All the Arguments Both for and Against Christianity

Why to be a Christian and why not to

1 Introduction

To figure out if a view is true, it’s helpful to have a fairly comprehensive assessment of the arguments on both sides. Often, some of the best arguments aren’t well known (cough, cough). It’s very easy to neglect the diversity of arguments on both sides of a position. For this reason, I thought I’d pretty comprehensively summarize the arguments both for and against Christianity. My aim is not to defend them or tell you what I think about them, but just to give you a sense of what reasons there are on both sides.

I’ll only discuss arguments concerning whether or not Christianity is true rather than pragmatic arguments for why Christianity is good to believe. So, for instance, I won’t talk about Pascal’s wager or arguments for why believing in Christianity might make your life more hopeful and meaningful.

While I’ll try to be comprehensive, I won’t include some arguments that I think are particularly terrible. For example, I have a friend who is convinced that young Earth creationism is supported scientifically and that Christianity has discovered that shocking scientific truth before science. I consider this argument bad enough—and the case against young earth creationism strong enough—that I won’t discuss this. However, I’ll be pretty inclusive with respect to which arguments to include, including some that aren’t very good. I also won’t discuss general arguments for or against the existence of God, as that would make this article too broad.

Lastly, I’ll include some arguments that wouldn’t be enough to prove Christianity by themselves but serve merely to raise Christianity’s probability. For instance, if there’s an argument for Judaism, I will include that, because Christianity goes up in probability if at least Judaism is true.

Okay, with that out of the way, here is Christianity, the case for and against.

2 The case for

Why be a Christian?

The biggest argument that convinces the most people is the minimal facts argument. This argument claims that the existence of the empty tomb, the presence of post resurrection appearances to the disciples, the vision to Paul, and the vision to James are well-attested and agreed to by most historians. Then the claim goes: these things are vastly likelier if Christianity is true than if it’s false. Thus, these facts are strong evidence for Christianity.

When people don’t resurrect, it’s rare that their enemies see them in a vision, their friends see them posthumously, their skeptical brother converts, and their tomb is found empty. For assessments of this argument see here, here, this series, and this book.

A second popular argument—made by the McGrews and various others—is that the Gospels are highly reliable and tell of facts that make the resurrection near guaranteed. The later Gospels describe Jesus eating fish and hanging around for forty days, talking and interacting with many people. If eyewitnesses think he hung around for weeks on end, then probably he did. Groups don’t hallucinate continuously for weeks on end. The arguments people make for Gospel reliability tend to be (note: I don’t endorse all these arguments, so when I state them like I’m asserting them, don’t think I am):

1. The Gospels contain various undesigned coincidences—details across gospels that fit together in surprising ways. These are a hallmark of authentic testimony. If two stories are truthful, you should expect the details to converge in surprising ways.

2. The Gospels get various surprising details right concerning geography and history in a way that’s indicative of authenticity.

3. The names appearing in the Gospels match the distribution of names in the surrounding time period and location. If you were making up a story that occurred in the 1950s and you didn’t have access to the internet, probably the distribution of names you’d give to the characters wouldn’t statistically match the naming distributions at the time. Thus, if the names match the statistical distribution, this is evidence that the people whose names are being reported really existed. Because names tend to be easily forgettable and are the hardest details to keep track of, if the names are accurate then likely so too is the rest of the story.

4. The Gospels were written early and by eyewitnesses. If so, then this adds to their credibility. See here for a good debate concerning whether they were written by eyewitnesses. Worth noting, however, that the majority of critical scholars reject this view.

A third argument for Christianity is from fulfilled Biblical prophecy. The main prophecies people cite are:

1. The prophecy from Daniel 9 which predicts a coming Messianic Kingdom 490 years after “the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” Depending on how one interprets this, the events might line up with Jesus. See here for a good debate about it. I’ll quote the passage in full so you have a sense:

From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,^[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. ²⁶ After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.^[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. ²⁷ He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’^[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’^[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple^[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.^[

2. The Isaiah 53 prophecy which details a suffering servant who will be pierced for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. The passage is ambiguous but some interpret it as depicting the atonement. See here for further analysis as well as here. Note that the view of Jews and most scholars is generally that it was about Israel.

3. The prophecy in Wisdom Chapter 2 which tells us of “the righteous one,” who “professes to have knowledge of God” “and styles himself a child of the LORD.” It says “He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.” The evildoers say of him “With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience,” and “Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.” This is, I think, the most convincing prophecy in the Bible! For some analysis of it, see here and see here for some methodological points.

4. The prophecy in Psalm 22 which describes a man whose “mouth is dried up like a potsherd,” whose hands and feet are pierced, whom is mocked by evildoers around him. This arguably corresponds to facts about Jesus life. For more detail, see here, here, and here.

There are various other prophecies—e.g. Ezekiel 26 and Zechariah 12:10—that people cite, but these are the main ones. Skeptics tend to haggle over interpretive details in these prophecies and claim that these passages are a result of people retroactively reading Jesus into passages that weren’t about him.

