The Unending Standstill: Why Arguments Between Christians and Non-Christians Miss the Bigger Picture

Throughout history, the dialogue between Christians and non-Christians has often been fraught with tension, misunderstanding, and defensiveness. These interactions, both in personal encounters and on larger cultural platforms, often seem to reach an impasse, where neither side truly listens or persuades the other. Instead, the discussions spiral into debates over doctrinal points, ethical differences, or philosophical claims about the nature of reality. These arguments are rarely productive and tend to be rooted not in a genuine pursuit of truth but in the desire to assert one’s own perspective as right, with the ultimate aim of winning the argument rather than seeking understanding.

At the heart of these standstills lies a deeper truth: the debates between Christians and non-Christians are often not about discovering or exploring the ultimate nature of reality but about defending one’s worldview. Christians frequently (not always) find themselves on the defensive, attempting to protect their beliefs against skepticism and critique, while non-Christians, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or followers of other religions, often assume the role of instigator, (again, not always) questioning and challenging Christian claims.

This chapter will explore the philosophical, theological, and religious dynamics of these standstills. It will argue that most arguments between Christians and non-Christians focus on surface-level details, such as the existence of God, specific ethical teachings, or historical interpretations, while neglecting the deeper, existential realities that unite all human beings: the search for meaning, purpose, and transcendence. The chapter will also propose that rather than engaging in endless debates aimed at proving who is “right” or “wrong,” both sides should focus on mutual understanding, shared humanity, and the larger existential questions that transcend individual belief systems.

The Nature of Religious Arguments: “I’m Right, You’re Wrong”

One of the primary reasons that debates between Christians and non-Christians often result in standstills is because they are framed in binary terms: one side is right, and the other is wrong. In many cases, both sides approach the conversation with the goal of proving the other person’s beliefs to be false. For Christians, this often involves defending their faith against criticisms about the existence of God, the validity of Scripture, or the problem of evil. For non-Christians, the goal may be to expose perceived contradictions in Christian doctrine, question the reliability of religious experience, or challenge the relevance of faith in a modern, secular world.

These arguments are inherently adversarial. Rather than being about seeking mutual understanding, they are typically about winning. Philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard once remarked, “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” In the context of religious debate, this quote highlights the tendency of individuals to assert their viewpoints without necessarily engaging in deep, introspective thinking about their own beliefs or the beliefs of others.

From a philosophical standpoint, this “I’m right, you’re wrong” mentality is rooted in the desire for certainty. 

Humans crave stability in their understanding of the world, and religion, whether Christian or otherwise, provides a framework for interpreting life’s big questions. When someone challenges that framework, it feels like a personal attack, and the instinctive response is to defend it. This is particularly true for Christians, who, because of the centrality of faith in their lives, often experience critiques of their religion as critiques of their very identity.

Similarly, for non-Christians, especially those who have rejected religion or hold deeply secular or atheistic worldviews, questioning the validity of religious belief becomes a way to assert intellectual autonomy and moral authority. The problem is that in the process, both sides focus on defending their position rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. The argument becomes less about truth and more about ego, about proving one’s intellectual or moral superiority over the other.

The Role of Defense and Instigation in Christian-Non-Christian Dialogue

The dynamics of religious debate often position Christians as the defenders and non-Christians as the instigators. This may be due, in part, to the fact that Christianity is one of the largest and most culturally dominant religions in many parts of the world. As a result, Christians often find themselves on the receiving end of challenges to their faith, whether from secular ideologies, scientific perspectives, or other religious traditions. The natural response is to defend what is perceived as under attack.

Theologically, Christianity has always been a religion of proclamation and witness. Christians are called to share the gospel, to “give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). This imperative to evangelize can sometimes lead to an apologetic stance, where Christians feel the need to defend their faith against any criticism or question.

