Atheism and the Problem of Bad Theology

Part of the problem when sharing your faith with biblical skeptics is that, more often than not, they have little training in biblical theology, which often results in their having a bad theology.

Some of them have plenty of training, but little thoughtfulness. In other words, rather than approaching the Bible charitably, they usually assume the truth of whatever theological narrative fits their narrative.

I’ve seen this in various groups of people:

• Those who used to profess to be Christians but have now “deconstructed”

• Those who spend lots of time learning about Christianity from atheist YouTubers

• Those who are looking for any opportunity to cast a negative light on the God of the Bible

• Those who have no intent to be disingenuous, but don’t know any better

Some people may fit all three of the above, some may not fit in those categories at all.

The point is that bad theology persists in these groups and it’s a big, big problem.

Here are just three of the numerous problems bad theology presents.

Both Christians and atheists are often guilty of failing to use good philosophy. Philosophy is the art of making distinctions. The ability to recognize one idea as distinct from another idea, even one that is closely related, is the essence of philosophy.

Now, some argue that philosophy is a subset of theology; some argue the opposite. I’m not speaking to that debate right now. Regardless, failing to use good philosophy is the failure to use good theology. Insofar as you will not make proper distinctions about God, his creation, and how he interacts with it you will end up with bad theology.

How does that lead to killing conversations?

For two or more people to remain in an extended discussion about important ideas, a method of communication will need to be established. This means a few agreements and concessions have to be made throughout. Otherwise, no conversation between two people who fundamentally disagree can be productive.

Here’s a practical example:

Let’s say that Atheist (A) in conversation with Christian (C) takes issue with the fact that Yahweh seems to be a God of warfare. One read through the Book of Joshua would make any 21st-century person living in the West a bit squeamish. We have this idea that the same God who is also “tenderhearted Jesus” would never have commanded the slaughtering of entire people groups.

Leaving aside the fact that the “tenderhearted Jesus” idea is a myth, there is room for lots of theological nuance and discussion around affirming the so-called “conquest narrative” as historical, God-ordained truth.

By the way, I am not rampaging against A here. C may be ignorant of this information as well!

Such details like…

• Often, warfare language in the ancient Near East was rife with hyperbole.

• The conquests were not against any people group willy-nilly; they were the result of holy war against the giant clans.

• Worship of false gods in Canaanite territories was so disgusting and vile that if it were occurring today, many would be mad if God was not intervening!

• God actually waited over 400 years before bringing about this judgment (Genesis 15:13-16).

All that to say this: When understood properly in its theological context, there is much more going on that a genocidal cosmic dictator randomly commanding his people to obliterate another over some land.

That’s not at all what is going on here.

Now—either A or C could, of course, choose to disagree with what has been presented above. But they then need to provide arguments and evidence for taking the text another way. Regardless, what they could not do is blindly assert that ethnic genocide is in view.

And often, this is where the conversation stops. A asserts that this is a case of ethnic genocide, and C either (1) doesn’t have a good answer or (2) ends up defending God’s actions, but in a way that basically concedes the point of genocide.

As long as bad theology is proliferated, there is little room for distinction and discussion about ideas like this.

Bad theology not only kills conversations but can be terribly misleading with respect to all sorts of ideas: the nature of God, anthropology, angelology and demonology, etc.

One of the worst examples I’ve seen of this is captured “nicely(?)” in a popular Internet meme. There are different versions of this, so I’ll express it in the terms the good folks at Got Questions did: “God sacrificed himself to himself to save humanity from himself because of a rule he made himself.”

(As an aside, watch Christian philosopher William Lane Craig dismantle a few very popular atheist memes like this one here.)