It’s absurd to think that some people make a conscious choice to suffer in eternal torment rather than experience the glory of Heaven. Evangelists hardly even ask whether people want to go to Heaven. Most assume everyone wants to be there and instead start with the question: “Do you think you will go to Heaven when you die?” Yet, there are people in this world who hate God to such a degree they would rather spend eternity in Hell than worship the Almighty.
Imagine someone walking up to a stranger and saying: “Hi, my name is Robert and I’d like to share with you the good news.” The stranger replies: “No, thanks. I don’t want to hear anything about Jesus today.” The evangelist replies: “Oh, no! I wasn’t talking about Jesus …I wanted to tell you about he new iPhone.” In our consumerist society, this scenario is not all that hard to imagine. In many cities it is more culturally acceptable to be an evangelist for Microsoft, Google, Apple, or Adobe than it is to evangelize the true Gospel.
After absorbing over 50 hours of apologetics lectures and debates on topics as simple as an overview of Genesis and as minute as cave formation in New Mexico, my friend and I had an idea. We seriously considered condensing the information in our vast, overpriced DVD library into a series of short video clips to deliver the key points in a way that would be more engaging to our generation and easy to share online.
We never got past the first script, but I am happy to report that several ministries with superior skills and funding have had the same idea in recent years. Answers in Genesis now has Check This Out, The Institute for Creation Research produces That’s a Fact, and Creation Today has my personal favorite: Creation Minute. These video series focus on foundational issues surrounding science and the Bible, but what about the other important questions of life?
Now, Mark Spence of Living Waters teaches on these broader topics in a series of apologetics videos taken from the Way of the Master TV Show. I was blown away by the quality of not only the teaching but also the production that goes with it. Unlike those old lectures, these videos get right to the heart of some of the most-asked questions about Christianity or religious beliefs in general. Everyone has time to watch three minutes (or less) of non-stop, hard-hitting apologetics on the questions that matter most.
You can watch all 10 videos below or click a link to jump to a specific clip.
As atheists grow bolder in the absence of such boldness from christian leaders in the Western world, we have begun to find new terms to describe this group. Typically, we call them the “New Atheists” – ones who do not simply lack belief in God, but actively assert that God does not exist and “evangelize” their worldview. Now, I have found a better word proposed by Robin Schumacher, a blogger for the Christian Post. He proposes the term “Hatetheist” to describe those who cannot help but espouse their hatred (not just disagreement) with theism, especially of the Christian variety.
Schumacher raises a number of points that resonate with me (and I suspect most who engage in any debates with atheists), such as:
…atheists keep Christians honest where our apologetics are concerned, and they are helpful in showcasing what the philosophy of naturalism espouses and where it logically leads. Although we disagree on theological matters, I’ve found atheists to be respectful, intelligent, and understanding in many of our discussions. They have thought through their positions, present them in a well-organized manner, and are happy to consider contrary positions and opposing arguments to their stance.
In contrast, he says, “discussing theology with hatetheists is an exercise in futility.” He lays out 8 points describing what sets the hatetheist apart from other atheists. Below is my attempt to boil down his comparisons for simplicity.
| Atheist | Hatetheist |
| Respectful | Name-caller |
| Uses names “God”, “Jesus” | “Invisible sky fairy”, “Jewish zombie” |
| Recognizes intellectual equality | Believe they have superior intellect |
| Considers and addresses arguments | Uses red herrings, dodges questions |
| Recognizes limits of science | Adheres to scientism |
| Universally critiques all gods | Focuses on God of Christianity |
| Promotes freedom of religion | Promotes freedom from religion |
| Does not see Christianity as a threat | Fights against threat of Christianity |
These distinctions are important because they can help discern how best to respond or approach an unbeliever. While it may be a good idea to continually engage with an atheist for evangelism or other discussion, Schumacher warns against such continued interaction with hatetheists. He gives a number of scriptural examples for this conclusion, which is summed up with a quote from Richard Weaver’s book, Ideas Have Consequences:
“Nothing good can come if the will is wrong. And to give evidence to him who loves not the truth is to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”
If you often engage with atheists online, I would strongly recommend reading his entire post. Do you agree that we should sometimes disengage with an unbeliever, or is it always advisable to keep the dialogue going?
“93% of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are atheists,” boasts the social media proselytizer who is now all but certain he has presented inarguable evidence that rational, thinking people are drawn away from theism. It comes from a survey conducted in 1996 and published in the journal Nature. I have seen this statistic often enough that I decided to dig into it a bit further. It is now clearer than ever that this survey is an example of selection bias and further supports the assertion that the NAS is intolerant.
Right from the start, the 93% number is a little misleading. 72% disbelieve in God while 23% express doubt or agnosticism. Atheists routinely lump in agnostics in figures like this if it is to their advantage, but agnostics often describe themselves that way to separate their views from their understanding of atheism. But, this may be little more than semantics.
What if we looked at a different group of scientists? When surveyed in 2009, a slight majority (51%) or respondents from the American Association for the Advancement of Science expressed belief in God (or a “higher power”) and 41% indicated disbelief. It turns out this survey matches rather closely with a survey done 100 years ago, even showing a slight increase in theism among the scientists polled.
Still a different group, university professors, end up somewhere in the middle of these figures. A 2010 survey found 34% were atheists, 30% agnostic, and 27% expressed some level of belief in God.
So far it’s clear that while scientists are far more likely than the general population to be atheist, the 93% figure is simply not an accurate representation of scientists as a whole. Now, let’s extend the data even further.
In academia, the consequences for your conclusion being wrong is a retraction from an academic journal, a scathing peer review, or wider public scrutiny. In other environments, the cost of being wrong are people’s very lives. Certainly few people think that doctors work with anything other than an evidence-based evaluation and decision-making process. If they were to do otherwise, they face severe civil or criminal penalties while their patient suffers physically to varying degrees. Physicians must rely on science when it really counts.
Are these rational-minded professionals also inclined to be atheists? Not quite. As of 2005, 76% expressed belief in God. While this is still lower than the general population, it turns out that doctors are actually more likely to attend religious services – 90% of them vs. only 81% of Americans as a whole. If we were to accept that the majority opinion of an evidence-based profession proves that thinking people should accept their view, we may hold this up as a persuasive argument for converting to theism. I do not recommend that approach for the reasons explained throughout this article.
What might explain these differences in beliefs across a range of scientists? As an engineer who also relies heavily on facts to form conclusions, I prefer not to speculate too far without doing more extensive research. Allow me to offer two possible causes to consider: indoctrination and culture. American universities are now breeding grounds for anti-religious minds. Over time our culture has trended the same direction, and the sub-culture in academic circles is likely to influence the distribution of religious beliefs in that group.
In earlier times, higher institutes of learning we’re built by Christians and Western society was far more deeply committed to biblical truth. Indeed, the greatest scientific minds who pioneered most of the major branches of science were theists. This fact alone indicates that theistic belief is no detriment to the advancement of scientific inquiry, if not the very basis for science itself.
When we consider the full range of data and look at it objectively, we find every good reason to reject the “majority of scientists are atheists” argument so often presented. The wide disparity among different groups of scientists also shows that they are human like everyone else, subject to the same influences and pressures that shape our ideas about the world. This is why we must always look to a higher standard than ourselves. Let us trust instead in the words of an all-knowing being, not in the wisdom of men with limited knowledge or understanding (1 Cor 2:5).