What would convince you?

Human fallibility is an infirmity to which none of us are immune. It requires us to learn things, but also to have the humility to admit that there is a possibility we are wrong, even when it comes to a belief we so dearly cherish. Eventually, every single one of us will have to wrestle with one basic question: What, if anything, would convince me I'm wrong?

In a discussion with Peter Boghossian, Richard Dawkins, famous author of "The God Delusion", was asked this question. His response went viral, as he replied "Well, I am starting to think nothing would, which in a way goes against the grain because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. The trouble is I can’t think what that evidence would look like."

This is one of many statements confirming what Christians have always known: Evidence means nothing to an atheist. The exceptions tend to convert. Sir Lionel Luckhoo, David Wood, Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace, Frank Morison, these are just the examples that spring to my mind. But this article isn't intended as a list of ex atheists who ceased to be atheists after looking into the evidence. Nor is it intended to further demonstrate that atheists who remain stubbornly so are deliberately resistant to evidence. Rather, what I want to do is answer the question myself.

See, if caught on the spot, I might have initially been forced to give a similar answer to Dawkins. Not the "lip service" part. That's the kind of intellectual dishonesty that puts me right off atheism, so I absolutely would not forgive myself if I held to such a standard, much less expressed it aloud. But not being able to think what the evidence would look like is a different story. At least, on the spot.

But right now, I'm not on the spot. I have time to sit down and think about my answer. I can imagine - and I would have to imagine - various worlds in which God did not exist, and how I, in my present state, would come to realise it. I do have an advantage in that in an effort to refine my own apologetics technique, I frequently play "devil's advocate" with myself and imagine actually being an atheist. How would I argue my case? How would I be won back to the faith? How would I deal with the arguments that kept me believing? These questions actually lead me to the conclusion that there is no one single piece of evidence that could convince me Christianity is false.

But this is not the same as saying nothing would convince me. See, no one piece of evidence could convince me not to be a Christian because no one piece of evidence convinces me to be a Christian. It's not as though there is this one single pillar that, if it were no longer in place, would cause me to doubt everything I believe. It's not even as though I am so thoroughly convinced that nothing from any other worldview appeals to me. I'm human. I have doubts from time to time, and every so often, even I get stumped. But it's not always the atheists who stump me. In fact, without trying to sound arrogant, it's rarely the atheists who stump me. Actually, if I could single out any group that has caused me the most bother, beyond all imagination, I would have to say it's the Flat Earthers.

I don't know what it would take to make me believe in a flat Earth. I don't even think it's possible. I've seen the photographs. I've even been on a plane. I've never had the privilege of going to space and seeing it myself, but at this point, I am thoroughly convinced that the Earth genuinely is a spherical rock, hurtling through space at hundreds of miles per hour. But if the Earth is flat, I can be convinced.

Likely due to their unenviable position, Flat Earthers are surprisingly good debaters. They can't be lazy and appeal to consensus, the whole Earth is against them (pun intended). If you really want to refine your debate skills, pick a Flat Earther as a sparring partner. Arguments are all they have, so arguments are all they'll use. As a result of this, I have, on occasion, been stumped by their arguments. They have forced me to go away and research. But my response was never "they stumped me, maybe the Earth is flat." Why? Because the case for the round Earth model is significantly weightier.

And that, I believe, is what it all comes down to. Weight. If I have 99 reasons for believing something is true, but I have one argument suggesting it isn't, the chances of me being thrown off by the one are slim to none. It's not entirely down to numbers, of course. One good reason should always outweigh 99 terrible ones. For example, the Islamic dilemma will always prevent me from becoming a Muslim. Why? Because it shows Islam is self contradictory. If the Qur'an affirms, yet contradicts the Bible, then Islam can never be true.

I can apply similar logic to atheism. Atheism is not self contradictory, like Islam, but it is a very omniscient claim. To be an atheist, I would have to possess knowledge I do not believe it is possible for humanity, as a collective, to obtain. Much less myself as an individual. Thus, I cannot now, nor do I imagine I will ever be able to tell you what it would take to make me an atheist.

But what about an agnostic? For this, you would need to take every Theistic religion of which I am aware and outweigh them all, without sufficiently replacing them. As it stands, I believe the weight of the Christian case is sufficient to outweigh any other worldview of which I am aware. At the risk of elephant hurling, I know of enough evidence from science, history, philosophy, and even personal experience, to be strongly convinced that whatever doubts I may have about my faith, they are entirely due to my humanity. I do get things wrong, I do get stumped, and there are gaps in my knowledge. But none of them have been worth throwing out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bathwater.

Now, for the real question, can it be done? At this point in my life, I don't think so. I've been a Christian for many years, an apologist for almost as long, and a student of the faith for even longer. Over the course of that journey, I've never encountered anything that would give me reason to change faith. But there are certain things which might. Now, atheists in particular, pay attention, because I'm telling you how to convert me. The following is a list of things which, while they would not all demolish my faith in one go, would certainly give me pause:

• An unsolvable logical dilemma within the Christian faith, wherein both options lead to it being false, with no possible middle ground.

• Evidence of genuine evolution within the faith, such as pre-Biblical texts suggesting Jesus was born of a rock, and Mary is a fictional character retconned in the first century.

• Traceable (i.e. non pseudepigraphal) texts linking to the Apostles, either contradicting each others' accounts, or flat out admitting a conspiracy to fake the resurrection. Bonus points if the facts add up, such as leading to the exact location they buried Jesus' stolen body, which remained to this day.

• Geographical absurdities in the Bible, such as the presence of a mountain where, in fact, there is only a valley.

• Contemporary records explicitly, and reliably, contradicting Biblical narratives. (Emphasis on "reliably").

• Historical documentation that Jesus was actually very popular in his day, and died choking on a tangerine, with further documentation showing how this gradually morphed into a crucifixion narrative around the 3rd century.

This is an admittedly short and ambiguous list. Much like Dawkins, I can't think what evidence changing my mind would look like. However, you can see a theme here. I'm not "giving lip service" to the idea that one should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. In fact, each of the hypothetical examples I gave above follows a simple pattern. First, it erodes a direct parallel to the case for Christianity. For example, right now, the Biblical accounts of Jesus are known to be early, and reliable. There is no evidence that there was ever a time when Christians did not regard Him as both crucified and raised again. Even atheist scholars, who believe they were wrong to believe it, usually admit they did believe this. There was no gradual evolution of the faith. So if you could prove there was a time when Christians didn't believe these things, and the story developed later on, that would be, at the very least, difficult for Christians to deal with.

Of course, on the flip side, there is rarely a shortage of Christians who deal with it when it pops up. For every Bart Ehrman, there is a James White. For every Richard Dawkins, there is a William Lane Craig. For every Sam Harris, there is a John Lennox. It will always come down to weight, rather than individual arguments. In this author's opinion, as far as weight goes, Christianity is mountains above mole hills. What would convince me? A bigger mountain.

AI usage

1. Chat GPT was asked to suggest common debate opponents, resulting in the contrasting figures in the final paragraph.