Profile of a Hatetheist

Over the past six or so years, I’ve engaged in many dialogs with individuals who claim that God does not exist. The typical label applied to such a person is atheist (“a” – no, “theist” – god, or belief in a god/deity). However, with all the conversations and interactions I’ve had, I see a distinct pattern emerging between an atheist and someone that instead I believe can be categorized as a hatetheist.  

I have absolutely no problem conversing with atheists. I appreciate the objections and arguments they bring against the Christian faith, which may sound strange at first to hear. But I hold to the position that one of my professors, Norman Geisler, adheres to. He reads atheist works during his devotional period because he says 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, smart, and understanding in many of our discussions. But the hatetheist – that’s a different story. Whereas I’m happy to have conversations with atheists, I’m increasingly finding that discussing theology with hatetheists is an exercise in futility.

Assembling the Profile of a Hatetheist

I thought I would try and present a profile of the hatetheist vs. the atheist so Christians can have an idea of when to enter into discussions and when to walk away with unbelievers. The below is based on my experience alone.

• Whereas the atheist is respectful during a conversation or interaction, the hatetheist – either immediately or very soon – descends into ad hominem attacks and disrespectful name calling. The names used many times completely mischaracterize a Christian’s true position (e.g. “flat-earther”). Sometimes, the hatetheist will go so far as to say that anyone who believes in God is clinically crazy or insane.
• In addition to attacking a Christian’s intelligence or character, the hatetheist routinely tosses out derogatory names or references to God (e.g. “invisible sky fairy”) and Jesus (a “Jewish zombie” or “Bejebus”). The atheist, however, typically does not refer to God or Jesus in such ways.
• Hatetheists tend to be inordinately arrogant and border on narcissism when it comes to their perception of their own intelligence vs. those who hold to a theistic worldview. An example are hatetheists who label themselves as "The Brights", with the obvious message being anyone who is not an atheist must be dimwitted. 
• The atheist genuinely considers arguments and presented evidence where the hatetheist does not. The hatetheist either ignores expert testimony, uses numerous red herrings, or charges the Christian with “quote smithing” when various quotes from experts are used to support the theistic position, and never considers the expert testimony. Ironically, many of the same hatetheists who do this maintain web sites with rotating quotes from famous atheists and sport links to other atheist sites that contain quotable information. But the bottom line is there is a “willing unbelief” in the hatetheist that will not entertain a position that is contrary to their own.  
• The atheist adheres to science, but understands and recognizes its limits, whereas the hatetheist is a devotee to scientism. If the faith of scientism is new to you, see what the limits of science are in a recent blog post of mine.
• The atheist tends to be universal in their critique of any god, but the hatetheist focuses mostly, if not solely, on Christianity. The hatetheist shows no fear in mocking Jesus in graphic ways, but is remarkably restrained where others such as Muhammad of Islam are concerned.
• The atheist’s actions are ones that are secure in that they will not lash out in irrational ways to thoughts of theism. Christianity is not threatening in that way, and they find no need to interject themselves into a Christian’s worship or their special days to interrupt them. The hatetheist, on the other hand, exhibits very insecure activity such as launching billboard promotional ads during seasons where their worldview is most threatened such as Christmas and Easter. 

Again, these are my own observations from the experiences I’ve had and things that I have witnessed.

Responding to the Hatetheist

How should a Christian interact with a hatetheist? The question is not an easy one to answer. On the one hand, there are some Christians who believe that we should continuously engage all unbelievers no matter their manner or attitude. They say that no one is too far gone and reference the Apostle Paul, who as Saul, was about as aggressive and hostile as any unbeliever ever could be.

A fair point, to be sure.

However, as I’ve done a little Biblical research in this vein, I’ve reached the current conclusion that the Scriptures seem to warn us away of continued (note the importance of that word) interaction with hatetheists where sharing the gospel is concerned.

Two episodes in the gospels give us Jesus’ take on the matter. First, is Christ’s command in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6). Commenting on this passage, John MacArthur in his Study Bible sums up Jesus’ warning in the following way: “This principle governs how one handles the gospel in the face of those who hate the truth.”

Another episode in Matthew demonstrates Christ’s attitude toward the same type of individual. After telling the Pharisees about their hypocritical manner and dark heart, Matthew records the following exchange between Jesus and His disciples: “Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:12–14). Notice three key words that sum up Christ’s position on such people: “Let them alone”. It’s not common to see the Son of God recommending against evangelism, but it happened in this case.

There are a number of examples outside the gospels worth considering, and one in particular stands out. Upon arriving in Pisidian Antioch, Paul entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and gave a stirring address. The end result was, “As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath” (Acts 13:42).

Luke records what happened next: “The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.”” (Acts 13:44–46, my emphasis).

