Which God is it Anyway?

In December 2025 a debate took place between a Christian and an atheist on the topic, ‘Is Life Meaningless Without God?’¹ Representing the atheist position was the president of Atheism UK, John Richards, who began his opening statement by asking, “Which God?” He elaborated, “it could be Unkulunkulu, or Thor, or Anubis, or Ganesha, or any one of thousands of gods which have been invented since mankind walked on this earth.”

Richards’ question is a common objection that has entered popular culture and is often used as a knockdown argument against God. It came to prominence around the time of the New Atheism and has been circulated by popular thinkers, including comedian Ricky Gervais.² The objection is closely related to the argument that the God one worships is likely due to one’s upbringing.

The cartoon Southpark included a clip in which a girl challenges Richard Dawkins’ atheism by asking, “What if you’re wrong?”³ Dawkins’ response was to turn the question back on the questioner by arguing that, if she had been brought up in another time or culture, she would be worshipping another god. What, then, if she were to be wrong about those gods? The central claim in Dawkins’ reply comes when he asserts, “There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian God in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up.”

There are several reasons why this objection deserves a thoughtful response. Firstly, it has become a very popular argument accessible across the internet. Anyone researching the Christian faith, will likely encounter it at some point. Given its pervasiveness, it is also very possible that Christians will have it levelled against them when having a gospel conversation - in which case we need to be ready.

Secondly, the objection renders faith in Jesus arbitrary. If someone is a Christian simply because of an accident of their upbringing, then Dawkins is correct: there is no reason to prioritise the Judeo-Christian God over any other. I will call this the contingency principle because it claims that a person’s religious views are merely contingent on their upbringing and culture.

Thirdly, this argument can be used to turn a Christian’s reasoning in on itself. Atheists will sometimes say to Christians that the Christian is an atheist about all other gods - the atheist just goes one god further. If a Christian rejects other gods for the same reason that an atheist rejects the God of the Bible, they claim, the Christian must be inconsistent in their reasoning.

All of this makes for a strong argument at face value. It forces the Christian to ask why they believe what they do and it threatens to reduce their faith to nothing more than their upbringing. It is therefore important for Christians and sceptics alike to think seriously about the weight of this objection. Whether you are a Christian wanting to be ready to give a defence of the faith, or a sceptic who finds the argument convincing, it is important to consider whether the objection really can stand up to scrutiny.

I believe that good answers can be given. In fact, when examined at a deeper level, this objection is revealed to be not very strong at all. Let us consider how one might answer this argument.

1.     Truth is not decided by popularity vote

Although not addressing the argument itself, there is an important note of caution to sound. Large numbers of people believing the same argument can give that argument a ring of authenticity, independent of the merits of the argument itself. In the case of the ‘Which God?’ argument, the fact that it has been advanced by so many well-known people can give added weight.

The fact that an opinion’s popularity can affect how convincing it sounds may, in part, be responsible for the polarisation that appears to be happening across our culture on political and ethical issues. Algorithms bring to our attention viewpoints similar to our own and social media becomes an echo chamber with countless people bouncing our own thoughts back at us. The view that “all these people cannot be wrong” can seep into our minds unconsciously and make a point of view seem almost self-explanatory. When names such as Richard Dawkins or Ricky Gervais, who are well known and trusted in many quarters, throw their weight behind the argument, it can put it beyond question.

Popular opinion can easily trump critical thinking, but it does not determine truth. We must be sure that we only take each argument on its own merits. What matters is substance, not how many people believe it. This is an important point for all of us to keep in mind when assessing arguments, whatever our worldview.

2.     The claim of the contingency principle is problematic

The contingency principle, which lies at the heart of the objection, argues that one’s faith is contingent upon one’s cultural upbringing. In the exchange mentioned above, Richard Dawkins challenges the questionner by saying,

If you were brought up in India you would be a Hindu. If you were brought up in Denmark

in the time of the Vikings you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you’d be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa you’d be believing in the great JuJu up the mountain. There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian God in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up.⁴

Before assessing this argument, we should acknowledge the grain of truth it holds. Of course one’s upbringing will affect the worldview one adopts. Dawkins may well be correct that one is more likely to be a Hindu if raised in India and a believer in Thor if raised in Denmark at the time of the Vikings.

Recognising this warns us against adopting a position unthinkingly and encourages us to think about why we do believe what we believe. There are, however, three serious difficulties with the contingency principle that Dawkins does not acknowledge. Firstly, it gives an oversimplistic account of belief. Secondly, it commits the ‘genetic fallacy’ by appealing to the origins of one’s faith in order to deny that faith. Thirdly, it presents as much of a problem for the sceptic as it does for the believer.

Let us consider these three points in turn.

