Evangelizing an agnostic

[anilorak13ska]

How does one go about a dialogue with an agnostic? If they don’t care why they’re here, wouldn’t want to live forever, aren’t afraid of hell, and just feel content enough to be here now and then be gone later, how does one even begin to argue with that?

Even seemingly obvious (to me) arguments like the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed seem to fall on deaf ears. The question that stumped me is: If everything has to come from somewhere, then where does God come from?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How does one go about a dialogue with an agnostic? If they don’t care why they’re here,

If the person doesn’t care then he or she is also an apatheist. An agnostic may or may not care, an apatheist definitely doesn’t. (note: these phrases are not mutually exclusive).

wouldn’t want to live forever, aren’t afraid of hell, and just feel content enough to be here now and then be gone later, how does one even begin to argue with that?

If the person doesn’t care he or she may also not feel motivated to argue with you. s/he may even be content to let you speak while s/he zones out. Are you sure the person you are talking about really doesn’t care?

 

[danserr]

How does one go about a dialogue with an agnostic? If they don’t care why they’re here, wouldn’t want to live forever, aren’t afraid of hell, and just feel content enough to be here now and then be gone later, how does one even begin to argue with that?

Provide positive evidence. The reasons you gave above are basically why an agnostic should care, so if that doesn’t work try providing evidence that whether or not they care, Christianity is true.

reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

or, try this way of arguing that belief in God matters:

reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god

Even seemingly obvious (to me) arguments like the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed seem to fall on deaf ears. The question that stumped me is: If everything has to come from somewhere, then where does God come from?

Everything does not have to come from somewhere. This is a caricature of actually Christian arguments that tend to begin in one of two ways:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

and

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or an external cause.

For 1, you would proceed by arguing that the universe began to exist. For 2, you would point out that while God exists by necessity of his own nature it is very implausible that the universe does. reasonablefaith.org/argument-from-contingency

This being said, I am also curious what others say because I think one of the main challenges is not giving evidence that God exists, but convincing people to care. Put another way, it often seem harder to overcome apathy than want of knowledge.

 

[anilorak13ska]

I’ve never heard of an apatheist before. They’ve said as much: “I don’t care”, “who cares if we live forever” and the like. Also, they don’t actually like the label “agnostic”, but I think that’s a separate issue.

Hmm, so if they don’t care, then I really should expect my trying to talk to them to bring great success.
Thanks for the links, btw, I’ve shared them.

 

[edward_george]

Pray.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Pray.

I agree.
To attempt to either evangelize or otherwise discuss religion with self-proclaimed athiests or agnostics, one must first enjoy beating your head against the wall.
Many of these people, especially those on College Campuses flaunt their non-beliefs in public for the sheer joy of upsetting believers. The only people worse than this for evangelization are Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentacostal Evangelical Protestants, both of which are rabidly anti-Catholic.
Thus, don’t waste your time. There are other far more recptive prospects, such as fallen away and non-practicing Catholics.

 

[NonServiam]

Even seemingly obvious (to me) arguments like the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed seem to fall on deaf ears.

If energy can’t be created, then it couldn’t have been created by God. If it was created by God, then the premise that “energy cannot be created” is false.

If I were you, I would tell this agnostic exactly what it was that convinced you that there is a God. If it was good enough to convince you, then it should be good enough to convince someone else…unless, of course, your reasoning is poor, in which case dialoguing with this agnostic will let you see flaws in your own thought process.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve never heard of an apatheist before.

The loudest voice of apathy is silence. People that feel apathetic about something usually are not motivated to make their apathy known. So they may go unnoticed in a sea of people that have very passionate positions on views. Since people of this disposition may go unnoticed there will probably be little to no reasons to mention them in many conversations about religious dispositions.

They’ve said as much: “I don’t care”, “who cares if we live forever” and the like.

It may be apathy. It may be an attempt to end the conversion. It could be both.

Also, they don’t actually like the label “agnostic”, but I think that’s a separate issue.

It may be. Depending on the environment in which the person lives the word may have “baggage” that doesn’t really apply to that person. But that’s a conversation by itself.

 

[User124]

How does one go about a dialogue with an agnostic? If they don’t care why they’re here, wouldn’t want to live forever, aren’t afraid of hell, and just feel content enough to be here now and then be gone later, how does one even begin to argue with that?

Even seemingly obvious (to me) arguments like the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed seem to fall on deaf ears. The question that stumped me is: If everything has to come from somewhere, then where does God come from?

Being agnostic doesn’t mean you’re careless.

 

[anilorak13ska]

I never said agnostics are “careless”. I said the one agnostic I’ve tried to talk to has said they “don’t care”.

That’s a good point about finding flaws in my logic. Outside of Catholicism, I was trying to tell this person that even when I was seeking truth and not committed to the church, I believed that if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then energy must be in some way a reflection of God. We don’t know God more than what He’s revealed to us, so there are going to be things that could still be true about Him. Now, to me as a believer, it’s a moot point. I was hoping to relate to this person on the level of no previous religious indoctrination.

Speaking of which, this particular so-called agnostic IS a fallen-away Catholic, in that they were baptised and received First Communion. They stopped attending church as an older teen. However, when I asked, they said they never “started” to be agnostic, they just never believed what surrounded them in church and Sunday school.