The word “reviling” in the above passage is ‘blasphemeo’ in the Greek, and it means “to speak in a disrespectful way that demeans, denigrates, maligns”. Paul evidently recognized these individuals for what they were. While the Gentiles rejoiced over Paul’s words, the first century hatetheists went even further in their hatred of Paul, demonstrating the strong rebellion that was in their heart: “But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium” (Acts 13:50–51). Paul simply moved on from them.

As Christians, we want to believe there is no point in an unbeliever’s life where they cannot turn back from their rebellion against God. However there are warnings in Scripture that seem to indicate otherwise. For example, the writer of Proverbs says, “A worthless person, a wicked man, is the one who walks with a perverse mouth, who winks with his eyes, who signals with his feet, who points with his fingers; who with perversity in his heart continually devises evil, who spreads strife. Therefore his calamity will come suddenly; instantly he will be broken and there will be no healing” (Proverbs 6:12–15, my emphasis).

The writer of Hebrews also warns: “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears” (Hebrews 12:15–17, my emphasis).

These verses seem to indicate that there is a time to let the tares grow alongside the wheat (cf. Matt. 13:15-30) and a point where God closes the door to the ark of salvation for people (cf. Gen. 7:16).

Conclusions

I don’t find it at all easy to write the words above, but increasingly, when it comes to hatetheists, I find the words of Richard Weaver spot on: “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.” 

Paul gives a rather interesting analogy to how the gospel affects people when he says, “For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life” (2 Corinthians 2:15–16).

Have you ever smelled the smell of death? It stinks. To the hatetheist, we stink very badly, and they react accordingly.  

Because of this and the Biblical examples I’ve cited above, I’m afraid that, when it comes to hatetheists, once I have made a number of attempts to share the gospel and answer their questions to the best of my ability and they exhibit the characteristics I've noted above, my position today adheres to Jesus’ simple statement: “Let them alone”.  

Gambling - OK or Sinful?

The subject of gambling is one that is multi-faceted and it something that can divide Christians. On the one hand, there are those who argue that it is only a game and like anything else (eating, drinking, etc.) it is acceptable as long as it does not become controlling and overly indulged in. On the other side of the fence are believers who argue that gambling on any level is morally wrong.  Which side is correct?

Giving an adequate answer to the dilemma first requires a Biblical review of money in general, after which gambling itself can be examined.

Where money is concerned, the Bible certainly is not silent. To begin, Scripture makes it clear that everything belongs to God. Paul simply asks his readers, “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Even though individuals work and earn money, the Bible says that it is God who is the ultimate source of their income: “But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth” (Deuteronomy 8:18).

The Bible also says that we should ultimately trust in God and not get-rich-quick schemes that promise wealth: “And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19).

Scripture also makes it clear that money is to be gained through work and labor: “In all labor there is profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty” (Proverbs 14:23) and “He who tills his land will have plenty of food, But he who follows empty pursuits will have poverty in plenty” (Proverbs 28:19).

Further, the Bible warns against debt and owing any creditor large amounts of money: “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender’s slave” (Proverbs 22:7) and “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).

In fact, the opposite of debt is advocated in Scripture – saving money vs. becoming a debtor: “Go to the ant, O sluggard, observe her ways and be wise, which, having no chief, officer or ruler, prepares her food in the summer and gathers her provision in the harvest” (Proverbs 6:6–8).

Finally, the Bible promotes a generous and willing heart to share what financial resources a person has gained through their labor: “The generous man will be prosperous, and he who waters will himself be watered” (Proverbs 11:25). Jesus simply said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

These principles explain the core truths that are summarized in God’s Word. Money itself is not evil, but the passion for it is according to Paul: “But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:9–10).

Like Paul, Jesus – in His parable about the sower – also warned how the desire for money can thwart the pursuit of true riches that come from living in accordance with God’s precepts: “The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity” (Luke 8:14).

Once the above Biblical truths on money and its uses are understood, a position on gambling is much easier to reach. Today, gambling can be seen in a variety of forms: lotteries, casinos, sports betting, quick stop gaming stands (video poker, etc.), and perhaps the most prevalent type today, online or internet gambling.

While these modern varieties of gambling exist today, gambling itself has been around for a very long time, and universally, the Church has taken a dim view of it. For example, an early second century sermon preached out of a North Africa church contained the following description of gambling: "The game of dice is an obvious snare of the devil. He presides over the game in person, bringing to it the deadly venom of the serpent and even inducing ruin which when it is seen to be nothing, a great let down is brought about in the players.”

Key figures in Christianity down through history have also held an unfavorable view of gambling. Augustine said, “The devil invented gambling.” Martin Luther proclaimed, “Money won by gambling is not won without sin and self-seeking sin.” John Calvin outlawed gambling in the city of Geneva.

