Bible line, “The Lord is my shepherd…”?  If the Lord is our shepherd, that makes us sheep.  I don’t know if you have ever met a sheep but here are some of their attributes: Sheep are helpless.  Sheep are not very smart.  Sheep require protection.  Sheep get eaten.  This is not a flattering description of how “self-sufficient” God considers us to be and it doesn’t pretend to be.  It is a realistic one.

Also, seriously take some time to think about people who are in intense suffering.  Do you really think telling them, “God will never give you more than you can handle.” is helpful at all?   It isn’t true.  People are overcome by circumstances all the time.  Why would lying to someone provide comfort?  On the contrary, when you use such poor theology when trying to comfort someone it is damaging.   What if things don’t get better?  What if I am completely overwhelmed?  What then? 

God DOES promise that he will be with you through any kind of trouble: no matter how bleak, no matter how hopeless things seem.  He promises that he is still in control of what happens to you.  He also GUARANTEES that you will have trouble:

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” -John 16:33

Notice who has overcome the world:  He, not you.  Notice how he tells us to have peace:  in Him, not in ourselves.  Friends, the bottom line is that if you rely on yourself and if you think that you can get through the difficult things on your own, and that you will overcome…no matter how many times you do, in the end, you will be disappointed.  Any theology that has you rely on yourself rather than God is harmful and quite incorrect.

Another famous section of scripture is, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”  That’s true enough.  But don’t forget the verse that comes right before it, where it describes the kinds of things he means; both the good, and the bad, “I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.”  (Philippians 4:12-13)

God will allow you to face things in this life that you cannot handle.  But he will never allow you to face things that He cannot handle.  This might seem like I am splitting hairs, but I ask you to meditate on this idea.  It makes all the difference in the world.

Proof That You Need to Read the Bible More Carefully

Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.  –Matthew 24:40-42 ESV

What is this famous section of Scripture about?  The rapture right?  This describes the end times when God will remove the Christians from the world and bring them to heaven.  I’ve heard this taught many times.  No doubt you have too.  What I am about to say may shock you, because it certainly shocked me when I heard it.  This verse is absolutely NOT about the rapture.

Greg Koukl, the founder of the Stand to Reason apologetics ministry has a rule that I think we should all follow: “Never read a Bible verse.”  What he means is that unless you read a section of verses in context you run the risk of seriously misinterpreting a passage.  That is what is going on here.  Lets read the larger context.  Here are the verses right before the section I quoted above.

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. –Matthew 24:37-39 ESV

So who is taken and swept away?  The wicked right?  That doesn’t sound like the rapture I know about.

Check this out, another parable of Jesus from Matthew. 

He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.  And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn –Matthew 13:24-30 ESV

This parable is about the end times.  (Not my interpretation, Jesus says that it is)  What is gathered first?  The weeds.  What are the weeds?  Jesus explains later in the chapter that the weeds are the “sons of the evil one”.  That sure doesn’t sound like the rapture of the church to me.

Let me make it clear that I absolutely believe in the rapture.  But the verse I quoted in the beginning of this post has nothing to do with it.  So why did I used to think it did?  Why have we so often heard this verse preached, like it did?  There's a good chance that this realization bothers you, because I know for a fact it bothered me.  Why did I not notice this before?  It is right there, perfectly clear.

I am not trying to cause you to be suspicious of your pastor.  I am trying to cause you to recognize the need to study the Word of God for yourself.  When I was shown all this a few weeks back, it really convicted me.  How much about what I know of the Bible is something I just believe because I was told?  Lets all commit to study the Bible for ourselves.  If we do not, how will we know true teaching versus false teaching?  Lets not be spiritually lazy anymore.  It is not only your pastor’s job to make sure you know the truth about God.  It’s also your job.  Lets be like the Bereans who didn’t even take Paul’s word for it.  Is your pastor more trustworthy than Paul?

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. –Acts 17:11 NIV

Answering Atheist Arguments: Interpretation = Excuses

“If it were God’s word it can, and should be taken literally right?  Interpretation = Excuses”

I’ve seen this statement uttered a number of times recently, by a variety of characters.  I’ve seen atheists use this when trying to promote their interpretation of a seemingly embarrassing section of scripture.  I’ve also seen self-identified believers say this to promote faulty theology using the so-called, “plain meaning” of a text.   Is it really true that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, as the atheist claims?

I actually would like to answer this question by sympathizing with the atheist skepticism here.  There are a great deal of difficult passages in the Bible that Christians are far too quick to dismiss as not being literal.  This can lead to suspicion on the part of the skeptic.   If the Bible can’t be taken literally, then can’t it literally mean whatever you want it to mean?  If so, then it is literally meaningless.

