One saying atheists need to learn is "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". The saying encourages humility and self reflection. One should withhold a certain criticism if one is vulnerable to the same. And yet, far too many atheistic arguments can immediately backfire. There is the argument from geography (if you'd been born elsewhere, you'd believe otherwise). There is the argument from religious plurality (we can't all be right). In this article, I want to address the argument from non-universal belief.
This argument comes in two forms. The first is that if the evidence for Christianity was strong enough, everyone would be a Christian. Therefore, there must be something lacking in the case for Christianity. This is ironic, given that atheism has always been, currently is, and hopefully will always be a minority belief. Yet, the same atheists who assert "if there was so much evidence for Christianity, everyone would believe it" love to brag about the supposed evidence they have for their own views. If we turn the same logic on atheism, atheism must be lacking, because almost no one believes it.
The second form doesn't have the identical flaw. Atheism is pure denial. Nothing more, nothing less. But as Christians, we believe in an omnipotent God who, by all rights, should be able to prove Himself in any way He chooses, at any time He chooses.
But while atheism is immune to this specific criticism, the answer to "why doesn't everyone believe" is actually the same in both belief systems: The human heart. Of course, an atheist would have to take it as just a general, observation-based principle. We all know that different people have different levels of resistance to different kinds of evidence. What convinces one person will not convince another.
But Christianity has an advantage in that long before atheism was common, long before this argument was posed in its favor, and even long before various philosophers developed the kind of logic modern society uses to discuss religion, Christianity was a fully developed faith. Our God was well known, our doctrines were heavily discussed, and our book was widely distributed, before the first atheist decided universal belief was a requirement. This means we already have well-established principles that explain why belief is not universal.
To begin with, atheists regularly misrepresent omnipotence. God is not bound to external limits, but is bound to internal ones (2 Timothy 2:13). In short, not even God can have His cake and eat it too. This means that God's preference for faith, the gift of free will, and the extra blessings that come from walking by faith rather than sight, all explain divine hiddenness.
This is where atheists often cry "special pleading". But this is a misapplication of the special pleading fallacy. The special pleading fallacy is when someone applies a general rule or principle consistently, but arbitrarily makes an exception when it conflicts with their own view. If Christians accepted the logic that God could convince everyone of the truth of Christianity, but made up irrelevant excuses for why He doesn't, this would be the special pleading fallacy. However, because our reasoning stems from foundational teachings that predate the argument, it is actually fallacious for atheists to dismiss them in this way. Specifically, the atheist is dismissing well-established Christian doctrine for sake of making it easier to refute. This is a fallacy known as the straw man.
When we take Christianity as it is, and indeed as it has been for the past 2,000 years, we see that it would actually be contrary to the faith for God to force universal belief. But He also rejects the blind faith method. Throughout His ministry, Jesus repeatedly asserted that He should be believed on the basis of His works, not His words. Here are some examples:
"“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me." - John 5:31-36
"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”" - John 10:37-38
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves." - John 14:10-11
Notice how Jesus regularly follows the "believe my works before my words" approach. Suffice to say, they were quite miraculous works. As both the existence of, and crowding within hospitals shows, many of these miracles cannot be replicated even today, with all our combined knowledge and fancy technology.
That He really performed these works is evident from witness testimony. Of course, the Bible is the primary witness. While I don't expect an atheist to take its claim to divine inspiration seriously, it should still be judged by the same criteria as any other historical source. If we can take the word of Plato and Xenophon regarding Socrates, how much more should we take the New Testament regarding Christ?
Unfortunately, when it comes to Christianity, many atheists take the strange attitude "I'll only believe it's true if it comes from the mouth of someone who believes it is false". For obvious reasons, it is very hard to find a non-Christian who will affirm the truth of Christianity. However, it is not quite as difficult to find "hostile witness". That is, while they reject Christianity as a whole, there are certain historical sources that will admit certain elements.