But why did these key figures and others in the Church reject gambling – why did they believe gambling to be sinful? First, as opposed to the proper spirit promoted by the Bible where money is concerned, gambling results in the following internal attitudes:

• Materialism
• Greed
• Discontent
• Reliance on chance vs. reliance on God’s providence
• Exploitation
• Laziness vs. working
• Thwarts charity 
• Seeks gain from the loss of others

Second, from a philosophical perspective, gambling shows itself to be devoid of value and worth. Philosophically speaking, the nature of any “thing” can be known by the effects it produces. From an internal, personal standpoint, the attributes above show that gambling results in very poor personal effects. From an external facing position, gambling shows itself to be no better, producing the following effects:

• Addiction
• Poverty
• Crime
• Dishonesty
• Family strife and divorce
• Escape into alcoholism
• Exploitation of the poor

This being the case, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that gambling demonstrates itself to be spiritually bankrupt when both its external and internal effects are examined.

In the Old Testament, God specifically warned about the spirit behind gambling when He said: “But you who forsake the Lord, who forget My holy mountain, who set a table for Fortune, and who fill cups with mixed wine for Destiny, I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will bow down to the slaughter. Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but you did not hear. And you did evil in My sight and chose that in which I did not delight” (Isaiah 65:11–12).

The phrase “set a table” means to bring food to an idol. The Hebrew word for “Destiny” comes from the Hebrew word Meni and it means luck. Israel was literally worshipping the gods of luck and fortune, and trusting them for their needs, rather than God.

This is what people do today who immerse themselves in gambling. And because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, it is foolish thinking to believe His views on the matter have changed. 

The Limits of Science where God is Concerned

In a conversation I’m currently having with an atheist, I asked him what he believed in, and got back a standard answer that many atheists give: “I believe in science”. Because this is the standard fallback of so many atheists, I thought it would be good to review a few things at the heart of this argument and revisit some of the limits of science where God is concerned.

First, let me say: I love science. Even though my graduate degrees are in theology (which is the “queen of the sciences” by the way…) for my undergraduate degree, I studied engineering and business. I’ve been a database engineer for the past 20+ years and have enjoyed the fact that in my area of science, I am never bored.

The “I believe in science” claim of the atheists often carries with it the unspoken prepositional phrase: “unlike you, you backwards, non-scientific superstitionist”. Well, the fact is many of us Christians are well schooled in various scientific disciplines, and the history of humanity is pregnant with brilliant scientists who had/have no trouble adhering to science and maintaining their faith in God. The laundry list of believing scientists is too long for me to list with any degree of fairness, but if you don’t believe me, a quick internet search will give you an impressive registry.

What this list of scientists and I have in common is that none of us are believers in scientism. Scientism, in general, says we should only believe what can be scientifically proven. Such a statement simply goes too far for four reasons.

First, it is self-refuting. The statement “we should only believe what can be scientifically proven” itself cannot be scientifically proven (because it is a philosophical statement), and so based on its own criteria, it should be rejected.

Second, it ignores other much-respected and used methods for obtaining knowledge. For example, the legal/forensic/historical method of discovering truth is used every day and is very well respected. The legal method does not ignore testimony or facts because they are not reproducible or testable. By a process of elimination and corroboration, the legal method allows history and testimony to speak for itself until a verdict is reached beyond a reasonable doubt and the balance of probability is achieved.

So, for instance, I did not witness various battles that occurred through history and I cannot reproduce the Gallic wars so I must rely on documents and independent testimony to determine its plausibility. The bottom line is that certain kinds of tests are appropriate for different realms of thought.

Also, science is impotent in various situations such as the area of morals and ethics. Can science prove that the Nazi’s were evil?

Third, it ignores its own limitations and presuppositions that it needs to get started in the first place. A quick glance at the following assumptions shows that science is dependent upon a great many philosophical beliefs and/or things that cannot be scientifically proven: 

• Mathematics
• Logic
• The existence of an actual physical, mind-independent world
• The uniformity of the natural world (no randomness + chance here!)
• The ability of the human mind to understand the natural world
• The belief we can trust our reasoning and sensory abilities, and thus are not deceived
• The belief that there are important criteria that make for a valid hypothesis 

Fourth, it is guilty of committing the “nothing-buttery” logical fallacy, which is a reductive fallacy that argues something is nothing more than some mere aspect of it. Common examples include, “the mind is nothing more than the brain” and “thought is nothing more than a chemical reaction”.

When I encounter someone who makes this last statement, I always ask them (if they’re married or are currently involved with someone), “On special occasions like Valentine’s Day, do you look at your partner and say ‘Sweetheart, I love you!’ or do you say ‘Sweetheart, I’m having a chemical reaction!’?”

Such a thing reminds of William J. M. Rankine (a 19^th century physicist) and his poem, The Mathematician in Love:

A mathematician fell madly in love

With a lady, young, handsome, and charming:

By angles and ratios harmonic he strove

Her curves and proportions all faultless to prove.