And of course, I do recognize that I can’t convert anyone, that’s a job for the Holy Spirit. So I have started praying for this person to be drawn closer to God, and I just felt the need to have this discussion with them since they are probably not otherwise exposed to any sort of talk of God.

 

[Qoeleth]

How does one go about a dialogue with an agnostic? If they don’t care why they’re here, wouldn’t want to live forever, aren’t afraid of hell, and just feel content enough to be here now and then be gone later, how does one even begin to argue with that?

Well, these agnostics seem to have achieved a lot in the direction of acceptance of the plan and goodness of God (if there is one), and acceptance of the transitory nature of life (if there is no God). They seem to be like the flowers of the field, who we are recommended by Jesus to imitate. Or like those who approach the Kingdom as little children.

Perhaps, instead of evangalizing them, we can learn from them. And then, if we exhibit greater wisdom, compassion and indifference, they may wish also to learn from us.

 

[anilorak13ska]

Well, these agnostics seem to have achieved a lot in the direction of acceptance of the plan and goodness of God (if there is one), and acceptance of the transitory nature of life (if there is no God). They seem to be like the flowers of the field, who we are recommended by Jesus to imitate. Or like those who approach the Kingdom as little children.

Perhaps, instead of evangalizing them, we can learn from them. And then, if we exhibit greater wisdom, compassion and indifference, they may wish also to learn from us.

Wow, this is so thought-provoking. …

But just the other day during Bible Study, we were discussing whether or not Catholics should be concerned about people who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, and this veered into the question of what is our responsibility regarding spreading the Gospel to all corners of the Earth. I started out thinking that we did not need to worry about people who did not follow Jesus, that if they lived a righteous life, God would find in His mercy a way to bring them home even after death. But then we referenced the Bible and Catechism (can’t tell you right now which parts) where it really became clear that we ought to be concerned about people who have heard about Jesus but still choose not to follow Him. That only those who have not heard of Jesus are “safe” if you will.

I just want to know what my responsibilities towards non-believers in my life are, and one of the ones I started with happens to be agnostic, hence this thread.

 

[danserr]

If energy can’t be created, then it couldn’t have been created by God. If it was created by God, then the premise that “energy cannot be created” is false.

If I were you, I would tell this agnostic exactly what it was that convinced you that there is a God. If it was good enough to convince you, then it should be good enough to convince someone else…unless, of course, your reasoning is poor, in which case dialoguing with this agnostic will let you see flaws in your own thought process.

That energy cannot be created nor destroyed is a law of nature. That such a thing cannot naturally happen, does not mean that God cannot create energy (or matter) from nothing).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I think our own Karl Keating said very few non-believers were ever converted by a discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas’ “five proofs”

I think to get the tiniest intial “crack” in an agnostic/atheist/apathist’s defenses is to engage their interest.

Cut to the chase. Ask them flat out, “Who do you think Jesus (Christ) was?”

You have to be fairly well grounded in CS Lewis’ “Lord, liar, or lunatic” argument. You MUST be able to refute the “no proof for Jesus’ existence” dodge (and a fallacious evasion it is if there ever was one). You should be comfortable in discussing the historical reliability of the NT texts (Stoebel is an invaluable starting point here for the layman or laywoman). And you must be alert always for any evasion into post-modernist escape into “personal validation”.

You are planting seeds. Others down the line may have to do further watering and cultivating.

 

[NonServiam]

That energy cannot be created nor destroyed is a law of nature. That such a thing cannot naturally happen, does not mean that God cannot create energy (or matter) from nothing).

Either energy can be created/destroyed, or it can’t.

If you believe that a God created it, then you believe that it can be created/destroyed by something.

Good luck demonstrating that.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well…if they are agnostic, that doesn’t mean they don’t care why they are here, don’t want to live forever, etc, etc…(unless you are talking about a specific person who actually feels and thinks all these things?)

Based on one of the earlier messages I think it is a specific person. The feedback the person gave is why I introduced the label “apatheism”.

 

[danserr]

Either energy can be created/destroyed, or it can’t.

If you believe that a God created it, then you believe that it can be created/destroyed by something.

Good luck demonstrating that.

To say that something is naturally impossible is not to say that it is logically or metaphysically impossible.

For example, one philosopher talking about the laws of nature and the Resurrection:

We need to distinguish between logical possibility and scientific possibility. Logical possibility means that it doesn’t imply a contradiction. For example, say the universe’s space-time is curved, so that if you go a certain direction you’ll eventually come back to your starting point. If that’s the case, then it is scientifically impossible for someone to go in an unending straight line forever and ever without recurring to where he started. So there’s a big difference between a logical possibility and scientific possibility. In the case of the resurrection, there is no logical contradiction in saying that someone was brought back to life by God even though that is something that would contradict the normal behavior of the laws of nature.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/forum-on-the-resurrection-with-william-lane-craig#ixzz22IaHbjt0

Yes, I think that God created matter, and yes I think that matter/energy could be destroyed by God.

 

[anilorak13ska]

Thanks for the feedback. I’ve looked into apatheism, and I see that that’s what I’m dealing with in the person I have in mind. But it sounds like other than prayer, there isn’t much one can do to argue with an apatheist. What seems logical to me doesn’t seem logical to them.