A fourth popular argument is the liar/lunatic/lord argument. The argument goes:

1. Jesus claimed to be God.

2. If someone claims to be God, they’re either lying, mistaken, or truthful.

3. Jesus wasn’t lying (he had no motivation to lie when doing so got him crucified) and he wasn’t mistaken (for this would make him crazy).

4. Therefore, he must be telling the truth.

Skeptics tend to deny that Jesus claimed to be God or they say that he was a bit crazy. For analysis of this argument, see Ehrman’s book, Ortlund’s book, or my article. One point to note: even if you don’t think there’s convincing evidence Jesus claimed to be God, he told people to eat his flesh and claimed to be the son of man—a unique Messianic figure. Such claims, it would seem, are either true or would make him in some way deranged.

A fifth big argument is the argument from modern miracles. There are lots of arguably well-attested modern miracles—some examples include Zeitoun, Fatima, Joseph of Cupertino, Calanda, healing miracles—and many of these occurred in a distinctly Christian setting to fulfill a distinctly Christian message. Fatima, for instance, came along with claims that Mary demanded Russia be consecrated to her sacred heart. If one thinks that these miracles happened, many with distinctly Christian messages, arguably this should make them a Christian.

As Craig Keener notes in his book on miracles “it is widely documented that reported miraculous healings have abetted church growth in much of Asia.” His book on the subject is fairly astonishing and gives clear evidence of large numbers of healing miracles.

Exactly where this argument leads you—whether Christianity or generic theism—is slightly unclear and depends on which miracles, if any, you think are veridical, but it is clear that if you conclude that a bunch of miracles have happened, you shouldn’t be an atheist!

A sixth argument: Christianity arguably gets a lot of surprising things right about the human condition. For instance, a big part of Christianity is premised on the notion that we are all sinners—that we are all quite a bit more evil than we like to think. This notion has been abundantly and overwhelmingly empirically confirmed. The more Christianity accords with deep and surprising wisdom about human nature, the more likely one should find it.

A seventh argument: arguably the atonement is intrinsically likely. If God sends us into the world to suffer, one can argue that he would not stay in the clouds. Compassion would seem to demand that he suffer alongside us, and the notion that God becomes man—becomes like us and gets torturously killed for our sake—is arguably philosophically plausible. For more detail, see here or for a less persuasive version here.

An eighth argument: THE JEWS! Specifically, the Jews are one of the most unique groups in human history. We’ve survived for thousands of years without a state despite intense persecution. As Brian Cutter once said to me, the Jews have “main character energy!” We’re potentially the most influential small group in history. Jews also were the earliest true monotheists.

Now, if Christianity is true, there’s a perfectly good explanation of this—the Jews were originally God’s chosen people. The Bible prophecies that Judaism won’t be wiped out but that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be worshipped on every continent. That this very surprising fact turned out true is arguably evidence for Christianity (though better evidence for Judaism)!

A ninth argument: Christianity is the largest and most diverse religion. In the early days it spread rapidly despite intense persecution and attempts to stop it. In various countries its spread has been delivered by brave and heroic martyrs. All else equal, we should think bigger religions are likelier to be right. If God wants to bring a message to the world, presumably it’s better if that message is brought to more people. God wouldn’t fail in his aim. Thus, we should expect the true religion to be widespread—the most widespread religion gets the biggest probabilistic boost from this.

A tenth argument: as Tom Holland notes in his book Dominion, Christianity brought about an unprecedented moral transformation of the world. A world of child sacrifice and barbarism became one of recognized human rights. Presumably we’d expect the true religion to bring about a significant moral transformation of the sort that Christianity did bring about. Thus, the fact that Christianity brought about this historically unprecedented 180 change in morality is evidence for its veracity.

An eleventh argument: if God exists, it’s pretty likely that one of the religions would be right. God, if he exists, would want to influence people and provide them with a message. The true religion, for this reason, would likely be influential and significant. This leaves only a few options: Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. If you end up thinking there are good reasons to reject the others, then Christianity will start as a reasonable default.

A twelfth argument is the Kuzari argument. The argument goes:

1. The Jewish nation reported witnessing a national divine revelation. They claimed that God appeared before them and spoke to them.

2. National experiential traditions are always accurate.

Why think 2? Well, there are two reasons given.

First of all, it’s hard to see how one could trick people into falsely thinking that a giant miracle happened that all of their ancestors saw and that this was passed down from generation to generation. Imagine someone saying to you “in 1700s all the people in your nation saw a huge and crazy miracle and this tradition was passed down from generation to generation.” If this wasn’t true, it’s hard to see how it would catch on.

Second (it is claimed) all other national experiential traditions are accurate! So we should trust this one too.

Now, this argument at best only establishes that the claims of Judaism are true, but because that raises the odds of Christianity, I thought I’d include it. Though full disclosure, I find this argument very unpersuasive.