I think the correct view to take here is in agreement with the atheist.  The Bible should be taken literally in what it teaches.  However, this does not mean that we must ignore obvious figurative language that is contained in the scriptures.  Not every word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but every teaching is.  The Bible is written in various types of a literary styles and this effects what a “literal teaching” of the Bible means.  Here are some examples:

In Psalms 94:1, the psalmist writes of God that, “under his wings you will find refuge.” Taken literally this implies that God has “wings” and we will find refuge under them.  But clearly the Psalms are poems.  Poems by definition are full of figurative language.  God does not have wings.  Yet there is absolutely a literal truth here.  There is something about God and our relationship with him, that is like a bird who covers her chicks with her wings for protection.  Our job is to interpret what literal truth this figurative language tries to convey. 

How about something a little more difficult?  In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist speaking of Jesus says,

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

I have heard people teach that the “fire” John says Jesus will baptize with is figurative for some kind of cleansing power that his baptism will have, and it may be so.  But do we have good reason to believe this?

As it happens, the word “fire” is used in both the preceding and following verses, both times referring to literal fire as part of a larger figure of speech.

10“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

It seems to me that the “fire” in verse 11 is possibly a figure.  But the idea that it represents some kind of “cleansing power” of the baptism is foreign to the text, and I think is an inappropriate attempt to soften what John is saying.  The “fire” in both verse 10 and 12 is referring to a destruction of something undesirable; fruitless trees in verse 10, and chaff in verse 12.  We have every reason to believe that the “fire” that Jesus will baptize with according to verse 11 is a similar kind of destruction of something undesirable.   Verse 11 talks about Jesus coming to the world to baptize.  Some will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.  (Believers) Others will be baptized with fire that may very well be literal. (Un-believers)

As you can see, coming to this conclusion did require a degree of interpretation.  This is called hermeneutics.  But does this process of interpretation mean that you do not assume a literal meaning?  No.  We should assume a literal meaning unless there is good reason not to.  As someone who reads the Bible, whether a believer or skeptic, you should have a hermeneutical approach that is careful not to read into a text that which is not there.  This may mean that you will have think carefully about how things are worded.  This is part of what it is to read an ancient text.  It takes a certain amount of work, but if literal meaning is to be ascertained, it is necessary.

Atheists tend to read all kinds of meaning into the Bible that really isn’t there.  Especially when it comes to the Old Testament.  The best approach to take when encountering this objection, is to just agree: 

Yes the Bible should be taken literally in what it teaches.  But we have to interpret what it teaches through careful examination.  This interpretation cannot be arbitrary and often times take work.  Interpretation is not “excuses”.   It is just an honest approach to understanding.  Sound interpretation is a critical element of any kind of real knowledge be it scientific, historical or spiritual.

Atheism: Irrational, Unknowable and Futile

I recently had an interesting exchange online and I thought I would share.

I was talking to a very active and intelligent Twitter atheist, and he went on a long rant about all the neuroscience that he says proves God is a delusion.  I listened to his complex arguments for a few minutes and when he was done I asked a very simple question:

“What kind of evidence or criteria would you accept to show that God was not a delusion?”

He said, “Easy….I want Jesus to show up at the UN and tell mankind something they couldn’t possibly know.  See I say the UN, because I know enough science to know that I can't trust my own brain, if I saw Jesus and talked to him it wouldn’t convince me.”

First, notice that he is asking for a straight up miracle.  He is not asking for historical evidence or anything like that.  He is asking for a personalized miracle.  There is literally nothing that I can say or show him evidentially that will convince this guy.  Only a blind miracle preformed by Jesus himself, specifically for him, will do.  All his prior requests for evidence or rational arguments have been disingenuous.  At this point, my work as a Christian is to simply pray for this man.  As irrational as I think he is being, I cannot personally do anything for him.  All I can do is pray that Jesus do a miracle in his life.  God may have mercy on him.  Or he might not.  That is not my call.

But notice something else about what he has just said.  Without knowing it, he has just conceded the entire case to me.  In one short statement he has reminded us why atheism/naturalism is ultimately futile.  “I know enough science to know that I cant trust my own brain, if I saw Jesus and talked to him it wouldn’t convince me.”  If he cannot trust his own brain on something as straight forward and simple as being able to know what he plainly observes, why in the world does he trust it to evaluate complex neuroscience claims properly?    Why should I trust his conclusion if he cannot even trust it?

Atheism is self-defeating.  This man’s argument destroys itself.  Ultimately, if you don’t have any way to ground the legitimacy of reason, or logic, or science – and atheists don’t – you have no way to know anything at all.  For all the atheist chatter about how much we know from science, we actually have no way of even knowing whether or not the scientific method is even legitimate.  Think about it.  How do we know that science and reason works?  Now, I believe they do work and that we can ground rationality/science in God’s existence.  But as an atheist you can’t possibly know whether or not these things are real.  You’ll end up like my friend here, admitting that as an atheist he can’t really “know” even that which he plainly sees.  

