This is a collection of points discussing the lessons learnt while attempting to discuss apologetics with agnostics. It is brief reflecting its original intention of being posted on Instagram. Please note that agnostics, while similar in description, are a body of various thinkers who can and will change positions depending on the strength of argument and conviction. I’ve seen agnostics even embrace other religions over time so definitely not describing everyone. All the same, please enjoy.
Lesson One: Never assume what an agnostic knows about a particular discussion.
Some of us have had the pleasure of discussing things with people online, especially in comment sections. As a result, there are repeated patterns of thought displayed from such people, often immediately attacking one’s intelligence or outright insulting them. As a believer, you might be left with the feeling that agnostics are arrogant self-absorbed people who rarely hold the burden of proof in discussions and immediately dismiss someone when they no longer have an advantageous position. This is only half-true.
I have personally had discussions beyond arguments with some, which sometimes does mean hours of patience when some throw literally every bad faith argument in the book and some are surprisingly articulate and even knowledgeable in key information about church history, reliability of historical records, and so on. I’ve never been as challenged to know more about the history of Christianity. This is not to praise all agnostics. Some are indeed as dismissive as they sound and not much else. Unfortunately, the only way to tell the difference is to keep having discussions, as futile and as time-consuming as they sound. For your sanity, one-to-one discussions are better than dealing with groups because, as anyone who has had to fight a mob can tell you, there is strength in numbers and there is also cowardice too.
If you do get questions from agnostics, especially ones with whom you have a good rapport, always ask for enough context and how much they already know about the subject. It saves time and sometimes lets you know if you’re going to be trapped in a heated argument. Sometimes, you might walk out with newer questions to answer. Speaking of which…
Lesson Two: Never attempt to answer a question you clearly have not researched
Bad faith agnostics, even some well-meaning ones, always begin with the assumption that there is nothing new a Christian has to offer in a discussion. I get how that can be grating.
Some even know the right words to say or questions to ask that can immediately stoke the fires so they can see a reaction. In other words, trolls. The reality is agnostics are scholars too. They have studied the art of the blind spot, looking for as many plot holes as possible. This is not a bad move, Christian apologists do it too. To not educate yourself on this is a recipe for failure. But an even worse move is to try and answer a question you clearly have not researched.
For example, you want to talk about creation and how reliable that narrative is and you have heard apologists say that evolution is horrid and absolutely does not make sense when you think about it. Now, this may be true but if you have not taken the time to actually go through the sources, you will be stuck in a shouting contest when you attempt to talk to an agnostic. No one is going to give you an easy time if they feel they can exploit your weakness. As painful as this sounds, you have two options if you get a question you have little to no knowledge of, you can either walk away as politely as you can if the person is hostile or you can admit you don’t know and return when you’ve studied it some more. You might not convince anyone even if you do but you may get more opportunities to talk about things.
I’ll add this for some encouragement. You won’t always get good at walking away. Sometimes you will be tempted to keep talking, maybe even spite the other side so at least you walk away with some dignity. As soon as you have realized this is the case, repent and ask God for more grace. You aren’t exactly an android, you’re fallible.
Lesson Three: Always Be Aware of What You Agree on, What You Disagree on and Why
Perhaps the easiest trick in the book of discussions and arguments is wordplay; namely to take advantage of the fact that words can have different contexts and meanings and use them to exploit shallow agreements for your benefit without having to explore further. Once again, both sides use this because it is effective. An example of this is the word pro-choice and how the recent events have led to the question of why pro-choice counts when it comes to abortion and why pro-choice does not count in regards to the pandemic. Whatever side of the aisle you are on, this can either easily shut down an argument when one side is hypocritical or lead to more interesting questions on why the word even exists. The latter is rarely used.
Thus, when having a discussion with an agnostic and you come across something that can easily be used as wordplay, you have two options. You can either disagree with the entire premise and restate your position or agree on definitions first and then discuss where you agree. This is why straw man arguments are easy to make online; the platform does not encourage detailed answers but short quick ones that evoke certain reactions that can trigger people to engage. It’s also why I personally like doing one-to-one discussions when it comes to apologetics. A lot of the tools we have learned, both as Christians and agnostics and atheists, are meant for public address and as a result lack personality. If you have ever wondered why people always seem to have the same cliché discussions, this is why. It’s an elaborate chess game of who gets to sound smarter and nobody goes home with anything worth remembering.
When you agree on terms, disagree on things, and know why you make future discussions easier on time and energy. The same principle with friendships, really.