Non-Christians, on the other hand, often take on the role of instigator, whether intentionally or not. For some, this may come from a genuine desire to understand or critique Christian beliefs. For others, it may be an expression of skepticism, intellectual curiosity, or even frustration with the perceived dominance of Christianity in certain cultures. In either case, the conversation tends to revolve around the same recurring themes: Does God exist? How can a loving God allow suffering? Is faith compatible with science?

Philosophically, this dynamic can be understood in terms of dialectic, a form of argumentation where two opposing viewpoints are presented with the aim of reaching a higher truth. But in many debates between Christians and non-Christians, the dialectic is never fully realized because both sides are more concerned with defending their own position than with seeking a deeper understanding. The conversation remains stuck at the level of opposition rather than moving toward synthesis.

Missing the Bigger Picture: Arguments About Details

Another reason that Christian and non-Christian arguments remain at a standstill is that they often focus on details rather than the bigger existential and metaphysical questions that unite all people. Debates may center on specific issues like the literal truth of the Bible, the existence of miracles, or the moral teachings of Christianity, but these debates often miss the underlying questions that give rise to religious belief in the first place: What is the meaning of life? Why is there suffering? What happens after death?

In these debates, the specifics of doctrine or belief often serve as proxies for deeper philosophical concerns. For example, when non-Christians challenge the Christian belief in miracles, the underlying question is often about the nature of reality itself: Is the universe governed solely by natural laws, or is there room for the supernatural? When Christians defend their belief in God’s goodness in the face of suffering, the deeper issue is the problem of evil and the nature of human existence in a world filled with pain.

Philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich argued that the role of religion is to answer what he called “ultimate concerns”, questions that go beyond the details of doctrine and touch on the deepest aspects of human existence. Yet, in most debates between Christians and non-Christians, these ultimate concerns are rarely addressed head-on. Instead, the conversation becomes bogged down in secondary issues, leading to frustration and a sense that neither side is truly engaging with the other’s perspective.

From a theological perspective, Christianity speaks to these ultimate concerns through the narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. Non-Christian worldviews, whether secular or religious, offer different interpretations of these same existential themes. But because the arguments focus on the details, whether or not God exists, whether or not the Bible is true, the opportunity to explore these larger questions is often lost.

The Standstill as a Reflection of Human Nature

The unproductive nature of many Christian and non-Christian debates can be understood as a reflection of deeper aspects of human nature. Psychologically, humans are wired to defend their beliefs because those beliefs form the foundation of their identity and worldview. When those beliefs are challenged, it feels threatening, and the instinctive response is to push back.

But beyond psychological defense mechanisms, there is also a philosophical and theological dimension to this standstill. Humans are finite creatures, limited in our ability to understand the full scope of reality. We see “through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12), and our understanding of truth, whether religious, philosophical, or scientific, is always incomplete. This finitude leads to disagreement and division, as people cling to different interpretations of the truth.

Theologically, this limitation is acknowledged in the Christian concept of faith. Faith, by definition, involves trusting in something that cannot be fully proven or comprehended. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” Faith is not the same as certainty, and this is why it can be difficult to argue about it with those who approach life from a purely rational or empirical perspective.

Likewise, non-Christians may base their worldview on evidence, reason, or personal experience, but these too are limited by human finitude. Philosophically, this is often referred to as the problem of epistemic humility, the recognition that our knowledge is always incomplete and that we must approach questions of truth with a sense of humility and openness to the possibility that we do not have all the answers.

Moving Beyond the Standstill: A Call for Mutual Understanding

If debates between Christians and non-Christians are often unproductive, what is the way forward? The answer lies not in trying to win the argument, but in cultivating mutual understanding and focusing on the deeper questions that unite all human beings.

Rather than approaching the conversation with the goal of proving who is right or wrong, both Christians and non-Christians can benefit from listening to each other’s experiences, worldviews, and ultimate concerns. This does not mean abandoning one’s beliefs or accepting all perspectives as equally valid, but it does mean recognizing the complexity of the human search for truth and being willing to engage with others in a spirit of humility and openness.

