Common Objections to Christianity, Taken Seriously

The hardest questions about Christianity deserve a straight answer, not a dodge — here's what several traditions actually say in response to the most common ones.

Sites like this one often skip the hardest questions, which is its own kind of dishonesty. Here are several of the most common objections to Christian belief, stated as directly as the people raising them usually mean them, with how different traditions have actually responded — not a rebuttal script, but a fair account of the conversation.

"If God is good and all-powerful, why does evil and suffering exist?"

Known formally as the problem of evil, this is widely regarded, including by many Christian philosophers and theologians, as the single strongest objection to belief in a good, all-powerful God. Contested Christian responses vary: one common line (a "free will defense") holds that morally significant freedom requires the real possibility of choosing wrong, and that a world with real freedom, and therefore real evil, is more valuable than a world without either. Another line distinguishes moral evil (caused by human choice) from natural evil (disease, disaster) and treats the two as requiring separate responses. None of these fully resolves the tension for every person who raises the objection, and most serious Christian thinkers acknowledge that — this is treated as a genuine, weighty question within the traditions, not a solved one.

"Isn't the Bible full of contradictions?"

Some apparent contradictions in the Bible are genuinely difficult (differing details across the four Gospels' resurrection accounts, for instance); others dissolve once genre and audience are accounted for (a poetic or figurative passage compared against a historical one). Contested Conservative and evangelical Protestant scholarship tends to argue most apparent contradictions are reconcilable with careful reading; more liberal Protestant, and much mainstream academic biblical scholarship, treats some tensions as reflecting the Bible's composition by multiple human authors across centuries rather than requiring full reconciliation. Catholic and Orthodox teaching generally holds Scripture as without error in matters of faith and salvation specifically, a narrower claim than inerrancy in every historical or scientific detail.

"How can a loving God send people to hell?"

This objection has produced genuinely different answers within Christianity, not just different tones. Contested Traditional teaching across Catholic, Orthodox, and most historic Protestant traditions holds hell as a real, eternal consequence of rejecting God, generally understood as resulting from a person's own free rejection rather than an arbitrary sentence. A minority but real strand within Christian thought (sometimes called annihilationism) holds that the ultimate consequence is ceasing to exist rather than eternal conscious suffering. A smaller strand still (Christian universalism) holds that all will ultimately be reconciled to God. This is a live, debated question, not a single settled Christian answer.

Some links in this section are partner or affiliate links, and we may be paid a fee at no cost to you. It never changes what we recommend or the order anything appears in. Full disclosure · how we source this.

"Isn't religion just something humans invented to explain what they didn't understand, or to control people?"

This is a claim about origin (where religious belief came from) that doesn't, by itself, settle the separate question of whether the belief is true — an idea can have a human sociological or psychological explanation for why it spread and still happen to be true, or false, independent of that explanation. Reflection Christian responses generally don't deny that religion serves social functions or has been misused for control — Christian history includes real, documented instances of both — but argue those facts don't settle the separate truth question, which has to be argued on its own terms (historical evidence for the resurrection, philosophical arguments for God's existence, personal experience, and so on).

"Christianity has been used to justify terrible things historically — the Crusades, colonialism, slavery."

This is factually accurate and not seriously disputed by any major Christian tradition today; the Crusades, the transatlantic slave trade's use of Christian justification, and colonial-era abuses carried out under Christian institutions are documented historical facts. Established Most Christian traditions today distinguish between what core Christian teaching actually claims (which, on issues like slavery, many scholars argue was in real tension with, and was eventually used to argue against, the practice by abolitionist Christians) and how the faith has been misused by people and institutions holding power — while acknowledging that distinction doesn't erase the historical harm, which several denominations have formally apologized for in recent decades.

"Why does it matter which tradition someone belongs to if they're all 'Christian' anyway?"

Because the traditions genuinely disagree, sometimes on questions each considers serious — the nature of the Eucharist, the authority of the Pope, whether salvation requires works alongside faith. Reflection Whether those disagreements matter enough to justify separate institutions is itself a debated question even among Christians who take their faith seriously; ecumenical dialogue (formal conversation between traditions aimed at understanding, and sometimes reconciliation) has been ongoing for decades precisely because thoughtful people within each tradition think the disagreements are worth taking seriously rather than shrugging off.

"How do we even know Jesus existed, historically?"

This is a distinct question from whether Christian claims about Jesus (his divinity, the resurrection) are true, and it has a more settled answer among historians than the theological questions do. Established The existence of Jesus as a historical figure — a Jewish teacher executed under Roman authority in first-century Judea — is accepted by the overwhelming majority of historians, including non-Christian and secular scholars, based on multiple independent ancient sources (Christian and non-Christian, including brief references in Roman and Jewish historical writings). What's genuinely debated among historians and theologians is not whether he existed, but the details and significance of what he said and did, and above all whether he rose from the dead — a claim historical method, on its own, is not well equipped to adjudicate either way.

"Isn't faith just believing something without evidence?"

This is a common definition of faith outside Christian tradition, but it's not how most serious Christian theology across traditions defines the term. Reflection Classical Christian usage (drawing on the Latin fides and Greek pistis) treats faith more as trust or commitment based on reasons judged sufficient — closer to trusting a person whose character you have evidence for, than believing a claim with zero supporting evidence. Christian apologetics (the discipline of arguing for the reasonableness of Christian belief) spans centuries and includes serious philosophical and historical argument, whatever one concludes about whether those arguments succeed — the claim that Christian faith categorically rejects evidence and reason is not accurate to how the traditions themselves define the term, even though some popular usage of "just have faith" does sound closer to that caricature.

"If Christianity is true, why hasn't it convinced everyone, including thoughtful people who've studied it seriously?"

This is sometimes called the problem of "reasonable nonbelief" or divine hiddenness, and like the problem of evil, it's treated by serious Christian philosophers as a real objection worth a real answer rather than a dismissal. Contested Responses vary: some argue that God's existence being less than fully obvious preserves the possibility of a freely chosen response rather than a coerced one; others point out that plenty of thoughtful people do find the arguments convincing, and that widespread disagreement on hard questions (including in philosophy and ethics generally, well beyond religion) isn't unique to Christianity or evidence against it specifically. This remains a genuinely open conversation rather than one either side treats as settled.

A closing note on how to weigh these objections

None of the responses above are offered as a debate-ending final word — thoughtful people, including thoughtful Christians, continue to sit with these questions, sometimes for years. Reflection What this guide is trying to avoid is the more common failure mode on both sides: dismissing an honest objection with a slogan, or assuming that an unanswered hard question automatically settles the larger truth question one way or the other. Both the objections and the traditions' responses to them deserve to be taken at their strongest, not their weakest, form.

This is general educational information about Christian belief and practice, not a substitute for guidance from clergy or leaders within a specific tradition. Local requirements and practices are set locally.