●      The Contingency Principle is overly simplistic

Despite holding a grain of truth, it is simply false that one’s beliefs are entirely contingent upon one’s cultural upbringing. There are many considerations as to why someone adopts a particular worldview, of which upbringing is but one factor. The contingency principle does not account for people changing their beliefs when considering different strands of evidence or adopting a contrary view later in life.

People can step outside their own worldview and assess the reasons for believing what they do. Notable examples can be found across various belief systems. Frances Collins, a top physicist and co-leader of the Human Genome Project alongside his colleague Sir John Sulston, tells how he was a convinced atheist until his mid-twenties when his experiences in medical school brought him to confront issues of life and death. He started on a road which led him to faith in Jesus.⁵ 

By contrast, Sulston was raised in a Christian family but died an atheist. In part, his move away from the Christian faith came through recognising the contingency principle and assuming that his own faith was arbitrary. Sadly, in Sulston’s case, it appears that he never attempted to move beyond and to ask if there were positive reasons for belief in God. In recognising the existence of other religions, he simply says that, “one could not have faith.”⁶ Every person is raised in a particular culture which tends towards a particular worldview. This does not mean, however, that any one religious stance is arbitrary. There are many reasons why a person may come to a position about the big questions and that includes the conclusion that Jesus is Lord.

●      The Contingency Principle commits the ‘Genetic Fallacy’

The ‘genetic fallacy’ states that, by showing how a belief has originated, it can be proved false. This reasoning is completely fallacious. If one wants to demonstrate the truth or falsity of any worldview one must engage with the evidence, not with how the belief was formed. Consider Dawkins’ response above. His argument was that the person asking the question believed what she did by virtue of her upbringing. Therefore, there was no reason for her to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Dawkins’ response is a flat refusal to recognise or engage with the evidence. Instead, he rejects her beliefs by appealing to the country and home in which she was raised.

There are many kinds of evidence that Dawkins could have considered, including theistic ‘proofs’ for a creator, the existence of a transcendent moral realm and the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Or he could have advanced arguments against theism, including the existence of suffering and evil. The point is it is essential to deal with evidence. The contingency principle, as we have seen, does not argue on the basis of evidence but on the basis of arbitrariness, which says nothing about whether a belief is true.

Let us assume, with Dawkins, that someone really is only a Christian because of the culture in which they were raised. It could still be that Christianity is true, in which case that person should be very thankful for their upbringing. To conclude, as Dawkins and Sulston have done, that there is no longer any room for faith in God is to stop thinking seriously about the evidence. It is, ironically, to adopt a perspective without reason.

●      The Contingency Principle is as much a problem for the sceptic as the believer.

As popular as the contingency principle argument is, it is seldom ackbnowledged that it presents a challenge to the atheist as well as to the believer. To appreciate this, we have to recognise that any worldview, whether religious or not, can be adopted from one’s cultural upbringing and so can have a degree of contingency.

Christian mathematician John Lennox once debated atheist philosopher Peter Singer. During the dialogue, Singer appealed to the contingency principle, pointing out that Lennox had been raised by Christian parents in a predominantly Christian country. This, argued Singer, was enough to explain Lennox’s Christian belief. In response, Lennox asked Singer if he had been raised by atheist parents. When Singer answered in the affirmative, Lennox said “So you’re perpetuating the faith of your parents too, like I am.”⁷ Singer’s response was telling. He said that he did not regard his atheism as a faith. Rather his appeal throughout the debate was to evidence over faith.

This betrays a very specific understanding of faith. For Singer, all faith is blind faith. It is the antithesis of evidence. Christians reject this definition of faith but, leaving this aside, the exchange between Singer and Lennox reminds us that the atheist is open to the very same charge as the Christian. Why should one conclude there is no God simply because they were raised by atheist parents? The atheist who argues that theistic belief is not true bears a burden of proof to demonstrate the reasonableness of his own faith position. If he cannot do this, one is forced to conclude that his own faith in atheism is merely a product of his own cultural upbringing.

3.     The objection makes a categorical error in speaking about God

As noted above, one of the reasons this objection is so important is because it attempts to turn Christian reasoning back upon itself. It is often said that Christians reject all other gods, the atheist just goes one God further. The Christian is invited to consider why they reject the existence of all other gods. The atheist then says that she rejects the Christian God for the same reasons. The challenge is one of consistency. If the Christian is consistent in their rejection of all other gods, then they will reject the God of the Bible too and become an atheist.