In practice, this requires a shift away from the confrontational dynamics that often characterize religious debates and a movement toward dialogue that seeks to understand rather than to convert or conquer. For Christians, this means recognizing that their faith, while rooted in divine revelation, is not threatened by questions or skepticism. Engaging in meaningful conversation with non-Christians can provide an opportunity for deeper reflection on the faith, a test of its coherence, and a demonstration of the humility that Christ calls believers to embody.

Similarly, non-Christians, whether agnostics, atheists, or followers of other religions, must approach such discussions with a willingness to acknowledge the deeply personal and existential dimensions of religious belief. While religious ideas can be critiqued intellectually, faith is often tied to an individual’s core identity and worldview. To understand Christianity, or any faith, requires more than just an intellectual critique; it requires empathy and a recognition of the existential questions and hopes that underlie it.

The Role of Shared Humanity: Common Ground in the Search for Meaning

While arguments over theological details or specific doctrines can lead to standstills, there is a larger, shared dimension that unites both Christians and non-Christians: the common search for meaning, purpose, and truth. At the deepest level, human beings are all engaged in the quest to understand life’s most fundamental questions. What is the purpose of existence? Why is there suffering? How should we live in the face of uncertainty?

For Christians, the answer to these questions is found in the narrative of the Bible, God’s creation of the world, the fall of humanity, the redemptive work of Christ, and the promise of eternal life. But even outside of this framework, non-Christians are grappling with the same basic questions. Whether they turn to philosophy, science, or alternative spiritualities, they are ultimately searching for the same things: meaning, fulfillment, and an understanding of their place in the universe.

This shared search for meaning can serve as the foundation for more productive and empathetic conversations between Christians and non-Christians. Rather than focusing solely on doctrinal disagreements, both sides can engage in deeper discussions about what it means to be human, what it means to live a good life, and how to face the uncertainties of existence. In doing so, they can move beyond the surface-level arguments that often dominate religious debates and explore the larger existential questions that unite them.

Common Differing Worldviews: 

Many non-Christians, particularly those who hold to atheistic or naturalistic worldviews, may believe that life does not have an inherent, objective meaning. This perspective is often rooted in the belief that the universe and life itself came into existence through purely natural processes, such as the Big Bang and biological evolution, without the guidance or purpose of a divine being. The idea that “everything happened by chance” typically refers to the belief that the formation of the universe, the Earth, and life itself can be explained by random events, laws of nature, and physical processes, rather than any intentional design.

Key Ideas Behind This View:

1. Materialism and Naturalism

  – Materialism is the belief that only physical matter exists and that everything, including thoughts, emotions, and consciousness, can be explained in terms of physical processes.

  – Naturalism is the philosophical view that everything arises from natural causes and that supernatural explanations, like the existence of God, are unnecessary. From this standpoint, the universe operates according to impersonal laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.

  Under these frameworks, life is viewed as the result of complex interactions of matter and energy over vast periods of time. Human beings, like all other living organisms, are seen as the product of evolution through natural selection, where random mutations and environmental pressures shape species over millions of years.

2. Chance and Randomness

   In a purely naturalistic or atheistic worldview, the universe does not have an intrinsic purpose or plan. Events, from the formation of galaxies to the emergence of life on Earth, are seen as the result of random occurrences and natural laws. For example:

  – The Big Bang theory explains the origin of the universe as a massive expansion of energy and matter, but without any intentional cause or guiding purpose behind it.

  – Evolution by natural selection, as described by Charles Darwin, posits that life on Earth evolved through random genetic mutations and survival of the fittest. There is no preordained goal in evolution, species adapt to their environments by chance, and those that are better suited survive.

  This emphasis on randomness and chance leads to the view that human existence, like everything else in the universe, is an accidental outcome of these natural processes, rather than something designed with purpose or meaning.