In this article, I do not intend to go off on a tangent by diving deep into the examples, but it would probably be a good idea to provide at least one. Thus, let's examine Sanhedrin 43a of the Babylonian Talmud, which reads "The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve." (1).
This passage reflects the common claim that Jesus' works can be attributed to sorcery, as opposed to actually being from God. Mark 3:22, and similar passages, show that this was the common claim even in Jesus' day. As far as I am aware, no early source denies that Jesus actually performed great miracles. Rather, they reject the divine origin thereof.
By attributing Jesus' miracles to other sources, enemies of Christianity implicitly admit that they happened. Is it therefore reasonable, within the Christian framework, to expect Him to repeat them? Biblically speaking, we expect God to provide enough evidence to convince the willing, especially for sake of verifying new messages, but not so much as to erase the element of faith.
And this is the state of affairs we do observe. The evidence we have is sufficient to convince literally millions of Christians around the world, many of whom have converted from atheistic worldviews. What this means is that atheists who demand extra evidence - especially evidence so powerful as to create universal assent - are actually asking for special treatment. And so the question must be asked, why? What is so special about the atheists who reason this way?
The answer, as previously established, is the individual hardness of heart. For some atheists, a solid case genuinely is all they require. But an atheist who is so thoughtless as to insist "if it was true, everyone would believe" is likely so resistant as to reject even stronger evidence than we should reasonably expect the Lord to provide.
There is a relatively recent trend among atheists to admit as much. Most famously, popular atheistic apologist Richard Dawkins was asked what would convince him in a conversation with Peter Boghossian. After explaining why not even hearing God's voice, experiencing the return of Christ, would convince him, he stated "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."
Dawkins is not alone in this confession. And of course, we have to keep in mind that if one atheist can admit it, there is likely at least one other who will not. And so the problem with expecting universal belief spans far beyond misunderstanding fundamental principles of the Christian faith. It's one thing to say that if Christianity is true, there should be no non-resistant non-believers. It's another thing entirely to extend that to there should be no resistant non-believers.
See, if someone is committed to a conclusion, no amount of evidence could possibly convince them to change their mind. But we all understand, both from the Bible, and from the reality we observe, that the world is full of people who cannot be convinced by evidence. In fact, in my experience, many atheists are not even willing to consider the evidence, much less study it, or follow it to the logical conclusion that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.
And so we see that the lack of universal belief has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity, nor the quality of the evidence. In fact, the lack of universal belief is due to the truth of Christianity. If Christianity is true, then mankind has been at war with God for 6,000 years. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, our hearts are deceitful above all things, our thoughts are continually evil, and ultimately, we reject the light because we love darkness. The rejection of Christianity, therefore, is a problem of the heart, not the head.
The bad news is this rebellion carries a heavy penalty, which none of us can bear. Every sin earns the just wrath of the Holy God, which the truly hard of heart will one day receive. But while our hearts still beat, God offers us an alternative. When Jesus walked the Earth, He did more than simply preach the word and perform miracles. Scripture actually says that He became sin, who knew no sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. In more simple terms, Jesus never did anything wrong in His entire life, yet He received the death penalty on our behalf. This allows us to "swap verdicts". We deserve the punishment, we receive the reward, because He received the punishment, though He deserved the reward.
Atheism, and indeed all forms of unbelief, are temporary delusions. A time will come when the option to believe, or to disbelieve, will be removed. But for now, they are a criteria. Those who believe by choice will receive eternal life. But when God finally forces universal belief, it will not be a pleasant experience for those who required that force.
References
1. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a
AI usage
AI was used in the following ways to produce this article:
1. AI was used to create the header image.
2. When asked to check the definition of the special pleading fallacy, ChatGPT suggested a tweak. The original definition was "The special pleading fallacy is when someone applies a general rule or principle consistently, but arbitrarily breaks it when it conflicts with their own view."
First 😜