Last week, someone left a comment on one of my posts from a few years ago about Richard Dawkins that I should talk to Alex O’Connor. It was meant as a compliment. This person was impressed with my comments about Richard Dawkins, so he was basically saying he’d like to see me interact with the social media atheist celebrity Alex O’Connor. I am only vaguely familiar with him. I’ve occasionally seen snippets of him interviewing various people, and quite frankly, get bored within 5-10 minutes. In any case, I replied that I’m really a nobody and I doubt he’d care to interview me anyway.
Immediately, another person one who has trolled my blogs for years) jumped on the thread and said O’Connor would wipe the floor with me. Well, it got me interested in O’Connor. And so, I went on Youtube and found a video entitled, “Alex O’Connor’s 23-Minute Takedown of Christianity: This Speech Will Kill Your Faith.” Well gee, sounds like a doozy! I decided to watch the 23-minute video, takes some notes, and yes, write a blog post about it. Welcome to that blog post.
Who is Alex O’Connor?
Alex O’Connor is a 26-year-old guy from England who started as “Cosmic Skeptic” YouTube channel a few years ago that has gotten extremely popular—it has 1.64 million subscribers. Over the years, he has done many interviews of skeptics and Christians alike, and he has also numerous videos of his many debates of various Christians. Simply put, it seems that in the social media world of skeptics, he’s a rock star. He’s debated/interviewed Ben Shapiro, Dinesh D’Souza, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and many, many others.
He’s certainly not abrasive or offensive, like many of the “online skeptics” are. He comes across as a very proper, sophisticated, thoughtful, respectful Englishman. I though, have always found myself bored with him. Maybe it’s because I am now 55, but I can’t help but think, “26-years-old? He’s a kid!” Think back to when you were 26 and thought you had the entire world figured out. If you’re like me, you look back at your 26-year-old self, probably cringe a little, and say, “I had NO CLUE about anything back then!” And I’m sorry to say it, but O’Connor strikes me as a kid, a very sincere kid, mind you, who is “playing grown-up.”
And when I watched this video that supposedly was going to “kill my faith,” I came away thoroughly unimpressed. All his arguments struck me as just a rehash of so many other shallow arguments from other skeptics before his time. So, let’s dive in.
O’Connor begins his talk with a reference to Psalm 139:7-10: “Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.” He says that these verses are often used to reassure those who are seeking God that He is, indeed there. The problem, though, is that there are a lot of people (like him) who have been seeking God, but who find instead nothing there.
He then goes on to claim that atheism/naturalism gives a better explanation than religion of three issues: (1) the “divine hiddenness” of God, (2) the geographical predictability of religious belief, and (3) the unjust, gratuitous suffering in the world.
The Problem of Divine Hiddenness
When it comes to the “divine hiddenness” of God, O’Connor tells about his past. He was an altar boy, he got a degree in religion/theology, he has read and studied many, many books about religion and religious experiences, he’s visited many churches, he has talked with and even lived with believers for a time. But, despite all his investigating, all he has gotten is “radio silence.” Psalm 139 might say God can be found everything, but O’Connor says he has found nothing. He has sought God, but he never found God. He is, a “nonresistant non-believer.” Yes, there are “resistant non-believers” who simply have already made up their minds there is no God and will never believe. But O’Connor is a nonresistant non-believer. He’d love to believe, but he simply isn’t convinced God exists. He simply has never “felt the divine presence.” He says, “I have gone above and beyond what can be reasonably expected of any atheist who wishes to entertain the God hypothesis, and for my efforts I’ve been awarded radio silence.”
He then asks, “How can theism account for this [O’Connor’s] lived experience?” Either there is a loving God who is purposely hiding from O’Connor, or there simply is no God.
The Geographical Predictability of Religious Belief
O’Connor then points to the fact that 95% of people in Saudi Arabia are Muslim, while 95% of the people in Thailand are Buddhist. Is God hiding his face from some groups of people, but not others? Therefore, if theism is true, “God has a lot to answer for.” O’Connor is very troubled by the fact that, according to Christianity, one’s place of birth seems to be “a reliable statistical indicator of how likely you are to be saved.” By contrast, according to atheism/naturalism, if religion is an entirely man-made phenomenon, then the idea that different regions have developed their own religions makes complete sense.
The Issue of Unjust, Meaningless, Gratuitous Suffering
O’Connor ends his talk by focusing on suffering in the world. He says that if there can be seen any kind of “meaningless suffering” in the world, that is enough to call God’s existence into question. He acknowledges that one can argue that major, intense suffering can be sometimes found to have a beneficial value for a person and make us into better people. But he doesn’t focus on that. Instead, he points to the common, everyday sort of suffering like stubbing your toe, or being caught out in the rain. Those insignificant “sufferings,” though, mean nothing. They are forgotten in a day or two—they contribute nothing to the development of the soul. Why would God allow a kind of suffering that is of no value, doesn’t mean anything, and is soon forgotten?
Finally, O’Connor mentions animal suffering as well. Animals suffering in the wild. Right now, there is a deer trapped under a tree, suffering and starving. Why would God allow that? But “This is exactly the kind of things we should expect to see if the natural world is an amoral arena of accidentally existing organisms fighting with each other to stay alive.” Indeed, O’Connor says, this kind of suffering is expected in a naturalistic world where humans and animals alike are just developing and evolving.
Is My Faith Destroyed?
