Apologetics/Secular and atheist friends

Secular and atheist friends

For the friend who does not believe in God, or who is not sure, or who has stopped asking: what they typically hold and why, where you agree more than either of you thinks, and how to give a reason that respects a mind that has already thought about this.

The three questions that matter most

  1. 1Is the universe the kind of place where persons, reasons and moral obligations are at home, or accidents?
  2. 2Did Jesus rise from the dead: a claim about history, not about feelings?
  3. 3Is what is wrong with people fixable by information and effort, or does it need forgiveness and new life?

Part 1

What they believe

There is no secular creed, so start by asking rather than assuming. Broadly: an atheist holds that there is no God, or no good reason to believe in one; an agnostic holds that the question cannot be settled, or that they personally have not settled it; and a great many people are simply secular, living without reference to God, not hostile, not curious, occupied with other things. Common threads, when they are articulated: that the sciences give us the most reliable knowledge we have, and that what cannot be tested should be held loosely; that the universe and life are explained by physics and evolution without a designer; that morality is real but human, grounded in our shared nature, our reasoning and our need to live together, not in divine command; that religions are human constructions, often sincere and sometimes beautiful, which have also done harm; that suffering and evil count against a good and powerful God; that the many religions cancel each other out; and that meaning is something we make rather than find. Many secular people were raised in a church and left it, and the leaving usually had a reason: an unanswered question, a hypocrisy they watched up close, a scientific claim the church seemed to deny, a hurt. Younger secular people are often less argued out of faith than never argued into it; the question simply did not come up. Most are decent, thoughtful, and tired of being treated as a project. Some hold their view with real intellectual seriousness and have read more philosophy of religion than most Christians; assume that until you learn otherwise.

Where to read it for yourself

  • David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779): the classic statement of the problem of evil and of doubts about design
  • Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (1927): the standard modern objections in short form
  • Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006): the popular case that science makes God unnecessary
  • Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great (2007): the moral case against religion
  • Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape (2010): the attempt to ground morality in wellbeing without God
  • Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Study: the growth of the religiously unaffiliated and what they actually believe, which is more varied than the label

Part 2

Where we agree

Truth matters, and it is not whatever you want it to be. Evidence should be followed where it leads. Hypocrisy is worse than honest unbelief, and the church has often earned the criticism it gets. Science is a gift and a discipline, and a Christian who fears it has misunderstood the God who made the world intelligible. Suffering is real and terrible and demands an answer, not a slogan. Human beings have dignity and should be treated justly whatever they believe. Religion has been used to justify cruelty, and saying so is telling the truth. Meaning, love, beauty and moral obligation are among the most important things there are. On every one of those points you and your secular friend can nod together, and you should, out loud, before you differ.

Part 3

Where Christianity stands, and why it matters

First and deepest: whether there is a God at all, and therefore whether the universe is the kind of place in which persons, reasons, and moral obligations are at home or are accidents that happened to arise. Christians hold that the order of the world, the fact that it exists at all, the reliability of reason, and the reality of right and wrong point beyond the world to its maker (Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19:1-4; Acts 17:24-28). Second, Jesus: not whether a wise teacher lived, but whether he rose from the dead, which Christians hold to be a claim about history with witnesses, records and consequences, not a claim about feelings (1 Corinthians 15:3-8; 1 Corinthians 15:14-19; Luke 1:1-4). Third, the human condition: not that people are basically good and occasionally fail, but that something is broken in each of us that we cannot fix by information or effort, and that the answer is forgiveness and new life rather than improvement (Romans 3:23; Jeremiah 17:9; John 3:3). Fourth, suffering: not a proof that God is absent but the place where God most fully showed himself, in a cross, and a condition he has promised to end (Isaiah 53; Romans 8:18-25; Revelation 21:4). Fifth, hope: whether death is the end. Notice that the secular friend often believes many Christian things without the foundation: that people have rights, that love is real, that cruelty is wrong, that history is going somewhere. The honest conversation is about where those convictions come from and whether they can stand without what they grew out of.

Part 4

Scripture to know

Read these before the conversation. Each one opens in the Bible reader.

  • 1 Peter 3:15-16

    A reason, with gentleness: your friend expects to be preached at, and this asks something better of you.

  • Acts 17:22-31

    Paul with philosophers: he quotes their poets, honours their search, and names the God they do not know. The model for this whole conversation.

  • Romans 1:19-20

    What can be known of God from what has been made.

  • Psalm 19:1-4

    The heavens declare: the created order as speech.

