“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” — Romans 1:18 (ESV)

Why Do Skeptics Still Quote the Bible?

If skeptics believe the Bible is a collection of myths, why do they so often quote it? If God is as imaginary as they claim, why does He provoke such a strong reaction?

This contradiction reveals something deeper. Many skeptics reject the Bible’s moral and theological claims, yet selectively use it when they think they can paint God in a negative light. They dismiss the Bible’s teachings on love, justice, and redemption but highlight passages on judgment and suffering, often out of context, to accuse God of cruelty.

This raises a crucial question: Do skeptics reject Scripture because they are convinced it is false, or because they do not want it to be true? If the Bible were truly on the same level as Greek mythology, they would ignore it as irrelevant—just as no one passionately argues against the moral failings of Zeus or Odin. Yet, the Bible is uniquely attacked. Why? Because its claims are not merely about history or morality; they demand personal accountability.

Suppressing the Truth in Unrighteousness

Romans 1:18 describes a fundamental reality: people suppress the truth about God. The Greek word for “suppress” (κατέχω, katechō) implies an active holding down, not a passive ignorance. This suppression is not the result of a lack of evidence but a resistance to what acknowledging God would require—moral submission, humility, and the admission that one is not the ultimate authority.

C.S. Lewis experienced this firsthand. Before his conversion, he admitted:

“I was at this time living, like so many Atheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.” (Surprised by Joy)

This paradox is still evident today. Many skeptics claim God does not exist, yet they are deeply invested in proving how unjust or immoral He is. This reaction is not the response of someone who views God as an irrelevant myth, but of someone resisting the implications of His existence.

Moral Double Standards in Skeptical Arguments

One of the clearest examples of this resistance is how skeptics approach morality. Many argue, “If God were real, He wouldn’t allow suffering.” But when the Bible presents God as a judge who punishes sin, they object, “That’s unfair!”

Which is it? Do they want a God who stops evil, or do they object to a God who judges evil? This contradiction exposes the deeper issue: many skeptics are not actually looking for justice—they are looking for moral autonomy. They want God to stop evil but only on their terms.

A prime example is the conquest of Canaan. Skeptics condemn God for ordering judgment on a corrupt and violent society, yet they ignore the fact that these same people practiced child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, and extreme violence. The same critics who demand that God intervene against evil become outraged when He does. This is not a logical objection—it is an emotional reaction to a God who does not conform to human preferences.

Addressing Honest Doubters vs. Willful Resisters

At this point, an important distinction must be made: not all skeptics reject Christianity because of willful suppression. Some genuinely wrestle with doubts due to misinformation, personal experiences, or intellectual struggles. The problem of suffering, for example, can be a serious obstacle for those who have endured personal loss. These individuals are not necessarily suppressing the truth; they may simply be seeking understanding.

However, the focus of this argument is on a different kind of skeptic—the one who mocks, misrepresents, and attacks Christianity, not out of honest inquiry but out of a desire to avoid its claims. There is a vast difference between a seeker and a suppressor. Seekers ask questions because they want answers. Suppressors use questions as weapons, not to find truth but to tear it down.

Jesus Himself recognized this distinction. To those who genuinely sought truth, He gave answers (John 14:6). But to those who resisted out of hardened hearts, He spoke in parables, knowing they would refuse to listen (Matthew 13:10-15).

Is Skepticism Really About Lack of Evidence?

If skeptics truly rejected Christianity on purely intellectual grounds, one would expect that strong evidence would change their minds. But this is rarely the case. Even when presented with compelling historical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for God’s existence and the reliability of Scripture, many skeptics dismiss them outright. Why? Because for many, the issue is not evidence—it is desire.

Thomas Nagel, a well-known atheist philosopher, openly admitted this:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” (The Last Word, 130)

This is one of the most honest admissions from an atheist thinker. Nagel recognized that his atheism was not merely an intellectual conclusion—it was a personal preference. He did not want God to exist, because if God existed, it would mean he was not in control.

Jesus made the same point in John 3:19-20:

“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”

In other words, unbelief is often not about the mind—it is about the will.

A Syllogism: The Resistance to Truth Argument

To clarify why so many skeptics reject Christianity not because of evidence but because of what belief in God would require, consider the following syllogism:

1. If Christianity is true, then it entails moral accountability and submission to God.
   • (Premise: Christianity teaches that God exists, humans are morally accountable, and submission to God is required.)
2. If a person strongly desires to avoid moral accountability and submission to God, they will be motivated to reject Christianity regardless of evidence.
   • (Premise: Psychological bias and volitional resistance can override rational evaluation of evidence, as seen in cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning.)
3. Many skeptics reject Christianity not merely on evidential grounds but because accepting it would require moral accountability and submission to God.
   • (Premise: Historical, philosophical, and psychological evidence, including Thomas Nagel’s and C.S. Lewis’ admissions, shows that many reject God because of what belief in Him would entail.)
4. Therefore, for many skeptics, the rejection of Christianity is driven more by volitional resistance than by objective disproof.
   • (Conclusion: The primary issue is often not the lack of evidence but the implications of belief.)

What If Christianity Is True?

For skeptics who are truly open-minded, the question is not just whether Christianity is false but whether they are willing for it to be true. If the Bible is true, it means:

• God is real
• Truth is objective
• We are accountable for our actions
• Judgment is coming

These are not trivial implications. The real question is not whether the Bible can withstand scrutiny—but whether the skeptic is willing to accept it when it does.

If you are a skeptic reading this, consider this challenge: Are you rejecting Christianity because you have genuinely disproven it? Or because you do not want it to be true?

If God is real, no argument, no meme, and no rejection will change that reality. The question is whether you are willing to seek the truth—or continue suppressing it.