Lesson 4: Your mission is to be heard, not to be unbiased.
I’m always going to throw this as early as I can; people don’t have discussions to seek to be unbiased. People want to be heard and to be understood. Often when someone is asking you to be unbiased, regardless of whatever side they are on, what they are really asking you to do is to abandon your cleverly constructed worldview so that you can be open-minded to accept theirs and only theirs. I cannot stress this enough. Understanding division is more important to a discussion than equality at all costs. We have different ideas and personalities for a reason; if we all thought the same, there’d be no discussions or arguments period. You don’t have to accept their worldview any more than they have to accept yours. That’s the point. That’s why you spent sleepless nights doing research about your position. You didn’t really think all you had to do was just say your points and that would be all, right?
Talk about your position on something. Argue passionately on it. Listen to what the other side has to say. Maybe it’s absolute trash but there’s grace in simply listening to someone.
Disagree with them. Disagree passionately. Call out hypocrisy. Make sure you are heard and then walk away. Your work is done. Everyone has a reason why they do things. Not a lot of people are going to listen to you and take your worldview immediately. But for the conviction of the Holy Spirit, you are just a vessel. Be there to be heard. They will not like what they hear but they will hear you. A lot of agnostics are saved because they simply heard what believers had to say. I don’t believe there’s anyone who is just looking to be unbiased on everything. It is not a lifestyle you can maintain. Stand fast on what you believe even if you sound unfair. That’s the only way you’ll be heard.
Lesson 5: Knowledge won’t save anyone. Salvation is God’s Work alone.
We arrive at the paradox of salvation. I’ll start with this. I have very knowledgeable agnostic friends. They know more about the ancient texts, church history, and overall most counterarguments to Christian theology. In fact, they’ll even go as far as to correct those who might intentionally get an argument wrong to make it easier to attack. If two of them made a Christian podcast, some believers would not know they are actually listening to agnostics. They are not saved. Ultimately, knowledge is not an indication of salvation. The fruits denote the tree as Christ said in Matthew 7. We can know a lot about these things and miss the point entirely. These friends know that Christ is a historical figure, but won’t accept His divinity. They know what atonement is supposed to mean but will not accept the sacrifice readily available to them at the Cross. A lot of people have enough information to be humbled and see their depravity in light of a Holy God but their sin, they know not.
At the end of the day, the scandal of the Cross, the part of the conversation that is least likely to be received, the reality that man is a hopeless sinner, is the part that is most needed.
That is also the part that is most hated. You could befriend lost people for years and introduce this thing one day and lose them completely. It is that powerful. This is why I don’t agree with the idea that merely being unbiased or open-minded or even empathetic is enough. Empathy cannot save a sinner. Only the Gospel will. That’s why we do this task. So if you simply go with the first 4, you’ll get along alright. The fifth will be what will transform, with lots of prayer and patience, and love.
Epilogue: The Search
One of the questions Christians have been trained to ask agnostics is this; If God was real, would you worship Him? A lot of honest agnostics answer ‘No’. God is not merely an intellectual problem to them but a moral one as well. This is why if you ask some agnostics enough tough questions, they will be left with the option of smearing God’s Holiness, trying to find as many moral wrongs of said God to harmonize with their position. This is because ultimately, the goal of learning all of these lessons is so you can tell someone; there is a God, He is Holy and you have wronged Him and deserve the justice that is due. If they can’t smear God, they will smear the idea of Hell and why it has to be as punishing for what is to them a relatively harmless crime. Why should they go to Hell? Why should anyone for that matter?
Appealing to humanity’s good is not only easy, but it is also commendable. Everyone wants to feel like they’re alright. Whether you agree with the Christian or not, you can easily tell that few listen to this message and instead ask, ‘Well, if we’ve done wrong and we need to make it right, how do we do that?’ because to most scholars, the answer seems to say ‘Let go of your life right now. Of everything that makes you happy. Of everything that gives you purpose. So you can start fresh with a difficult life built on something you aren’t sure of.’ It’s a rational kind of self-preservation that will fight even if God is proven true. Thus, I will leave you with this. If your pursuit is for truth, would you be willing to fight your sense of self-preservation if God was proven true? If your pursuit is for morality, would you be willing to fight your sense of idealism if God was proven to be the center of all moral basis?
If your pursuit is for objectivity, would you fight your worldview of reality if God was proven to be the Genesis of it? Your answer doesn’t need to be yes but if it is no, even to yourself, you might want to think about why that is.
Author