Did this 23-minute video destroy my faith? Absolutely not. Not only did it not destroy my faith, I found O’Connor’s three points to be rather shallow, dare I say juvenile.
First, let’s look at the issue of “divine hiddenness.” O’Connor makes a very big deal about how much he has read, studied and investigated the “God hypothesis.” But despite his sincere efforts, he has only been met with nothing, “radio silence.” Therefore, he concludes that since he, a really, really sincere nonresistant nonbelieving 26-year-old Englishman with a YouTube channel cannot find God, that must mean God doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter if 95% of the world’s population is convinced of God’s existence; it doesn’t matter that there are millions and millions of people who do, in fact, feel God’s presence—O’Connor own, subject opinion trumps all of that.
Objectively-speaking, that is simply a horrible argument. It’s not even an argument. It boils down to, “No, I don’t think so, because…just because.” If anything, the fact that almost every society in human history, and the overwhelming majority of human beings, does have, in fact, some form of belief in God/the gods—something that is not shared with any other organic species in the natural world—carries more weight than the “lived experience” of one man. That isn’t to say that alone is “proof” of God’s existence, but if O’Connor is going to base his conclusion on his own, subject “lived experience,” then the “lived experience” of billions and billions of people throughout human history carry more weight.
Second, let’s look at O’Connor’s claims about geography and religious belief. Again, I find it to be very shallow. Of course, geography will often determine what religion/religious tradition one grows up in and probably accepts. But his claim that, according to Christianity, geography is a statistical indicator of whether or not one will be saved, is (there’s no other way to say it) incredibly stupid and ignorant. There is nothing the Bible that says that.
If anything, Paul, when talking about his fellow Jews, says that election was never based geography or race, but it had always been based on faith. Most of his fellow Jews, even if they were Torah-observant, were not saved because they weren’t doing it out of faith. A remnant of Israel was part of the “Israel of God,” but that “Israel of God” consisted of those from among both Jews and Gentiles who responded to God through faith. I’m also reminded of what C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity, namely that even though we know that it is through Christ that people are saved, but nowhere in the Bible does it say only those who’ve heard of Christ can be saved. Christians believe that who respond to God in faith, given the amount of revelation they have received, will be saved. Based on their faith, Christ’s work will be applied to them, and they will be saved. This points to something that goes beyond mere organized religion. The outward show of any religion means nothing if it is not accompanied by faith.
Finally, O’Connor’s claim that stubbing your toe or being caught in the rain is somehow proof that God doesn’t exist is just odd…beyond odd. It’s nonsensical. Note what lays at the root of this argument. O’Connor really is saying, “If God exists, then human beings should not experience any minor discomfort or inconvenience in life. Therefore, since we do, God must not exist.” The only way for that argument to work in any sphere of argumentation is to root it in a denial of reality itself. “If there is a God, then reality shouldn’t be the way reality is, because I imagine that if there is a God, then reality wouldn’t be the way it is.”
That isn’t a logical argument. That is a hamster wheel of circular illogic.
What I am Forced to Conclude
For years, I read books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and numerous other “new atheists” who made a whole range of arguments against the existence of God. They all seemed petty, shallow, and juvenile arguments wrapped up in a whole lot of arrogance and self-righteous certainty on the part of theses authors. They were obnoxious as they were certain of their moral superiority of those idiotic Christians. O’Connor doesn’t come across as obnoxious at all. Nevertheless, it’s the same kind of shallow argumentation.
Now, when I wrote my book analyses of those books by those atheists, I tried to keep my criticisms and critiques on the level of focusing on the evidence and logical reasoning. Over and over again, I concluded that not only did their arguments logically fell apart, but these men displayed a shockingly ignorant understanding of both the Christian faith and the Bible. They were, in fact, basing their shallow arguments on cartoonish caricatures.
But I left it at that. I purposely veered away from saying things like, “The reason he is an atheist is because he really is in rebellion against God.” But now that I’m a bit older, although I wouldn’t say it that way, I find myself not being able to get away from a conclusion like that. I’m sorry, but many of the “new atheists” and “skeptics” who make a living out of their skepticism on their social media sites do seem, at bottom, not to be as “sincere” as they like to claim.
O’Connor might say he is a “nonresistant nonbeliever,” but something just feels off to me. Now, I’m sure as soon as I say that, some nonbelieving skeptic will jump down my throat and say something like, “How can you say that? How can you doubt that he’s being sincere? He just honestly doesn’t believe! How dare you question his sincerity!”
But I’m sorry, all these skeptical, atheistic arguments against God’s existence seem to be to be like a fish denying the reality of the dry world outside of the pond. The fish says, “I won’t believe in that existence unless you can show it to me here in this water of this pond.”
“But every time you popped up to the surface for air, you are breathing in part of the reality of that world.”
“No. My breathing system and that oxygen on the surface of the pond is just evolutionary development to help us fish live in this water, along with my gills…that’s all. There’s nothing beyond that surface.”
“But in this natural, evolutionary development, there have been water-creatures who have evolved into land-animals and are now living in that dry world above the surface.”
“No, I can’t see it from where I am swimming in this pond. It doesn’t exist. I’m really being sincere in my conviction that unless you can prove to me the existence of an outer dry world here within the wetness of this pond, I will not believe in the existence of that dry world. I have to be convinced on my terms and conditions.”