3. Existentialism and the Search for Meaning

   Many people who adopt this worldview wrestle with questions of meaning, as they do not believe in a higher power or ultimate purpose given by God. Existentialism, a philosophical movement led by thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, argues that life does not have inherent meaning, but humans can create their own meaning through their choices and actions.

  – Sartre famously stated that “existence precedes essence,” meaning that humans are born without a predetermined purpose and must define their own essence or meaning through their experiences.

– Camus discussed the “absurdity” of life, how humans naturally seek meaning in a universe that appears indifferent and purposeless. His famous concept of “the myth of Sisyphus” reflects this: even though life may seem like an endless, meaningless struggle, we must create meaning by how we respond to this absurdity.

  For many people with this mindset, meaning in life is not given but is something each individual must create for themselves, often through relationships, personal growth, and contributions to society.

4. Scientific Perspective

   Many non-religious people also look to science for explanations about the origins of life and the universe. In this view:

  – The universe began with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, with stars, galaxies, and planets forming through natural processes.

 – Life on Earth arose through abiogenesis (the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter), and all species, including humans, evolved from common ancestors over millions of years through natural selection.

   From this standpoint, there is no inherent purpose behind these processes. They simply reflect the way nature operates. Therefore, life is often seen as a cosmic accident, remarkable, but without intrinsic meaning from an external source.

Life Without Meaning

For many non-Christians who hold this worldview, the lack of an ultimate, objective meaning to life does not necessarily result in despair. Instead, it can be seen as a call to embrace human freedom and responsibility. The absence of a preordained purpose means that people have the freedom to choose their own paths and define what gives their lives meaning. Some ways people create meaning in this context include:

1. Personal Fulfillment: Many find meaning in personal happiness, relationships, creativity, and intellectual pursuits.

2. Moral and Ethical Frameworks: Even without belief in God, people often adopt ethical principles based on human well-being, empathy, and justice. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, for example, developed secular ethical systems based on reason and human flourishing.

3. Contribution to Society: Many people find meaning in contributing to the greater good of humanity, such as through scientific discovery, humanitarian efforts, or building a more just and compassionate society.

4. The Awe of Existence: Some people, even without belief in a creator, find awe and wonder in the beauty and complexity of the universe. For them, the fact that life is a rare and fragile occurrence can make it all the more precious and worth cherishing.

Contrast with Religious Worldviews

In contrast, most religious worldviews, including Christianity, posit that life has intrinsic meaning because it was created by a divine being for a specific purpose. For Christians, the belief that humans were created by God in His image (Genesis 1:27) gives life inherent meaning and purpose, grounded in a relationship with God and a sense of destiny that transcends this life.

The Christian worldview holds that meaning is not something we create, but something that is given by God. According to Christianity, humans are called to know God, love others, and live in alignment with God’s will. The ultimate purpose of life, from a Christian perspective, is to glorify God and to enjoy eternal life in His presence.

For many non-Christians, particularly those with atheistic or naturalistic views, life is seen as the result of random chance, with no ultimate meaning or purpose inherent in the universe. However, this lack of objective meaning does not necessarily lead to nihilism. Instead, many people find personal meaning through relationships, creativity, and contributing to society, or through philosophical approaches like existentialism. The debate over the meaning of life often hinges on whether one believes in a higher power or purpose, or whether meaning is something each individual must define for themselves.

The Call to Humility: Embracing Mystery in the Quest for Truth

One of the reasons that arguments between Christians and non-Christians often reach a standstill is that both sides are seeking definitive answers to questions that may ultimately elude human understanding. The existence of God, the nature of reality, and the problem of suffering are profound and complex questions, and while Christianity offers one set of answers, it also acknowledges the limits of human knowledge.