As with the contingency principle above, this objection makes a number of assumptions. It assumes that faith in the God of the Bible is of the same kind as faith in Zeus would be. There is no place for considering evidence in this objection. There is, however, another assumption that often goes unrecognised, namely that, in speaking about a God or gods, we mean the same thing in each case. But is this true? The Christian claim is that there is one God who is an eternal, transcendent creator of the universe. This God is perfect, all powerful, all knowing, all loving and personal. By contrast, the Greek pantheon of gods includes Zeus, who is often given as an example when this objection is used. The Greek gods are said to have been spawned from an eternal Chaos. The Chaos is a brute fact, not created by anyone. Like human beings, then, the Greek gods are mere creations of the cosmos. They are not transcendent, nor perfect, nor creators in the same way the God of the Bible is. The same can be said for the gods of Hinduism. Buddhism denies the existence of a god altogether - it is an example of an atheistic religion.

Returning to John Richard’s quote at the beginning of this article, none of the gods he mentions fall into the same category of being as the God of the Bible. This matters because it means that one cannot deny the God of the Bible for the same reasons as one might deny Zeus. There are independent arguments and evidence that can be provided for God that are simply irrelevant to the vast majority of gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Given that the majority of gods are irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of a transcendent creator, the situation becomes vastly different to one presented by the sceptic. Rather than thousands of different gods all competing for the right to be worshipped, one could narrow it down to four possibilities. These are Deism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Deist believes that God created the universe but has left it alone. God is inaccessible and unknowable. Some of the theistic proofs, such as the cosmological and teleological arguments, are consistent with the deistic god.

The other three religious systems go further by teaching that God has revealed Himself through prophets and holy texts. However, this does not mean that they are all on an equal footing. The Muslim text, The Qur’an, was alleged to have been given to Mohammed through private revelations by an angel. This means there is no independent way to verify the claims made in its pages. The Jewish Tanakh, which Christians call the Old Testament, is read by Jews and affirmed by Christians. There is historical data to back up many of the claims in the Tanakh but they lack the most decisive evidence of all which comes in the New Testament - Jesus of Nazareth. Of all the monotheistic faiths, it is Jesus Christ who makes the difference. He perfectly fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament, not contradicting but completing the Jewish text. There is compelling evidence for His death and resurrection and from this grew the global church which is said to comprise 2.3 billion people.⁸ The historical evidence for the truth of Christianity is unmatched against the other monotheistic religions and provides strong reason to trust in its central claim - Jesus is Lord.

Concluding Thoughts

Perhaps you are a Christian wanting to think through important objections to the faith, or maybe you are a sceptic who has wondered what is so special about Christianity. I hope this has provided helpful food for thought. In drawing everything together, the objection that one is likely to be a Christian only by accident of birth, and that there are thousands of other gods one could worship sounds, at face value, like a powerful argument. It is often quoted as a neat soundbite, but a moment’s pause reveals that it is full of holes and not very convincing.

It oversimplifies the situation by failing to acknowledge that there are many reasons why one might become a Christian, and it ignores the evidence. It commits the ‘genetic fallacy’ by denying Christianity based upon the origins of one’s belief and it fails to recognise that any worldview, including atheism, may be merely contingent upon a person’s upbringing. Finally, it makes a fundamental category error, failing to recognise that the majority of gods and religious systems are wholly irrelevant to the truth of Christianity.

As with any worldview, the Christian faith needs to be assessed on the basis of evidence. It is my contention that, whatever culture one is born into, the evidence for the Christian faith and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, is stronger than any other worldview. If you are on a journey, seeking after truth, why not explore that evidence for yourself?

Endnotes

1.  Unbelievable? (2025) Is life meaningless without God? A live school debate between Atheism UK and Christian apologist. Premier Unbelievable. Available at: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/unbelievable/is-life-meaningless-without-god-a-live-school-debate-between-atheism-uk-and-christian-apologist/20681.article (Accessed: 05 January 2026).

2.  Ricky Gervais On Religion (2022) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/C_CtBdLR7j8 (Accessed: 15 January 2026).

3.  The audio used by South Park was taken from a real encounter between Dawkins and an audience member. The fact that it became part of a South Park episode demonstrates just how far arguments such as these reach, even infusing popular culture. The original encounter can be seen in full at

Dawkins, R. (2006) What if you’re wrong? Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg (Accessed: 15 January 2026).

4. See link above for the full exchange

5.  Collins’s story can be read in his book, The Language of God (2007)

6.  Sulston, J. (2013) Faith Interview: Sir John Sulston (Two Minute Highlights) Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwVAC81HbSE&t=6s (Accessed: 15 January 2026).

7.  antipiano (2016) Peter Singer vs John Lennox: Is There a God? Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7qBtNMayQ (Accessed: 15 January 2026).

8.  World Population Review (2026) Most Christian Countries 2026. Available at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-christian-countries (Accessed: 16 January 2026).