And that, I believe, is the heart of the problem for so many. They will only “believe” if God fits what they want God and this world to be like. They will only believe in God if it is on their own terms and according to their particular presuppositions about reality. And yes, that equally applies to anyone in any religion, including Christianity. Even if you grow up in a Christian culture, unless you go beyond the simplistic ceremonies and outward religious actions of that Christian culture—unless you really step out in faith and seek God beyond your borderlands of comfort and self-assurance—unless you, like Abraham, “leave your land” and journey to a land that God will show you, you’ll never step out in faith.
And so, I’m sorry, but I don’t think O’Connor is quite as “sincere” as he presents himself to be. Again, he comes across as a very nice, pleasant guy, but he’s made quite a good living rehashing tired, old skeptical arguments that never go beyond cheap caricatures and emotional, subjective appeals. He’s gotten to meet quite a lot of famous people and has gotten a lot of notoriety himself. I don’t want to sound mean, but it’s what I have to conclude. You can read and study all you want about God in Haran, but unless you venture out into the wilderness, you won’t find Him. Sure, you’ll hear the invitation, but you won’t venture out into the wilderness, because, you know, “There’s nothing really there.”
Do you, Gary, and Lee still have your round table sessions down here?
It’s probably fair to suggest that the video title was not O’Conner’s idea and it is somewhat hyperbolic.
Convincing an indoctrinated Christian their beliefs are nonsense and not based on evidence is unlikely to have such people deconvert ing in droves.
As one who believes in the bodily resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth you should understand this more than most.
And consider your Heresy of Ham: I wonder how many thousands contacted you expressing their heartfelt appreciation for showing them how much of a disingenious arse is Ken Ham?
From my understanding religious deconversion is not usually a single lightbulb moment and immediately throwing in the towel.
Furthermore, as apologists have yet to present any new arguments to defend their faith O’Conner is merely offering his own take on dismantling them, which he does rather well, especially when one considers the best Christian Apologetics has to offer is the likes of Turek, Craig and Strobel.
Probably best to regard O’Conner as the New Kid on the block.
And if the likes of Hitchens and Harris didn’t / don’t move the needle for you then O’Conner probably won’t either.
This is not to say his take is not worthy of consideration or his facts are not on point but rather the beliefs he is countering are so ingrained that they are currently immune to evidence and reason.
That said, my initial observation regarding the likely outcome of you and he having a debate/discussion still stands.
After all, he showed up William Lane Craig for the despicable person he truly is and hardly broke sweat.
😊
His arguments were not good, by any stretch of the imagination. If you think his arguments in this video are good, then perhaps you are the indoctrinated one.
Me indoctrinated?
As I am an atheist THAT remark is very funny!
Atheists can delude themselves into indoctrinated thinking, just like anyone else. And if you think O’Connor’s arguments are convincing, that is telling. They’re not good arguments.
And what exactly do you consider I am indoctrinated with?
The rehashed atheist/skeptic “arguments” that are prevalent in those circles nowadays. Even if I was an atheist, I would admit that O’Connor’s arguments in this video are pretty shallow and unconvincing. It’s the same thing with, let’s say, Ken Ham. Only indoctrinated YECists think his arguments for a young earth are good. No clear-thinking, objective person will think either Ham’s or O’Connor’s arguments are that convincing.
But this is not what indoctrination means.
To clarify: You accept the resurrection and all that this encompasses because you consider you are a sinner etc etc.
This belief is based on zero evidence but you accept it as fact. Now that is the definition of indoctrination.
No, I believe in the resurrection because of a number of things, one of which is I find the NT accounts to be historically reliable. I don’t blindly believe in the resurrection. I am historically, logically convinced that what the NT is claiming really happened in history.
But belief is personal and your belief is certainly not based on evidence.
Belief in anything involves more than just personal bias. Your belief in anything is going to be based on your experiences and actual things that happen in the real world. I believe Jesus rose from the dead because, based on the textual evidence of the New Testament, I find it to be a trustworthy witness to history. And, being a human being, I believe God communicates and influences through things like my conscience.
Thus what I “believe/feel inside” correlates and corroborates what I study and investigate on the “outside” (i.e. historical evidence).
“I believe Jesus rose from the dead because, based on the textual evidence of the New Testament, I find it to be a trustworthy witness to history.”
The Biblical claims of the resurrection are not supported by evidence and I suspect the reason for your acceptance of the claim are largely emotional/cultural.
Agreed. But she is no lightweight and her perspective is a scholarly approach which is definitely food for thought.
Maybe, but I’m never going to pay $100 for a book! haha
The are a few videos online that you may find engaging.
The letters are fiction.
This is a short excerpt of his debate with DeSouza…
https://youtu.be/96BFlNajMDc?si=mHSXk5X4CKQ5nP2I
Ark, this blind assumption that merely being an atheist somehow magically guarantees you are aren’t/can never be indoctrinated is what I find funny.
Here’s the def. for “indoctrinate”:
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
Thus ANYBODY can be indoctrinated. The fact that you’re unaware of it raises HUGE red flags to me.
Pax.
Lee.
On a different but not completely unrelated note, have you ever read/reviewed Nina Livesey’s (current) book on Paul?
Nope, I haven’t heard of her.
She makes a very plausible case for the fictive nature of all Paul’s letters.
What do you mean by “fictive nature”?
It seems that just about any argument a person has for the non-existence of God you label as juvenile or illogical. So, I was wondering if you could give us an example of a mature, logical argument for the non-existence of God. Or, is the idea of God not existing so “inconceivable” (must be spoken as Vizzini would) that no such argument exists?
I say that in regard to the logical coherence of the argument. If someone says, “Based on my subjective ‘lived experience,’ I’ve never ‘felt’ God, therefore God doesn’t exist,'” that is simply a really bad argument. It would get an “F” in a debate or rhetoric class.
And yes, i do find most arguments to be illogical, and many of them are juvenile and based on caricatures of the Christian faith.
The fundamental problem with all of them is that they are treating God as a “thing” to be scientifically proven. The very calling it “the God hypothesis” is weird to me.
And when it comes to something like morality as being an indicator of God, skeptics trot out “oh, that’s a product of evolution.” The problem with that is evolution is, by definition, about biological changes, not non-material things. The argument is a twisting of what evolution is.
Ultimately, I’ve never come across a good argument for the non-existence of God. I understand feelings of uncertainty and doubt…we all of that. But that should lead to humility and more of a sense of wonder in that humility. But to confidently go around, declaring there is no God and making objectively poor arguments strikes me as hubris. It is a denial of a central part of one’s humanity.
All that said, I dont think there is a mature, logical argument for God’s non-existence. I’ve never come across one.
To convincingly argue for God’s non-existence, you’d have to argue for the meaninglessness of everything. If humans didn’t exist, and all we had was the natural world and all other forms of life, then yes, it would just seem to be random, evolutionary, organic, carbon-based life forms. There would be no actual MEANING to anything.
But that is not what we find. We have us–human beings–who make arguments, look for meaning, have a sense of morality, etc. We are wholly unique. And the act of making a meaningful argument for the meaninglessness of life is, in and of itself, a reputation of the notion that everything is meaningless.
Simply put, the very existence of human beings is an argument FOR God’s existence.
I’ve rambled enough. Lol
“Simply put, the very existence of human beings is an argument FOR God’s existence.”
Really? And the evidence for this is….?
The evidence is…human beings and their ability to contemplate beauty, art, music, law, morality, etc. etc. That is completely unlike anything else in the natural world. None of those things are apparent anywhere else. You don’t have cheetahs debating the morality of hunting antelope. You don’t have monkeys crafting symphonies or writing novels. There is something wholly unique about human beings, namely their consciousness and awareness of things beyond the natural world and mere material existence.
Unique we may well be but this is not an argument for your god, Yahweh.
It is an argument for the existence of a greater being with whom human beings have a connection with in some way. Once you acknowledge that–that there might really be a God–that is where you then look at what the different religions say, and then you reason out which one makes more sense.
No, it isn’t an argument for a greater being at all.
To assert this requires evidence of which you have absolutely zero.
I think we need to be cautious about ascribing these particular qualities to humans only. The more we observe the natural world, the more we find similar forms of behaviour in other animals. Perhaps not to the extent of humans, but they do exist such that its a matter of degree. Written language was the major innovation of humanity. A recent quote I heard: “humans are rare, not special.”
Man, no one tell this guys that monkeys can make art…
Consciousness. How do you explain the existence of MIND by purely evolutionary/biological processes? In other words, how do you get from unthinking matter to self-aware/thinking/reasoning matter?
The atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel is the only atheist I’m aware of honest enough to point out the elephant in the room in his book “Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False,” though he won’t consider God because, as he says, he doesn’t want God to exist.
Francis Collins argues that human DNA is the “language of God.”
Pax.
Lee.
The letters are fiction.
Not addressed to a genuine addressee.
That is certainly NOT a consensus view of NT scholars. Such a claim actually flies in the face of that accepted consensus.
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2025/09/07/the-great-inconsistency-in-conservative-christian-apologetics/
Have you looked into Graham Oppy’s arguments against God at all? Even the big Christian philosophers like Craig and Ed Feser say he’s probably the most formidable proponent of atheism alive today.
And the reason I said you should talk to O’Connor on that other post wasn’t because I thought you should debate him or anything, I just thought you might find it refreshing to talk to an atheist who is open to polite discussion, as opposed to the cringey New Atheists and some of the characters in your comment sections here.
A well-written article. You have a way of using just the right words to describe things that I’ve been thinking about but sometimes struggle to articulate.
One question, the clips in that video look reasonably old (though the video itself is recent). Have you watched any of Alex O’Connor’s newer stuff? He almost sounds like a Christian himself these days sometimes.
I haven’t seen any of his newer stuff. Like I believe i said in the article, I’ve never followed him to begin with. I just happened to see that particular video and commented on it.
That’s fine. I only mentioned it to say that he has changed a lot over the last couple of years. I would recommend, if you’re interested of course, checking out an interview he did with John Lennox a few months ago.
He’s on a journey.
Hi There,
I have a question for you if you have time, but wanted to give brief background for context.
I spent most of my life as a very militant(angry) progressive athiest, although after 35 years of researching, “what are the roots of human violence” I am now fairly conservative and on the fence about God. IF he does exist, I’m certain Christianity is the only religion that could be true but I’m not sure he exists.
So having said that, with regards to alex’s comments on not finding God, I feel the same way as him and am a bit confused by your comments. What do you mean by this:
“You can read and study all you want about God in Haran, but unless you venture out into the wilderness, you won’t find Him. Sure, you’ll hear the invitation, but you won’t venture out into the wilderness, because, you know, “There’s nothing really there.””
I understand where he is coming from, I’ve tried to look at the evidence and continue to learn, but I simply don’t have any belief at all. I can’t convince myself, I don’t feel or experience any connection.
But perhaps I don’t understand what you are all talking about when you talk about Faith, maybe I’m completely missing the point.
I would have expected to “feel” something, or have some kind of epiphany, encounter, something…anything. But nope, nothing.
What other approach can one take “other” than to keep reading and studying until some new understanding might appear? What do you mean by venturing out?
The fact that the bible doesn’t say that geography is a reliable statistical source, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It just is. There is no going around that. It is a fact, wether the bible says it or not. You can just say that it is based on faith and not geography, but if you were born in Thailand, you would have been a buddhist and thus an atheist with high probability. why is it that these people are so less likely to be saved? It seems incredibly unfair for a loving and just god who wants everyone to know him. And the same goes for other countries. Also, no one is born religious, everyone is born atheist. It is from the moment that parents start indoctrinating their children that that gets changed. If this wouldn’t happen, everyone would be atheist, as is the default position, because there is no sufficient proof for a god.
On the other hand, the fact that he “rehashes” these arguments, is just because there hasn’t been any good, evidence based answers to religion’s problems raised by atheists.
you also say that “It doesn’t matter if 95% of the world’s population is convinced of God’s existence” on the problem of divine hiddenness. My first answer to this would be that all these people believe in so many different gods. One of them is right or none of them are right, they cannot all be right. This 95%, which is actually closer to 85% of the world population, is not unified in something. You cannot use this as an argument because you undermine yourself. They all claim that they have felt, seen or heard god, but they all give a different name to that god. This is why it is unbelievable to people who haven’t expierenced it themself. You can say you feel the presence of jesus or something like that, but someone in the middle east will say it is Allah.
Also, it doesn’t matter how many people believe in something for it to be true. there was a time where everyone on earth believed the earth was flat and the sun circled around the earth, but we found out that that is just not the case. Religion is taken down step by step through scientific evidence. It tries to find new things to hold on to en tries to fit it inside of the religion by reinterpreting scripture or saying that it is metaphor, although in earlier times, these scriptures were taken literally.
So it matters how many people believe something and why they believe it…or it doesn’t…depending on if you can use the situation to cast doubt on Christianity. Got it.
I would suggest sticking to reddit and not trying to critique actual scholars, since Joel has addressed every silly part of your comment in other posts, if you bother to look.
Your comment raises a cluster of important issues—religious geography, divine hiddenness, religious disagreement, indoctrination, and the relationship between science and religion. These deserve careful treatment rather than slogans on either side.
1. Geography, birth, and salvation
It is certainly true that religious affiliation correlates strongly with geography. Christian philosophers and theologians do not deny this; in fact, it is one of the most discussed issues in contemporary philosophy of religion. But acknowledging correlation is not the same as granting your conclusion.
First, Christianity has never taught that salvation depends merely on accidental birthplace or exposure to a specific label. From Paul (Romans 2) to Aquinas to Vatican II to modern Protestant theologians, there is a long-standing distinction between:
General revelation (God known through conscience, reason, and creation)
Special revelation (God known through Scripture and Christ)
The New Testament explicitly affirms that God judges people according to the light they have, not the light they lack (Luke 12:48; Romans 2:14–16). This directly undercuts the claim that a Thai Buddhist is automatically “less likely to be saved” due to geography in a morally arbitrary way.
Second, your argument assumes a zero-sum model of salvation—as if God either saves only those with optimal historical luck or is unjust. Classical Christian theology rejects this framing. The question is not “Were you born in the right country?” but “How do you respond to truth, goodness, and grace as it confronts you?” That response may take culturally different forms without implying divine unfairness.
2. “Everyone is born atheist”
This is a definitional sleight of hand. Infants are not atheists in any meaningful philosophical sense; they are pre-theistic. They lack developed beliefs about nearly everything—morality, mathematics, personal identity, or science. Calling this “atheism” empties the term of content.
More importantly, cognitive science cuts against your claim. Research in developmental psychology (e.g., Justin Barrett, Paul Bloom) consistently shows that humans have natural dispositions toward:
Teleological reasoning (seeing purpose)
Agent detection
Moral realism
These tendencies do not prove God—but they do show that atheism is not the default cognitive position in the way you claim. Atheism, like theism, is a reflective position arrived at through interpretation, not a neutral baseline free of assumptions.
3. Indoctrination cuts both ways
The “indoctrination” argument is symmetrical. Children are also inducted into:
Naturalism
Scientism
Moral relativism
Political ideologies
No worldview is transmitted in a vacuum. The question is not whether formation occurs, but whether the beliefs formed are true and justified. Calling religious formation “indoctrination” while treating secular formation as neutral is question-begging.
4. Divine hiddenness and religious disagreement
You are correct that religious believers are divided, and no serious Christian denies this. But disagreement alone does not imply nonexistence. Philosophers recognize this as a weak inference.
There is deep disagreement in:
Ethics
Metaphysics
Political theory
Even the interpretation of scientific data
Yet we do not conclude that morality, reality, or the external world do not exist.
Moreover, Christianity does not claim that all religious experiences are equally veridical. The Christian claim is that God has acted decisively in a public, historical way—in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth—precisely to anchor faith in history rather than subjective feeling alone (1 Corinthians 15).
The fact that Muslims call God “Allah” does not undermine Christianity. “Allah” simply means “God,” and the disagreement is about who God is and how He has acted, not whether people are reporting random, unrelated experiences.
5. Popular belief is not the argument
You are right that truth is not determined by majority vote. Christian apologists who cite widespread belief are not making a proof, but a contextual point against the claim that God is utterly hidden or inaccessible.
The flat-earth analogy fails because:
Ancient people did not universally believe the earth was flat (that is a modern myth)
Scientific models were revised because of new explanatory power, not because religion was “taken down step by step”
Christian theology has always distinguished between core doctrinal claims and ancient cosmological assumptions. Reinterpretation is not ad hoc retreat; it is how all serious intellectual traditions survive engagement with new knowledge—including science itself.
6. “No good evidence-based answers”
This assertion is simply false. Whether one finds them persuasive is another matter, but there exists a vast body of rigorous, peer-engaged Christian philosophy addressing precisely these issues—Plantinga on epistemology, Swinburne on probability, Wright on history, Aquinas on metaphysics, and many others.
To say “there are no good answers” usually means “I am not convinced by the answers,” which is a very different claim.
—
Conclusion
Your concerns are understandable, but they rely on several assumptions that Christianity itself does not hold: that salvation is geographically arbitrary, that atheism is a neutral default, that disagreement negates truth, and that religion retreats only out of desperation.
Christian faith, at its best, does not ask people to abandon reason, history, or moral intuition—but to follow them further than reductionism allows.
Disagreement remains—but it is far from the knockdown refutation you suggest.
AI: Muslim apologists, both historically and in the modern era, heavily use philosophy, logic, and rational arguments to defend Islamic doctrines. While primarily rooted in scriptural revelation, Islamic apologetics employs intellectual tools to prove the existence of God, the coherence of the Quran, and the veracity of the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings
Gary: Isn’t it interesting that Muslims also use philosophy to defend their supernatural belief system?
Look who’s here to diss a field he doesn’t get and brag about it again…
And atheists use it to defend naturalism, yes, this is how philosophical debate works (present company excluded, since you’ve admitted you don’t understand philosophy and are proud of that fact) what’s your point exactly?
My point is that if everyone can “prove” his worldview using the principles of philosophy, maybe philosophy is not the best means to evaluate the veracity of supernatural claims. A very wise man once said, “Philosophy is dead.” He didn’t mean that philosophy is useless and that we should discard it. He simply meant that, today, the fundamental questions of our existence (those that remain), are better answered by the hard data that science can provide. In other words, philosophy has served its purpose but its time to move on. Its time to move on to a better method of universal truth discovery. Science is that better method.
Typo: I mixed up my it’s and its.
The claim that “science is the better method for discovering truth” isn’t itself a scientific claim—it’s a philosophical one. So it undercuts itself.
Science is incredibly powerful, but it’s limited to the empirical world. It can’t answer questions about meaning, morality, existence, or even what counts as a valid explanation in the first place—those are philosophical issues.
Also, disagreement doesn’t discredit a method. Scientists disagree all the time; that doesn’t mean science fails.
What’s really being assumed here is scientism—the idea that only science gives real knowledge—but that claim can’t be proven by science either.
In reality, science depends on philosophy (logic, induction, inference) to function. You don’t move beyond philosophy to science—you presuppose philosophy to do science at all.
Oh, and FYI, even many atheist scientists say your “wise man” was overreaching on a subject (philosophy) he didn’t really understand, just like you are.
But I’ve seen enough of your posts and comments to know you won’t let go of your presumptions, no matter how many times the flaws are pointed out to you. I’ve also been told by a reliable source that trying to steer into a good faith conversation with you would be an exercise in futility, so as my time and mental health are finite, I’ll not continue this cycle of talking past one another, and leave it here.
If your buddy Lee wants to jump in here, that’s fine, but I’m out.
I am not saying that philosophy is of no value. Not at all. The principles of logic and critical thinking are still extremely important. An advanced society cannot function without them. So it is not: Out with philosophy and in with science. No. But to advance further in our understanding of our complex universe, we need a method than can interpret hard data. Philosophy cannot do that. Therefore, philosophy cannot take us any further. Philosophy is dead in the sense that it simply rehashes the same issues over and over without resolution. Where there are ten philosophers, there are eleven different opinions. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists all believe that a proper understanding of the principles of philosophy will lead to the confirmation of their belief system, but in reality the philosophical debate is never settled. Each side walks away believing they are the winner. Not so in science. That is why science is the better method for universal truth discovery. Can science determine morality? No. Human cultures must decide their own rules of behavior (morality). Can science investigate supernatural claims? No. Supernatural claims cannot be investigated by the scientific method. So what should humans do with supernatural claims? Let’s put supernatural beliefs in the same category as preferences and other subjective opinions.
Have you ever considered that the very term “supernatural” isn’t in the Bible? That label carries with it the presupposition that the only thing “real” is the natural, material world–matter. Science deals with the observation and testing of matter. That’s it. It is limited in its scope. There are many things that happen in the natural world, though, that defy scientific explanations. Those things are the (wait for it) actual “natural/material evidence” that there is a reality beyond the mere natural world, and that sometimes it “breaks in” to the natural world in a way that the mere natural sciences cannot explain.
Philosophy and religion claim to be the ways we humans can study and contemplate that reality.