The Bible itself teaches that there are mysteries beyond human comprehension. In Isaiah 55:8-9, God declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” This recognition of divine mystery calls Christians to approach their faith with humility, knowing that while they trust in the truth of the Gospel, there are aspects of God’s nature and the universe that may remain beyond human understanding.

For non-Christians, the recognition of mystery can also foster humility. Whether one is approaching life from a secular, philosophical, or alternative spiritual perspective, the vastness and complexity of existence challenge any simplistic or overly certain worldview. The recognition that human knowledge is finite and that ultimate truth may remain elusive can open the door to more respectful and meaningful conversations between people of different beliefs.

---

The Christian faith presents a sharply contrasting worldview to the belief that life has no inherent meaning and everything happens by chance. In Christianity, life is seen as having deep, intrinsic meaning and purpose because it is believed to be created by a personal and intentional God. Below are key areas where the Christian faith contrasts with the atheistic or naturalistic view that life is meaningless or the result of chance:

1. God as the Creator and Sustainer

  – Christian View: The Christian faith teaches that God is the Creator of the universe and all life within it. The very first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, states: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This is foundational to Christian belief, as it asserts that the universe is not a product of random processes, but the result of God’s purposeful design and will. In this worldview, nothing happens by chance. God is also seen as the sustainer of creation (Colossians 1:17), meaning that He continues to uphold and guide the universe according to His purpose.

  – Contrast: In atheism or naturalism, the universe and life are the result of random, impersonal forces with no guiding hand or overarching purpose. In contrast, Christians believe that God intentionally created the world with meaning and direction, and that every part of creation is infused with purpose.

2. Humanity Made in the Image of God

   – Christian View: One of the central beliefs of Christianity is that human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This means that humans have inherent dignity, worth, and purpose that come from being reflections of God’s nature. Christians believe that because humans are made in God’s image, their lives have profound meaning beyond mere physical existence. Their purpose is to know, love, and serve God, and to live in harmony with His will.

 – Contrast: In a naturalistic or atheistic worldview, humans are seen as the product of evolution, with no inherent purpose other than survival and reproduction. There is no objective moral value attached to human life beyond what societies or individuals may choose to assign. In contrast, Christianity teaches that human life is sacred because it reflects the Creator and has a divine purpose.

3. Life’s Ultimate Purpose

  – Christian View: According to Christianity, the ultimate purpose of life is to glorify God and enjoy a relationship with Him forever. This relationship with God is not just for this life but extends into eternity. In passages such as Ecclesiastes 12:13 (“Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind”) and John 17:3 (“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent”), Christians are reminded that knowing God and living according to His will is the highest and most meaningful pursuit.

   – Contrast: In the atheistic or naturalistic view, life has no ultimate purpose beyond what an individual creates for themselves. Once a person dies, they cease to exist, and there is no continuation of consciousness or meaning beyond that. In contrast, Christians believe that the purpose of life extends beyond the present world and includes eternal life in the presence of God.

4. Meaning in Suffering

  – Christian View: Christianity offers a redemptive view of suffering, teaching that even pain and hardship have meaning within God’s plan. Christians believe that suffering can lead to spiritual growth, deepen one’s dependence on God, and bring people closer to Him. Additionally, the suffering and death of Jesus Christ is seen as a profound act of love, through which God reconciled humanity to Himself (Romans 5:8). In this way, Christianity teaches that suffering is not meaningless but can be part of God’s greater purpose for good.

  – Contrast: In a naturalistic worldview, suffering is often seen as a random or unfortunate aspect of existence. It has no deeper significance other than being part of life’s inherent challenges. While people might find personal meaning in how they cope with suffering, there is no overarching narrative or divine purpose behind it. Christianity, in contrast, teaches that suffering is never wasted and that God can use it for a greater good.

5. Moral Purpose and Absolute Values

  – Christian View: Christians believe that moral values and purpose are rooted in the character of God. What is right and wrong is not determined by personal or societal preferences but by God’s revealed will. This gives life a clear ethical direction and purpose: to love God and love others (Matthew 22:37-39). God’s commandments provide a moral framework that applies universally, and living according to these commandments is seen as part of fulfilling God’s purpose for humanity.

