Why Would an All-Loving, All-Merciful God Send Atheists and Agnostics to Hell Simply for Using Their
Let me go ahead and apologize for the cumbersome title up front. It was a question posted on Quora that I tackled. Rather than re-word it, I kept it original since a majority of what I wrote is directly related to the way the question is asked.
In just the first reading of this two-part question, I think I must have seen a hundred rabbit trails I could have gotten lost on flash through my mind because each time I began to answer a question in my mind, that answer then opened another theological or apologetic door which opened another and so on. Both are loaded questions, and they contain false premises and seem to carry an undercurrent of arrogance as well. As much as I want to answer directly and briefly, I fear it is not possible to give the topic as thorough a treatment as it deserves. But let’s see what we can come up with.
The first question begins with a faulty premise. God does not send anyone to hell simply for "using their God-given brains." First, while it may seem like nitpicking over semantics, it is important nonetheless - God doesn’t send anyone to hell. He simply honors our decision whether to make Him or ourselves the Lord of our lives. That point aside, Scripture makes it clear that it is the rejection of Christ that separates us from God.
Also in the first question is a problem we frequently see, especially in light of modern Western sentimentality. Why only describe God as all-loving and all-merciful? There are many other divine attributes that aren’t mentioned that are just as important if not more so. It’s wrong to think that God is simply a loving being - especially if you mean ‘loving’ in the sense most Americans use that word today. We tend to care only for the ‘softer’ virtues like love and mercy and forget the ‘hard’ virtues of holiness, righteousness and justice.
And I think we must be careful, too, calling Him all-merciful and all-loving. This is incorrect. He does not love sin, and He will not be merciful toward His enemies. He is merciful, and He is loving, but only toward those whom He rightly ought to be. As a function of His omniscience, however, He is all-knowing. There is a moral component to attributes like mercy and love. Evil deserves neither. But there is no moral attachment to knowledge; therefore knowing all things, good and evil, is consistent with God’s nature. Loving all things and/or showing mercy toward all things is not consistent with His nature as a holy, righteous and just Being. And it is precisely because God is also holy, righteous and just that He is not all-merciful or all-loving.
The question’s premise is faulty in another, subtle way as well. In asking about the atheist merely using his brain, the will is left out of the equation. This is important because the implication is that rational thought alone is involved and one can’t possibly find fault with that, right? By ignoring the will, the fallen self-inclination, the question makes of man something innocent when he is not. Man is not some good-natured bloke exercising his logical faculties absent any bias. Augustine talked about the “inward curve,” man’s inclination toward self. It has also rightly been described as the human heart turned in on itself like a fish hook. We are selfish, prideful creatures and I think these questions themselves reveal some of that, whether intentional or not.
A common feature of questions like this is including the phrase “God-given.” At its most benign, the implication is that God made me this way, so how can it be my fault if I used the brain He supposedly gave me to reach the conclusion He doesn’t exist? This is an attempt to rest all responsibility squarely on God’s shoulders. If He gave me the brain and I used it to reach a different conclusion, then He ought to have done something different in creating me. Regardless, the point is clearly that I can’t possibly be responsible, a sentiment that is common today across the board. At its most malignant, it is meant to mock the very idea that there is a God at all to give... well, anything.
To me, the second question seems to imply within itself its author’s preconceived answer. “Is it their fault….?” seems very clearly ready to answer itself with an unspoken “No, it is not their fault.” Again, at best, God Himself bears the responsibility for disbelief. At worst, there is no God and it's most definitely not their fault for not believing in something that doesn't exist.
Furthermore, the author is concerned for the atheist or agnostic who finds it difficult to “force [himself] into believing things that simply don’t make sense to [him].” Again, the not-so-subtle implication is that belief is forced and non-belief is the natural, unforced, logical state.
And to underscore the above points all the more, the use of the word “simply” in each question acts as a finger in the chest. Or perhaps it’s more apt to describe them as the condescending shoulder shrugs accompanying the eye-rolls conveyed in the questions. He is simply using his brain, and he is unable to force himself to believe things that simply make no sense.
One thing the question gets right is that these things don’t make sense to him, not that they don’t make sense. To be honest, that small detail may indicate the author is open to an answer, whatever it may be. He may be genuinely confused and find it incredible that such a thing could be true, that “merely concluding” there is no basis for belief can result in eternal separation from God.
I had no idea I was going to exhaustively dissect the question itself when I started typing. And here’s the thing - I, like all of us, bring some preconceptions to the table as well. Add to it that the written word does not convey tone very well, and I could have very easily read the question in a way that was not intended at all. Let me tell you, I have gotten myself into some hot water via text for this very reason!
However, it is an important question regardless of whether I believe there are quiet implications and faulty premises in it. If I am wrong, I am happily so. It is entirely possible that the author of the question is sincerely seeking the answer and had no idea the question, at least to me, is pregnant with condescension and incredulity.
I think I could write a book on the Scripture verses that address the foolishness of man alone. I could point out that what the atheist says makes no sense, Scripture says makes no sense to man and admonishes us thusly: “woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in the own sight.” (Isaiah 5:21)
I could point out that Romans 1:19–23 makes it clear that creation itself testifies of the Creator: “…because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.” And then I could offer what I believe is overwhelming historical, scientific, moral, textual and philosophical evidence that supports these verses, so much so that belief actually makes more sense than disbelief in my opinion.
So the short answer is no, no one goes to hell simply for using his brain. In fact, Scripture repeatedly admonishes us to do that very thing. People go to hell for rejecting Christ as a result of their persistent disbelief. And yes, we are at fault for our disbelief. Scripture repeatedly makes it clear that we are responsible for our damnation. Overwhelming evidence exists across a variety of disciplines that supports the Christian worldview, and creation itself leaves us without excuse. All signs point to God as it were, and our insistence that it's just too difficult to believe just isn't going to fly.
But I have to close by bringing it back to the will again. I cannot stress strongly enough just how important and destructive the inclination toward self and the accompanying desire to be my own master, define my own morality, and write my own rules are. I can offer all the rational proofs in the world, but belief is almost always a function of the will, not the evidence. It’s about a receptive heart, open to the drawing of the Holy Spirit, not about a set of scales on which the evidence “for” outweighs the evidence “against.” It’s about a personal relationship, not a scientific, historical or philosophical explanation. But if I can use those things to soften the ground in which the seed is planted, then may it be so, and may God bless the effort.