A thirteenth argument comes from Brant Pitre and was nicely defended by my friend

Petrus

. The core idea: the Gospel of John says:

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.) These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, “None of his bones shall be broken.” And again another passage of scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.”

This is surprisingly historically plausible! If a person is stabbed after being crucified, this might leak water and blood for various weird scientific reasons that weren’t known at the time. Thus, if it was made up probably they wouldn’t attest to a detail believed to be impossible at the time! So there is good reason to think this really happened.

At the time, there was only one other situation where people would see blood and water flowing together. That was when, every year, the passover lamb was sacrificed. If the story was genuine, this kind of deep theological connection is expected—if not, it is surprising. What are the odds that the only other event that had the same flowing pattern of blood and water would be an event that is supposed to be the metaphorical foreshadowing of Jesus’s shed blood on the cross?

Okay, so that’s a pretty comprehensive overview of the arguments for the truth of Christianity. Let me know, however, if I missed anything!

3 The case against

The case against Christianity similarly is diverse. In fact, it’s a lot more diverse, so I won’t be able to do it as much justice as I have to the case for Christianity. I’ve already given a lot of the big arguments against so look there if you want to see a longer discussion of the main points.

A first argument: Christianity is committed to the trinity. Christians must think that The Father, Son, and Spirit are all one being but three different persons. This is very hard to make sense of. It’s hard to see both how there can be multiple persons in one being and why there are only three.

Second, the atonement is hard to make sense of. How does one die for the sins of another? This is, at least, a very great mystery! The fact that Christianity must think something happened that was very weird but fit the beliefs of the surrounding cultural context—a culture that believed in blood sacrifice, remember—is evidence against its veracity.

Third, Christians must think that scripture is inspired. The problem is that scripture is littered with errors. Entire books of scripture are violent and warlike—e.g. the book of Joshua! Contradictions and wrongheaded teaching abound. It’s hard to see a model of inspiration—or the motivation for such a model—that made God’s primary method of revelation seem to endorse slavery, repeatedly contradict itself, and err in so many other ways.

This verse from Deuteronomy is just a random example of a Bible verse that raises very serious ethical questions:

¹³ If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her ¹⁴ and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” ¹⁵ then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. ¹⁶ Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. ¹⁷ Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, ¹⁸ and the elders shall take the man and punish him. ¹⁹ They shall fine him a hundred shekels^[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

²⁰ If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, ²¹ she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Fourth, lots of the reports from New Testament scripture seem very wrong! The New Testament reports Jesus:

1. Condemning divorce.

2. Providing violent and brutal depictions of hell.

3. Incorrectly predicting that the second coming would occur in the lifetime of the people he was speaking to.

4. Providing exorcisms.

5. Telling people to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

These things are evidence against his perfection! More elaboration on all these points are in the article.

Fifth, hell seems to be a pretty big problem (one hell of a problem, one might say). The notion that there’s an eternal hell is widespread in the New Testament but is, in my view, deeply wicked. The true religion would not be likely to entail a worldview on which large numbers of people will be brutally tormented forever!

Sixth, any argument for another religion is an argument against Christianity. Thus, if one thinks that there are good arguments for Hinduism, this will lower the likelihood of Christianity.

Seventh, Christianity seems particularly vulnerable to divine hiddenness. Christians think that spreading Christianity—getting people to believe it—is especially important and affects one’s eternal fate. If this is so, then it’s very surprising that God remains hidden to a great number of genuine, sincere truth-seekers! One would expect the evidence for the right religion to be much more decisive than the evidence for Christianity.

Eight, Christian scripture doesn’t contain various items of extremely important moral and scientific knowledge. It would be very good, for instance, if the scriptures had denounced slavery, predicted and denounced factory farming, described obligations to give to effective charities, described the moral importance of animal welfare including of wild animals, and told people about the germ theory of disease. The fact that it did not is evidence against its veracity.

It is notable that the Bible seems to endorse animal sacrifice. Jesus supposedly cast out demons into a horde of pigs who then were killed! While there are some denunciations of animal abuse in the Bible, certainly his views do not reflect what one aware of the horrors beyond comprehension humans inflict on animals would have a duty to say.

A ninth point: Jesus seems to have magic powers akin to a magician to calm storms, for instance. It is very puzzling that God would send him to Earth as a superhero—neither, qua his human nature, limitless in power nor a regular human. It is also puzzling that he didn’t use his magic powers to bring about more goods (e.g. if he could produce food on command, why didn’t he do this more?)

Tenth, Jesus arguably doesn’t predict Messianic predictions. He didn’t build the third temple, gather the Jews back, to the land of Israel, usher in world peace, or unite all of humanity. This is one reason Jews often give for rejecting Christianity.

It’s a bit harder to be comprehensive with arguments against Christianity, because nearly any Bible passage can be objected to, but hopefully this has been a decently complete overview.

4 Conclusion

There are a lot of arguments both for and against Christianity. They don’t all have much force, but hopefully I’ve shown at least that there are lots of issues one should think about before deciding whether to become a Christian. Hopefully this has been a fairly good overview of those issues.