  – Contrast: In a worldview where life is seen as the product of chance, moral values are often considered subjective, based on cultural, social, or individual preferences. While societies may agree on certain ethical principles for practical reasons (e.g., prohibiting murder), there is no objective foundation for morality. In contrast, Christians believe that moral laws are grounded in God’s eternal nature and reflect His perfect goodness.

6. Eternal Perspective vs. Temporal Existence

   – Christian View: Christianity teaches that life on Earth is temporary and that humans are ultimately destined for eternity, either in the presence of God (heaven) or separated from Him (hell). This eternal perspective gives life on Earth significant meaning, as the choices made here affect one’s eternal destiny. 2 Corinthians 4:17 speaks of “an eternal glory that far outweighs” the temporary struggles of this life. Thus, Christians are encouraged to live with eternity in mind, focusing on their relationship with God and how they live according to His will.

   – Contrast: In a worldview where life is seen as the result of random chance, existence is generally viewed as temporary and finite. Once a person dies, their consciousness ends, and there is no continuation of existence or purpose beyond the grave. This leads to the view that any meaning in life must be found within the limited time a person has on Earth, as there is no overarching purpose beyond this life.

7. Divine Providence vs. Randomness

   – Christian View: Christians believe in divine providence, the idea that God is actively involved in the world, guiding history and the lives of individuals according to His purpose. Events in life are not random but part of God’s sovereign plan. Romans 8:28 promises that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” This belief brings comfort, as Christians trust that their lives are in the hands of a loving and purposeful God.

  – Contrast: In contrast, a belief that everything happens by chance leaves no room for divine guidance or purpose. Life events, both good and bad, are seen as the result of random occurrences without any larger meaning. In this view, the universe is indifferent to human life, and there is no overarching plan or purpose governing individual lives or history.

The Christian faith offers a worldview filled with meaning, purpose, and direction. Christians believe that life is not the result of chance but of a purposeful Creator who has designed humanity to reflect His image and live in relationship with Him. Every aspect of life, including suffering, moral choices, and daily experiences, is infused with meaning because it is part of God’s overarching plan. In contrast, naturalistic or atheistic worldviews often see life as lacking inherent purpose, with meaning being something each person must construct individually, within a finite existence. Christianity answers this with the belief that life’s meaning is derived from knowing and serving God, and that this meaning is eternal and grounded in divine purpose.

Conclusion: Toward a More Constructive Dialogue

The unending standstill in arguments between Christians and non-Christians is not merely a result of doctrinal differences or philosophical disagreements, it reflects deeper aspects of human nature, including the need for certainty, the desire to defend one’s worldview, and the fear of being proven wrong. However, by focusing on these deeper existential concerns and embracing a posture of humility, both sides can move beyond the fruitless debates that often characterize religious discourse.

The way forward lies not in trying to win arguments, but in cultivating a spirit of mutual understanding, empathy, and shared humanity. Christians and non-Christians alike are engaged in the search for meaning, purpose, and truth, and while their answers may differ, the questions they ask are often the same. By focusing on these shared concerns, both sides can find common ground and engage in more meaningful and constructive conversations.

Ultimately, the goal of such dialogue should not be to prove one’s superiority or to defeat the other in debate, but to seek deeper understanding and to recognize the complexity of the human search for truth. In doing so, Christians can bear witness to the love and grace of Christ, not through argumentation, but through a humble and compassionate engagement with those who think differently. Likewise, non-Christians can approach religious belief not as something to be dismantled, but as part of the broader human experience of grappling with life’s most profound questions.

By moving beyond the standstill, both Christians and non-Christians can engage in a dialogue that transcends the surface-level details and opens the door to deeper exploration of the truths that unite all people in their quest for meaning.