Letter To An Atheist

Posted on by

I understand you having doubts. I understand having doubts because I’ve had many. I’ve questioned the existence of God. I’ve questioned the character of God. I’ve questioned if Jesus was God incarnate. I’ve questioned what’s in the Bible. I’ve questioned if faiths other than Christianity were true. I’ve questioned if atheism were true. I’ve doubted these things very, very strongly at times, and at times the questions I’ve had enveloped my mind fully, and tore at my heart.

I doubt there’s anything you doubt about God, the Bible, Jesus, creation, or anything you doubt that I haven’t doubted. If there are any doubts you have that I haven’t considered I’ll probably get to them.

I doubt, and question, because that’s the way I am. Call it what you like, critical thinking, an open mind, being logical, or just being careful with this life that I have, wanting to live it to the fullest, most meaningful and productive way I can. Living it in the most truthful way I can, my human faults notwithstanding. I think we can both agree that these are good things. I hope so.

I’m not ashamed to admit I have had, and likely will have more doubts or at least questions about this faith I hold to. John the Baptist, who was Jesus harbinger as well as cousin, had his own doubts about who Jesus was, despite his previous personal experience with Jesus. When John the Baptist was in prison, he sent messengers to Jesus to ask Him “Are you the One who was to come, or should we expect somebody else?”. I’m in good company.

You may be thinking I’m wrong to characterize you as having doubts. You may be thinking “I don’t doubt that there is a God, I’m sure there isn’t”. Maybe you don’t have doubts. I would suggest to you that doubting is healthy, that doubting what we believe–or don’t–is a vital and important part of life, and loving and seeking truth. Stagnation of the heart or mind is a terrible thing, and a waste of who we are, or could become.

I would also suggest that as human beings we are all prone to bias. At our best, and sometimes with help, we’re prone to bias but not tethered by it, not held back by bias.

See, bias can, as it always does, blind us to the truth, or stop us from seeking it. Sometimes in ways we don’t even realize, because, again, bias blinds us. We may investigate or research a subject, and then when we find information or evidence that agrees with our bias we’ll stop right there, not going any further, and setting aside the possibility that there may be information or evidence that disagrees with our bias. Walking away, sometimes running, from the possibility that the beliefs of our bias could be wrong. That WE could be wrong.

I would ask, implore you even, to consider–without bias–earnestly and thoroughly investigating and researching the aspects of Christianity. This may entail researching information put forth by “the other side”, and an abundance of it. This may entail conversation with learned Christian apologists. This may be hard to do. And sometimes, having an open heart is much harder an engagement than having an open mind. But both are necessary if we are to authentically seek truth.

Maybe you’ve had bad experiences with Christians. I would think it’s quite likely. Join the club. I, and every Christian, has had bad experiences with Christians. I and every Christian is guilty of being part of, of causing a bad experience. We’re human, with all the faults and frailties that come with being so. We call it sin, or having a sinful nature. To say otherwise is to let our ego lie to you and to ourselves. And to God. Make no mistake, those lies have been told. To say otherwise is, again, to lie to you, ourselves and God. If you were to tell me you have not been the cause of someone’s bad experience, I would not believe you. I think it’s fair to believe that our human nature is on equal ground; that is, that we’re both far from perfect. Our imperfections will have similarities, and we also will have our own unique imperfections; the point is we have them nonetheless.

Allow me to make this statement: You are loved. You may not believe me; you may have had personal experiences that lead you to think otherwise; or perhaps you may have a bias that prevents you from believing it, but it is true.

You are not my enemy. Even if you want to be. Even if you insist on trying to be. Even if other Christians acted as if you were. Even if other Christians acted as if they were your enemy. The reason for this is that I see you as God sees you: precious, no matter what you say, no matter what you do. Because of this, I cannot hate you, even if you try to make me hate you.

I know it’s unlikely that you’ll believe this now, but Jesus loves you too. More than you can conceive. So let me put it to you this way: If there is the possibility, even if you think it’s remote, of there being a love so great as to be infinite and nearly inconceivable, a love so abundant that it inspires and compels the heart of a sinful man like me to love someone I don’t even know and who might even hate me, or at least what I represent, isn’t that love worth investigating? If love is the highest and best thing in the universe, isn’t it rational to seek out such a love?

The great challenge is to doubt that which we think is undoubtable, and question that which we think is unquestionable. We must ask ourselves if we’ve done that. I’m asking you to do so.

Disclaimer: IN NECESSARIIS UNITAS, IN DUBIIS LIBERTAS, IN OMNIBUS CARITAS. The Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) agrees with and holds to the Apostles' Creed and rejects universalism. The CAA does not, as an organization, have positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. Our primary concern is to promote the gracious, rational defense of the central claims of Christianity and the critique of opposing systems of thought. The CAA community is a diverse one of many denominations. Blog entries made by individual authors reflect the views of the author and not necessarily the view of other CAA authors, or the official position of the group at large.
  • Myk Dowling

    I cannot conceive of a love such as you describe, an infinite love, being at the same time concerned with whether or not I reciprocate it.

    • http://agroundfloorview.wordpress.com MGaerlan

      Ah, but that is the nature of God, a being of pure love whose love that is not dependant on your reciprocity. A being whose love is so great as to sacrifive Himself for you nonetheless.

  • Myk Dowling

    To put it another way, why would I need to “seek out” an infinite love? Surely I would never doubt such a love, even more so than the way I need not seek out the love of my parents. The simple fact of my non-belief is incompatible with such a thing. Assn infinitely loving God cannot exist, because I do not know of it.

    • http://agroundfloorview.wordpress.com MGaerlan

      Hi Myk, thank you for replying. I had started to reply to you, and as it turned out, the reply ran over 600 words. So I’m just going to make my reply a new post, a “part 2″ if you will. I would say this to your statement “because I do not know of it”. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. What I mean here is that although you may not know of it, you not knowing doesn’t imply non-existence, merely the absense of evidence in your personal experience.

    • http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/ Admin

      Arguments from ignorance are logically fallacious. Also–he has made his love known…not every night on Broadway…but once, for all, in switching perspectives with us on the cross. And putting us in this universe, on this earth, to exist.

      • Myk Dowling

        Not an argument from ignorance, an argument from absence. You claim this infinite love exists. I don’t feel it. Therefore, it’s not universal.

        • http://agroundfloorview.wordpress.com MGaerlan

          Hi Myk, thank you for replying. I would argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We cannot say that because we cannot perceive something, that it does not exist. For example, in quantum physics there’s theoretically over 20 dimensions. Now we cannot, using either our finite human senses or finite scientific tools of induction determine that to be true (or not). Because we cannot observe these dimensions does not mean they do not exist. Or, say right now one of my relatives in the Philippines is cooking a delicious dish of pancit bihon. I have no way of knowing–using my finite human senses and finite tools of induction– whether this is true or not. That does not change the fact that it is true.

          I would also suggest (and I hope this is not dismissed as arguing in a circle) that the written record of Jesus life is evidence of Gods love.

        • MGaerlan

          Myk, I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This holds true in science as well. For instance, in quantum physics there are theoretically over 20 dimensions (as many as 28, if I recall correctly). Now lets say, for arguments sake, that this is true. The finite limitations of scientific tools to observe cannot prove it. Our finite human senses cannot prove it. But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and just because we cannot observe these dimensions it does not mean they don’t exist.
          I would also say that there’s material evidence of Gods love in that which we call His Word, that is, the Bible.

          • Myk Dowling

            I don’t believe that the Bible is evidence of an infinite love. It describes an entity whose love is tempered by petty jealousy and bigotry.

          • MGaerlan

            Myk, your view of the Bible and how it portrays God is quite common. May I ask what specific accounts in the Bible lead you to your conclusion of it?

          • Myk Dowling

            Starts with Genesis and ends with Revelations.

          • Admin

            Myk–if you’re going to troll and not give actual arguments, you’ll be blacklisted.

          • Myk Dowling

            MGaerlan said my view was “quite common”. That led me to believe that I didn’t need to be too explicit. Sorry.

          • MGaerlan

            Myk, by not giving specific examples that support your premise and conclusion, but rather a “blanket damnation”, if you will, you severely damage your argument and credibility.
            My purpose in asking was to look into your objections, and determine, through an educated, ans rational and reasonable point of view, if they have validity.

          • Myk Dowling

            Sorry, when you said my view was “quite common”, I figured I didn’t need to be precise, and I haven’t really looked at any of it in some time. The whole “eternal torture for not worshipping me” theme is the main part of it. I can’t quote chapter and verse, and my argument isn’t reliant on it. In fact my argument is that the infinite love you describe should be obvious to all without any reference to an ancient text.

          • MGaerlan

            Misunderstanding understood. (I wonder how many times that phrase has ever been used, lol)
            The “eternal torture for not worshipping me” seems to be a misunderstanding of Gods nature. It’s not a case of where God is so vain that if we do not worship Him that He will punish us. The easiest way to explain it that comes to mind is the way Bono from U2 said it: “You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions.”
            See, the natural conclusion for all of our screw-ups (as I mentioned in the “Letter”, we all have them) should be being forever separated from a holy God. *That* is what leads us to hell–our own misdoings. But grace, and love, negate all of that.
            As far as evidence, what is the evidence of love? I think most people would say it’s “action”, in it’s various forms: A hug, a smile, a gift “just because”, or even more intense: donating an organ, or taking a bullet for a fellow soldier, giving ones life.
            Most of us have seen on the news, in whatever media, a story of someone giving their life for another–an act of not only bravery, because how could merely being brave inspire someone to do that? Bravery, soley, is overcoming a fear of heights to climb a mountain. Love is what compels one to sacrifice oneself for another. Now these stories that we have seen, read or heard in the media: how would we know of these stories of selfless love if somebody had not written them down, recorded them, etc?
            The Bible is our “reporter”, so-to-speak, about Gods love. This ancient text informs us of His love, and His sacrifice.
            In the same way that we would have no knowlege of history, of people such as Marc Antony, or Confuscius, without ancient texts, we would have no direct, comcrete evidence of Gods story without ancient texts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1851091909 Christopher Newton

    This is a beautiful piece of writing. Concerning love: In the Lords pursuits, love seems to be not the first interest at hand. What’s only obviouse is that we hope it to be.

    • http://agroundfloorview.wordpress.com MGaerlan

      Thank you for the compliment Christopher!

    • http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/ Admin

      Christopher–Love is the point, as demonstrated in Christ switching perspectives with us on the cross.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1851091909 Christopher Newton

        It just doesnt make sense. I see these two general directions as possibilities:

        God does have an absolute nature of love, but he does not have the ability to intervene and engage with humanity.
        ~ Therefore, he was not able to change the outcome of his followers who have been through an unimaginable amount of unnecessary suffering.

        God does not have the absolute nature of love, but he is able to intervene and engage with humanity.
        ~ Therefore, he chose not to change the outcome of his followers that have been through an unimaginable amount of unneccessary suffering. And miracles can be attributed to his name, but must be acknowledged as arbitrary, or personally selective.

        The heat is running, but there are too many open windows for it to stay warm in here. This topic is a challenging one.

        -Chris