  • Ecclesiastes 3:11

    Eternity in the human heart: why the questions do not go away.

  • 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

    The resurrection stated as history with named witnesses, within the lifetime of people who could contradict it.

  • 1 Corinthians 15:14-19

    Paul stakes the whole faith on a fact: if Christ has not been raised, our faith is worthless. A secular friend will respect that honesty.

  • Luke 1:1-4

    Luke's own account of his method: eyewitnesses, careful investigation, an orderly account.

  • Acts 26:24-29

    Paul before Festus and Agrippa: true and reasonable words, said to a sceptic, without apology.

  • John 20:24-29

    Thomas, who wanted evidence, and got it.

  • Romans 3:23

    The diagnosis your friend may already half believe about people, applied to all of us.

  • Isaiah 53:3-5

    Where God was when it hurt.

  • John 3:16

    The whole of it, plainly, because a secular friend may never have actually heard it said by someone who meant it.

Part 5

How to make the case

Listen first, and for longer than feels comfortable. Ask what they believe and why, what they used to believe if anything, and what happened; the story behind an unbelief is almost always more important than the arguments in front of it, and a hurt from a church needs an apology before it needs a syllogism. Do not pretend to certainty you do not have; say what you are sure of, what you find hard, and why you believe anyway, because a secular friend can smell performance and respects honesty. Keep the conversation on Jesus and the resurrection more than on the existence of God in general; an abstract debate about a first cause can go on forever, but the question of whether a particular man rose from a particular tomb is the kind of question your friend already knows how to think about. Know the standard objections well enough to state them better than your friend does (the problem of evil, the many religions, the harm done by the church, the silence of God, science) and answer them without a script, admitting where the answers are partial. Do not defend everything: some things done in Christ's name should be condemned, and your friend will trust you more when you condemn them. Let your life do most of the talking; the best argument most secular people ever meet is a Christian who is kind, honest, unafraid of questions, and visibly not in it for themselves. Invite them to read one of the Gospels with you, Mark or John, and to judge Jesus for themselves rather than through his followers. Pray for them; and if the friendship lasts years without a conversion, it was still worth it.

Part 6

What not to claim

  • Do not say atheists have no basis for morality and therefore cannot be good. Many are better people than many Christians, and Romans 2:14-15 says the law is written on every heart. The honest question is where that law comes from, not whether they keep it.
  • Do not claim science and faith are enemies, or that evolution disproves God, or that Christians must choose. Many serious scientists are Christians; keep the conversation on the questions science does not answer rather than on contradicting what it does.
  • Do not use Pascal's wager as if it were an argument for Christianity being true. It is at most an argument about prudence, and a thoughtful friend will point that out.
  • Do not say there are no atheists in foxholes or that your friend secretly believes. It is condescending and often false.
  • Do not claim the Bible has been proven by archaeology in general. Specific findings confirm specific details; say those, and do not overclaim.
  • Do not answer the problem of evil with a formula. Say that the Bible's own answer is a person on a cross and a promised end to suffering, that it is not a tidy answer, and that you find it truer than the alternatives.
  • Do not make the person a project. If they can tell your friendship depends on their converting, the conversation is already over.

Part 7

Objections you will hear

What your friend is likely to say, and an answer you can give in your own words, with the passages behind it.

If God is good and all-powerful, why is there so much suffering?

Do not answer with a formula; your friend has heard the formulas and found them cold. Say that the Bible asks the same question, at length, in Job and the Psalms, and that God does not rebuke the asking. Then say what the Bible's answer is: not an explanation but a person, God entering the suffering on a cross, and a promise to end it (Isaiah 53:3-5, Revelation 21:4). Admit that this is not tidy and that you find it truer than the alternatives, because the alternative to a God who suffers is a universe that does not notice. Then ask, gently, where the standard comes from by which your friend calls suffering wrong.

Scripture: Job 38:1-4, Psalm 13:1-2, Isaiah 53:3-5, Revelation 21:3-4

Science explains the universe. There is no need for God.

Agree that science explains the universe, gloriously, and say that most of the people who built modern science thought they were reading God's handwriting. Then ask what science does not do: it does not say why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is intelligible to minds, or why anything matters. Those are not gaps waiting for data; they are the questions science stands on. Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:19-20 are the Christian claim: creation is speech. Do not fight over evolution; many serious scientists are Christians and the conversation is not there.

Scripture: Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:19-20, Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16-17

There are thousands of religions. They cannot all be right, so probably none is.

