I Would Believe If God Just (blank)

How Atheists Fail to Live by Their Beliefs - #2

Human beings are generally adverse to change. We like what is familiar. We also don’t like being wrong and are hesitant to admit when that might be the case. Lastly, it becomes an even greater challenge when admitting we are wrong and making a change will demand more of us. These are frequently the circumstances that devout atheists find themselves in when exploring the truth claims of Christianity. Admitting that the God of the Old and New Testaments may in fact exist would radically alter their lives. I admire those that are able to make that change however, there are many prominent figures who have been unable to come to belief.

In the debates or dialogues between believers and people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Dan Barker, it is not uncommon for the believer to ask, “What would convince you that God does or might exist?” In the links to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, they both admit that there is simply nothing that would possibly change their minds. But, Dan Barker gives another common response. He asks for a miraculous event. He asks that Trent Horn ask God to reveal to him what Dan has written on a piece of paper. You might hear elsewhere, “I would believe in God if I saw an amputee’s arm grow back.” Or you might hear, “If God rearranged the stars to say, ‘Hello, from God.’” It is also offered with a (feigned) excitement because it is just that simple for the all-loving, all-powerful God we all know and love to achieve 100% believer status among his children on Earth.

Underlying this modest request from our atheist friend is the knowledge that his or her wish will not be granted because otherwise He would have already done it. In the case with Dan Barker and Trent Horn, Dan accuses Trent of not really believing what his Bible says about God answering prayers. However, I think the Bible provides a perfect example of why the atheist is wrong about this as well.

In Mark 3, we are told of Jesus healing a man with a withered hand. The context of this miracle is very important. We are only in Mark’s third chapter, so Jesus has not been performing his ministry for long. However, before we get to the events of the story, Mark tells us, “they (The Pharisees) watched to see if he would heal him (the man with the withered hand) on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him.” After Jesus asks the man to come before everyone, he asks, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill?”

The text does not suggest that Jesus is asking a rhetorical question. We know that the Jewish people took the Sabbath rest very seriously, and the Old Testament gives severe punishments for violating the Sabbath including death. However, what we know of God would surely lead someone to understand that God does not oppose saving life in order to keep holy the Sabbath. Well, Mark tells us, “they were silent.” Jesus becomes angry and deeply grieved at the hardness of their hearts and proceeds with the healing.

Now maybe you think this healing actually counters the example of Dan Barker I gave above. I don’t think it is a stretch to question Dan’s openness to God being much different than the Pharisees’ openness to Jesus, but Jesus performed the miracle anyway. He didn’t withhold his divine intervention just because some nay-sayers were in the audience. The difference is Jesus tells us why he proceeds to heal the man in his question to the people of the synagogue. Jesus heals the man to give him life. He is not looking to convert the Pharisees. He is looking to love the man. Meanwhile Dan Barker is, as Trent Horn rightly points out, asking for God to be a performer in a parlor trick.

One might point out that is a good reason for God to not “participate” in a meaningless test of His divine knowledge, but it would be different if the atheist was asking for an amputee’s leg to be regrown. That would be a more direct comparison to the biblical account in Mark 3. And to that objection, I must admit that the skeptic is right. I know God could grow the leg back, but I don’t know if he would. Now, I believe God could have good reason to do so, and the lack of miracle would not shake my faith. The point of this article is not to address the question of why does God choose to heal some and not others.

This article is to address why I have good reason to believe that the atheist claiming the willingness to profess faith in the Lord may not be sincere, and it is because of the final line Mark gives us in this miracle story. After Jesus heals the man, Mark says, “Then the Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with the Herodians against him, in order to destroy him.” Someone with such a hard heart that they feel it necessary for the all-powerful God of the universe to accommodate their special request could easily remain obstinate in the face of their exact request being fulfilled.

In the end, I am not God and do not know the hearts of other men. However, the Holy Spirit has helped us understand that people have placed barriers between themselves and God’s revelation. For whatever particular reason, a choice can be made to look at God face-to-face and reject complete union with Him. This should grieve us like it did Jesus, and instead of being triumphant in refuting the atheist’s argument (which is good) or rejoicing in their possible comeuppance, I want to pray that a skeptic’s heart might be softened to consider and accept the evidence God has already revealed to them.

P.S. If you want to look into claims of restored limbs, look further into some of these miracles.