You are using logic and commonsense again, Gary. That is unfair. You know Christians cannot deal with this, approach.
Why do I think Arky has found a way around my ban? lol
Previously you stated you would never ban me again. Then shortly afterwards you banned me.
I wonder what this says about your personal integrity, Joel?
“Science deals with the observation and testing of matter. That’s it. It is limited in its scope. There are many things that happen in the natural world, though, that defy scientific explanations.”
I agree with you, Joel. Science cannot investigate laws-of-physics defying claims. Therefore, laws-of-physics defying events can only be investigated by faith: one’s subjective feelings and perceptions. Therefore, no scientist can disprove your belief that the spirit of Jesus “dwells within you” and that he communicates with you in some inaudible fashion.
When someone claims that a previously deceased person has appeared to him in a “heavenly body”, we cannot disprove this claim. Heavenly bodies do not leave DNA at the scene. However, if multiple people claim to have seen this “heavenly body” at one time and place, we CAN investigate this claim. We can investigate it by comparing the independent testimony of each claimant to see if they corroborate each other’s stories. However, to get an accurate result, we must be certain that the eyewitness testimonies are independent (no witness had prior access to the testimony of another) and that all testimonies are in regards to the same alleged appearance event. Without these two criterion being met, the testimony of this group of alleged eyewitnesses is not trustworthy.
Did I stutter, or do you just have an insatiable need for the last word? Get a life
Good grief, what a ridiculous pile of horse manure! Much like the bible itself. How in the hell is anyone walking this Earth in 2026 still talking about the insanity of Christian dogma and doctrines as though they’re not the preposterous Dark Age nonsense that they obviously are.
Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. An irrational, absurd superstition founded on the idiotic lunacy of blood atonement. The god of the Old Testament, YAHWEH, is a primitive, and often barbaric, tribal diety. He’s a fictional Iron Age god of war. Obsessed with circumcised penis skins, animal and human sacrifice, stoning people to death for ridiculous reasons, genocide, infanticide, war and destruction, etc. The God of the Old Testament is a creation from the minds of prescientific, unenlightened tribespeople who didn’t know where the sun went at night. He has all of the worst qualities of human beings—petty, vindictive, jealous, barbaric, irrational, misogynistic, etc.,—-with few of the best qualities of humans.
Thankfully, YAHWEH is no more real than Zeus, Thor, Baal or the Easter Bunny.
Christians may as well open up a Mother Goose childrens book and have a serious philosophical discussion about Little Miss Muffett or Humpty Dumpty. Neither of which is any more absurd than the preposterous nonsense that Christianity espouses…..A Creator that completely ignores humankind for thousands of years before deciding the time was right to slide up inside a virgin’s coochie in ancient Palestine in order to have a sadistic human sacrifice offered up to appease his bloodthirsty desires…..the “virgin” Mary must have had some really sweet poontang!!
Christians, try letting the light of reason into your religion-soaked minds. Put away your ancient fables and grow the hell up.
Haha…clearly you have read a lot of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens…and Jerry Coyne. Everything you just said is a joke and evidence of someone who deals in stupid caricatures in order to avoid actually thinking critically.
Wow every youtube comment rolled into one
John,
When are you guys going to stop cutting-and-pasting the same tired objections to the Christian faith?
There are so many generalizations, mis-statements, assumptions and misunderstandings (a few of them rather vulgar and off-color) in your last that I could write a whole book correcting them.
Oh, wait! People *have* written books correcting them. *Lots* of people. But apparently you guys never read them. How is that evidence of critical thinking?
It’d be a little different if you’d come up with *different* generalizations, mis-statements, assumptions and misunderstandings, yet you keep pushing the same old ones I’ve been reading online for the past twenty or so years.
If your post above is evidence of the much-vaunted atheist critical thinking theism has *absolutely nothing* to fear.
But these ludicrous mischaracterizations are the arguments atheists typically make when they cannot make arguments from actual evidence.
Please, somebody give us an Antony Flew before his conversion to deism. There was an atheist I respected because he at least knew how to make a reasoned argument based upon a factual understanding/assessment of the evidence.
Pax.
Lee.
Hi Lee!
What about this argument: If “big” miracles like those described in the Bible, the Koran, and the Hindu Scriptures never occur today, is it rational for modern educated people today to believe these events occurred several thousand years ago?
In other words: Why is it that Jesus, Allah, Lord Krishna, Zeus, Jupiter, and the gods of every other culture on the planet stopped performing “big” miracles with the advent of the camera and iPhone?
Theists can use philosophy to argue for the existence of their gods, but philosophy doesn’t help them to explain why all the gods in the universe stopped performing “big” miracles once someone in the crowd had an iPhone to record the event.
The fact that your very statement is riddled with problems testifies to the fact there is no sense trying to have a rational conversation with you. The fact that you group those together shows you don’t even know anything about those other gods and religions. Heck, ZEUS AND JUPITER IS THE SAME GOD, and you’ve listed him as TWO!
Hi Joel! I hope you are well, my friend.
AI: Looking for tiny faults in an opponent’s argument rather than addressing the major point is most commonly called nitpicking or quibbling. When this tactic is used intentionally to avoid the main argument, it is often called derailing, sidetracking, or a red herring fallacy.
Ok, how’s this? Krishna, Zeus/Jupiter, and Allah are not and have never been claimed to be human beings.
I am aware of that, my friend, but that does not address my point.