Say that the second half does not follow from the first: many wrong answers to a question do not mean the question has no answer. Then say what makes Christianity checkable in a way most religions are not: it rests on a public event, a man who was executed and then seen alive by named people within living memory (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Paul said that if it did not happen, Christianity is worthless (1 Corinthians 15:14-19), which is the kind of thing your friend already knows how to investigate. Invite them to read one Gospel and judge Jesus for themselves, not through his followers.

Scripture: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 1 Corinthians 15:14-19, Luke 1:1-4, Acts 26:24-26

Religion has done enormous harm. The church is full of hypocrites.

Agree, specifically. Name things done in Christ's name that should be condemned, and condemn them; your friend will trust you more, and Jesus was harder on religious hypocrisy than any atheist has been (Matthew 23:27-28). Then say that hypocrisy is a failure to live up to a standard, which presupposes the standard is real, and ask what the standard is and where it came from. The church is full of hypocrites in the same way a hospital is full of sick people; that is what it is for (Mark 2:17).

Scripture: Matthew 23:27-28, Mark 2:17, Romans 2:1-4, Micah 6:8

I can be good without God. I do not need religion to be moral.

Agree that they can and are; Romans 2:14-15 says the law is written on every heart. The question is not whether your friend is good but why goodness is binding on anyone, and what happens when they fail it, which they will, and which they know. Christianity's claim is not that unbelievers are wicked; it is that everyone falls short of a standard they did not invent (Romans 3:23), and that the answer to falling short is forgiveness, not effort. Ask what your friend does with guilt. The gospel is the only account in which guilt is taken seriously and then taken away.

Scripture: Romans 2:14-15, Romans 3:23, Psalm 32:1-5, 1 John 1:8-9

Part 8

Case studies

Example conversations: what was said, what worked, what to avoid, and the passages used.

The brother-in-law who left the church at nineteen

Thanksgiving. A Christian and a brother-in-law who grew up in church, left after a youth pastor's scandal, and now calls himself an atheist.

The brother-in-law made a joke about religion at the table. Later, alone, the Christian asked him what had actually happened, since he had never asked. The brother-in-law told the story of the youth pastor. The Christian said he was sorry, that what had happened was evil, and that Jesus had said worse about men like that than the brother-in-law ever had. He did not defend the church. He asked whether the brother-in-law had stopped believing in God or stopped trusting the people who spoke for him. The brother-in-law said he did not know anymore. The Christian said that was worth knowing, and asked whether he had ever read a Gospel as an adult, without anyone telling him what it meant. He had not. The Christian sent him a copy of Mark with no notes in it and did not mention it again. Months later the brother-in-law texted a question about Mark 15 at midnight.

What worked

He asked about the story behind the unbelief. He condemned what deserved condemning without defending the indefensible. He separated God from the people who failed in his name. He gave a Gospel, not a lecture, and left it alone.

What to avoid

Answering a wound with an argument. Defending the church reflexively. Turning a family holiday into a debate.

Scripture used: Matthew 18:6, Matthew 23:27-28, Mark 15:33-39, Luke 15:11-24

The physicist who wanted evidence

Two colleagues at a research lab. One a Christian, the other a physicist who says she would believe if there were evidence.

The Christian asked what would count as evidence. She said, something you could check. He said he agreed, and that the claim he was making was checkable in the way historical claims are: a man was executed in a specific city under a named governor and was reported alive afterwards by people who were killed rather than retract it. She said reports are not evidence. He said reports are the only evidence history has, and that the question is whether these reports are early, multiple, and costly to make, and that they were: 1 Corinthians 15 is a creed that scholars of every persuasion date to within a few years of the events. He did not claim proof. He said the evidence was strong enough to be worth her reading the sources herself, and that Luke says in his first four verses that he wrote so a reader could be certain. She read Luke. She asked better questions than he could answer, and he said so, and looked things up, and came back. She has not become a Christian. She has stopped saying there is no evidence.

What worked

He accepted her standard and met it on its own terms. He made a historical claim, not a feeling. He conceded what he did not know and came back. He measured success by honesty, not by a decision.

What to avoid

Pascal's wager. Claiming proof. Pretending the hard questions are easy.

Scripture used: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Luke 1:1-4, Acts 26:24-29, John 20:24-29

Nothing on this page quotes anyone else's scripture; beliefs are described in our own words and cited by reference so you can read the sources yourself. This page was checked for accuracy and fairness against those sources, and where a point is disputed it says so. If you belong to this tradition and we have described you unfairly, we want to know and will fix it. All conversations