As he scrawled hieroglyphics alarming.

….

No doubts of the fate of his suit made him pause,

For he proved, to his own satisfaction,

That the fair one returned his affection; -- "because,

"As every one knows, by mechanical laws,

"Re-action is equal to action."

"Let x denote beauty, -- y, manners well-bred, --

"z, Fortune, -- (this last is essential), --

"Let L stand for love" -- our philosopher said, --

"Then L is a function of x, y, and z,

"Of the kind which is known as potential."

"Now integrate L with respect to d t,

"(t Standing for time and persuasion);

"Then, between proper limits, 'tis easy to see,

"The definite integral Marriage must be: --

"(A very concise demonstration)."

Said he -- "If the wandering course of the moon

"By Algebra can be predicted,

"The female affections must yield to it soon" --

-- But the lady ran off with a dashing dragoon,

And left him amazed and afflicted.

So very quickly we see how scientism falls far short of its claim. Now, the thing to keep in mind is that the sometimes-spoken/mostly-unspoken goal of scientism is to deny the reality of the supernatural, but it simply fails. It suffers from far too many limitations and is powerless in its attempt to deny the existence of God.  

The atheists and philosophical naturalists who think otherwise may be interested in listening to one of their own champions – Stephen Jay Gould – in his assessment of the situation: “Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs. . . Science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God’s possible existence. We neither affirm it nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.”  

Why are so many scientists atheists?

Here's a question I was personally emailed recently that I thought would be good to respond to publicly:

"Why are so many scientists atheists?" 


In 2007, researchers Ecklund and Scheitle questioned nearly 2,200 professors from 21 prestigious American research universities about their belief in God. About three-quarters of those contacted, responded.

Overall, 31% disavowed belief in God. This included 41% from the area of physics, 27% from chemistry, and 41% in biology (the hard sciences). Also, 34% in sociology, 32% in economics, 27% from political science, and 33% from psychology eschewed an acceptance of God. These numbers do indeed exceed the single-digit percentage of the general population that reportedly doesn’t hold to a belief in any deity.

Why such a difference between this particular group of surveyed professors and the overall populace, most of whom profess some type of religious faith? A similar question was put to Richard Dawkins – perhaps the leading voice of atheism today – some years ago at an atheist convention and his response was: “Well, we’re bright…”

Elaborating on the supposed link between atheism and intellect, Dawkins has also said: “An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

With all due respect to Dawkins, this position is absurd. Evolution in no way disproves the existence of God as it concerns itself with the adaptations and changes that occur within existing biological entities and has no explanatory power over how those entities came to exist in the first place. Put another way, evolution may describe the survival of the fittest but in no way explains the arrival of the fittest.

Both atheists and believers in God must admit that each opposing side has a long list of brilliant individuals (scientists, philosophers, etc.) who stand against what they believe where faith in God is concerned. What can we take away from this truthful observation? Simply this: faith in both God and atheism involves more than just the intellect. And this is exactly what the Bible says where faith is concerned.

A number of years ago, one of my seminary professors had lunch with a professor of biology who was an evolutionist and atheist. As the lunch progressed, my professor respectfully confronted his lunch mate with the flaws of atheism and fallacies of evolution’s claims where a Creator is concerned.

Surprisingly, the atheistic professor said at the end of their lunch, “I think you’re right. I do think the evidence you’ve presented is correct with respect to God. That said, I’m still going to teach evolution and remain an atheist.” Baffled, my professor asked why. “Because I want to sleep with who I want and keep living how I’m living”, came the reply.

His answer matches perfectly with that of Aldous Huxley: “We objected to the morality [implied from a world that has meaning, and therefore, a Creator] because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

In showcasing these examples, I’m not trying to say atheists are worse people than Christians. Truth be told, the Bible says we all seek our own way and not God’s (cf. Rom. 3), myself included. But what I am trying to get across is this: belief/disbelief in God is a matter of the will. It involves more than merely acquiescing to evidence. The sad fact is, we act contrary to evidence all the time.

Bowing the knee to the lordship of Christ requires more. Paul simply says, “for with the heart [the ‘seat’ of the will] a person believes, resulting in righteousness” (Rom.10: 10). Belief in God is a moral act. It does not go against intellect and reason, but does step beyond it.

Some atheists will admit this. Hear professor Thomas Nagel on the subject: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

Or how about the admission of atheistic scientist George Klein: “I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith. . . . The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy.”

I’ve watched atheist talk-show host Bill Maher berate his Christian guests and say, “You think I don’t get it [intellectually], but I do!” Such a statement reminds me of the clear warning found in Hebrews: “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Heb. 10:26).

So why do so many scientists disavow God? The statistics actually show more believe in God than not. But those that don’t do so for the same reason everyone else turns away and it has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence.