The official blog of University of Missouri Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics
What would you accept as evidence for Christianity? All these Christian Apologists – Dinesh D’Souza, John Lennox, William Lane Craig and Frank Turek among a hundred others are trying in some way or another to build a defense for Christianity using historical evidence, scientific data, as well as theological and philosophical arguments. They use the ontological argument for God, the Kalam cosmological argument for God, the argument from degree and once again a hundred others to defend their faith. At the end of the day we must ask if Christianity is true would any of this be necessary? If simple honest prayer and reading the Bible could get the job done, then certainly the answer is no.
“Pray to Jesus and he will come through for you. Let God in and he will save you. Surrender to Jesus and he will guide you”. Even though it may not have been in those exact words, we have all heard this before in one form or another.
You will never walk into a church and hear the words, “If you just learn the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God and then give yourself to him you will be saved”. You will never hear this because if the God of the Bible is true in any sense he would not need apologists to defend him. The entire profession of Christian apologists would be non-existent.
A God or anything for that matter which is all-powerful and reveal itself when looked upon would not need anyone to defend it and come to its aid. The arguments listed above along with all the others would not be necessary if simply reading the Bible and praying could actually get the job done. The reason we have all of these apologists speaking out is because simply reading the Bible and praying to God doesn’t get the job done. It even appears to be working less than it used to because recent data from Gallup shows us that less and less of the American population identify as Christian every year. Data shows that religious groups have decreased in size whereas non-religious have increasingly grown in the past decades.
One could argue that Christian apologists exist to guide those that are spiritually confused. It doesn’t change the fact that praying to God and accepting him would not require knowledge of the moral or fine tuning argument for God. A skeptic will refute a Christian argument and instead of either moving on or admitting the argument was wrong, many apologists will attempt to improve on it by changing a word in the conclusion or adding a premise of some kind, like Paley’s argument from design which, in many cases, is called the watchmaker argument because it’s famous use of finding a clock walking along the beach. Now it has become popular for creationists to change the clock to a painting or a house (not really changing the argument).
Time should not have to be spent changing conclusions and premises when talking about an all-powerful being that wants to reveal himself. The God of the Bible should be rather self-evident if indeed true. The fact that many apologists have spent their lives and built careers on trying to prove it when one simply should be able to see it clear as day shows just how weak all of the arguments are.