But we can “know” things for sure.  I know this, you know this, and the atheist knows this.  The only way we can legitimately “know” things, is if we can somehow ground what we know in a standard that exists outside of ourselves.  The theist has a solution to this problem.  The atheist does not.  The fact that we can “know” things and that rationality is legitimate, is actually a strong piece of evidence that points to the existence of God.

Check out this book on the subject.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”  -Proverbs 1:7

Book Review Chapter 1: Science, once again, confirms ancient biblical teaching.

Book Review: “Why we believe in god(s)” by J. Anderson Thompson Jr.

I was prompted to read this book by a Twitter atheist with a large following.  His avatar is a picture of the Bible with the word “False!” in big letters across the front, so there is no question as far as where he stands about Christianity.  This book, in his opinion, would be a good introduction for me into the science of why most people believe in God, even though he does not exist.

One of this guy’s main points when he shouts down a Christian is that we wouldn’t be a Christian unless we, 1) were born with an inferior, “god prone” mind, and 2) were born to Christian parents or in a Christian area.  He likes to tell me that if I was born in Saudi Arabia, chances are I would be a Muslim, therefore my Christianity cannot be rational.  This is a common error atheists often make, known as the “genetic fallacy”.  It is a fallacy because citing where the belief comes from does nothing to show if the belief itself is true or false.  He is probably right, if I were born in Saudi Arabia, I’d likely be a Muslim.  So would my Atheist friend if he were born there!  Clearly that fact has nothing to do whether Atheism is true or not.  In fact, if I were to argue the way my friend argued (which I won’t because its such an obviously fallacious line of thinking) I could say, “the only reason you are an atheist is because you were born in western culture!” or, “your parents are atheists, so your own atheism cannot be rational.”  Both of these ideas are obviously fallacious.

In any case, here are my thoughts on this book, chapter by chapter.

Chapter 1

The first chapter is about the scientific evidence that human beings, as a species, have a propensity to believe in gods.  There is something about the way our minds work that throughout history, whether its ancient Egypt, Aztecs, Greeks, etc., have made all cultures revolve around the belief in a god or many gods.  In the beginning of the chapter he says,

“if an all-powerful, all-seeing god does exist, he designed into the creation and evolution of man something powerful: the propensity to believe in a god.”  (Thompson, 27)

With my mind’s eye I could see my atheist friend folding his hands in satisfaction as I read that line, thinking, “Gotcha.”, as if this insight was so profound as to prove my God a fraud.

The only problem is that this idea is not profound at all.  It was taught 2000 years ago.  It was taught in the Bible by Paul.  Now Paul didn’t know the science behind it of course, but Paul knew that human beings were created with a propensity to believe in gods, even if they lacked the knowledge to know the God who is actually there.  The following is from the book of Acts, written by Luke, describing Paul as he addresses the city of Athens:

 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.  For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,  - Acts 17: 22-27

As it so often happens, 2000 years ago the Bible taught something that modern science affirms for us today.  Yes, God has created us with a desire to seek him.  Some use this desire and follow falsely, religious systems set up by men.  Some use this desire and find God.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. -Acts 17:30-31

So the book is off to a weak start.  I will follow up with more thoughts on this in future posts.

Answering Atheist Arguments: If Christianity Were True, Everyone Would Be A Christian

I have talked with a number of atheists who really believe in and use the following argument  to disprove religion/God.  They will say:

Look, there are literally thousands of religions.  The very fact that all these exist, PROVES they are all false! 

Now this is actually a direct quote from someone on Twitter who is well followed and re-tweeted often.  Clearly this Twitter user’s opinion is respected.   I asked him to explain why he thought that the existence of multiple religions proved they were all wrong.  His response:

Reality isn’t subjective.  If there was any reality to one particular religion it would be unanimously accepted.

There are a couple of claims here so I will treat each, one at a time.

Reality isn’t subjective.  – Of course this is correct.   A claim about reality is either true, or it is not true.  Either Christianity is true, or it is not true.  It can’t be true for me, but not for someone else.  That is not logical.

If there was any reality to one particular religion it would be unanimously accepted.  – Is this really true?  Does something need to be unanimously accepted in order to be true?  I really don’t think an atheist would want to argue this way because it puts him in a difficult spot.    Here’s what I mean:  If something needs to be unanimously accepted to be true, then atheism cannot be true, since not only is atheism NOT unanimously accepted, but it is the minority opinion.   If you apply the claim to itself,  all of a sudden the atheist has no footing for their own beliefs.   This is not a good argument against the reality of anything.  Universal acceptance of a truth is not required for something to be true.

The very fact that all these [religions] exist, PROVES they are all false. – Its clear that the existence of competing views of reality cannot mean that they are ALL false.   All religions COULD be false  but by no means does it prove that they are.  

This line of thinking may be a good rhetorical sound bite, but it does not hold water against even minor scrutiny.   The existence of multiple religions does not help the atheist argument at all.  People who consider themselves the guardians of reason and logic should know better than to use this argument.