My point is: Why did ALL the gods in the universe stop performing the “big” miracles?
Why does every culture on the planet have tales of their gods performing massive, laws-of-physics defying, HUGE events in front of dozens/hundreds/thousands of eyewitnesses… but these same gods seem to have ALL gone silent since the invention of photography. What would be the most rational explanation for this phenomenon?
If you were aware of that, you wouldn’t have made the absurd comment. People before the iphone were not ignoramouses who thought “miracles” happened every day, ho hum. Besides, nobody ever thought the Greek myths were historical claims. To essentially say, “Oh, science and reason have disproven that Zeus ever turned into a bull” is simply illogical. No one thought there was a flesh-and-blood Zeus among humanity, living in history, who really did that.
The historical claims of Jesus’ dynamic deeds are knowingly extraordinary claims. People marveled at them precisely because those types of things normally don’t happen. And there are many things that happen in the natural world that cannot be explained. And there are accounts and eyewitnesses to this day of various things that would be considered miraculous. So, everything you are saying is false on its premise.
I explicitly said “big” miracles. I’m certain that you and your readers understand what that infers. Examples would be:
-the parting of a sea (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)
-the sun “standing still”
-the walls of a great city crumbling to the ground due to the blast of trumpets
-prophets who raise people from the dead (Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc.)
-healing total blindness and leprosy
-turning water into wine
-feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread and two fish
-three hours of darkness
-holy men who can reattach severed body parts (the high priest’s servant’s ear)
-shadows that heal the sick (Peter)
-talking animals (Judeo-Christianity and Hinduism)
These “big” miracles do not happen today. Ever. They do not happen in any religion on the planet. Why did these “big” miracles occur in Antiquity but do not occur in the modern era? What is the most likely explanation? I think the answer is obvious, if you allow yourself to be objective.
“And there are many things that happen in the natural world that cannot be explained. And there are accounts and eyewitnesses to this day of various things that would be considered miraculous. So, everything you are saying is false on its premise.”
MIRACLE (dictionary definition): a surprising event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
Yes, our universe is full of mystery…but much less mystery since the dawn of the scientific method. But you are correct, Joel, odd things still happen which scientists cannot explain. And there will probably always be events which occur in our universe which we humans cannot explain. But just because an event has no (known) explanation at this moment does not necessarily mean it is a miracle. A very natural explanation may one day in the future be discovered. The problem for theists is that they cannot prove that *any* odd event in human history was the work of divine agency because by their own admission the divine cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.
Christianity has eyewitness testimony, you say? If eyewitness testimony regarding supernatural events is as good and reliable as Christians claim it to be, why do most Christians reject with little or no investigation the eyewitness testimony regarding miraculous claims in other religions? The fact is, the alleged eyewitness testimony for Christianity’s core claim, the Resurrection, is hotly disputed. Even if we accept the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, we know they had access to each other’s testimony. Jesus’ alleged miracles could therefore have been invented by one Gospel author and then embellished by each successive author. But even worse, no two Gospels describe the same alleged post-mortem appearance of Jesus! Therefore, each alleged post-mortem appearance story may be pure fiction…just as Christians assume is the case for Muslim and Mormon supernatural claims.
“Big” miracles like those I have listed above don’t happen today, Joel. Ever. So there is no good reason for educated, rational people living today to believe these same events occurred thousands of years ago. Either all the gods of the universe got together and jointly decided to cease their “big” miracles, or these stories are pure fiction…invented so that *you* might believe.
The “light of reason?” You owe that to the Christian faith you so disparage. Google “Scholasticism” and then tell us what you learn. But I’ll save you the trouble.
Here’s what AI says about Scholasticism:
“Scholasticism was a dominant medieval European philosophical and theological teaching method (c. 1100–1600) that used strict logic and dialectical reasoning to reconcile Christian faith with classical philosophy, particularly Aristotle. Key methods included lectio (reading) and disputatio (debate), aiming to resolve contradictory authorities. ”
Might I recommend a 2010 book by James Hannam, Professor of the History of Science at Oxford? The book is *God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science.* The American edition is called *The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution.*
Hannam demonstrates how modern science owes its genesis primarily to the Medieval Catholic Church.
Yes, Islam made some contributions, but like Medieval Christianity did.
Pax.
Lee.
“Not like Medieval Christianity did.”
Pax.
Lee.
Gary,
That “wise man” was far overreaching in his incorrect comments on philosophy, as even many atheist scientists will attest. And your assertion that debate within a method invalidates the method being used in a conversation is laughable at best, and I reject the scientistic assumptions built in to everything you say entirely. So really, best case scenario, you and I end up talking past each other in an endless loop.
I’ve also been told by a reliable source that good faith engagement with you is an exercise in futility, so I won’t go further here. I’ll just leave it to your buddy Lee to jump in here, if he wants to.
Every theist, including yourself, should ask themselves this one question: Why did all the gods, in all the world’s religions, stop performing big, spectacular, laws-of-physics defying miracles? Was it:
1. All the gods of the universe held a council and decided to end their spectacular displays of power.
2. The Christian God, the only god, ended his grand, multiply attested, spectacular miracles with the death of the apostles. The end of similar “big” miracle claims in other religions is a mystery.
3. All spectacular, laws-of-physics defying miracle claims from Antiquity are fictional tales/ legends, originating either due to hysteria but more probably due to intentional invention; invented to validate one’s belief system.