For the previous installment, click here.
So far I have provided what I consider to be reasonable responses to the HoG objection. Now I want to discuss a couple of popular responses I find inadequate for the task. The first is to assert that God has provided enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe in and submit to a relationship with God, but not so much so as to compel the unwilling. The idea here is that if God were to provide more evidence of His existence, people would be compelled to believe in Him, and thus be robbed of their free will. But what exactly would they be compelled to do? At best, they would be compelled to believe that God exists (a rational obligation); however, such knowledge does not coerce one into a relationship with God. Rational obligations tell us what we ought to believe given the evidence; they do not coerce us into believing or doing anything in particular. Our beliefs and actions continue to be free.
To claim that an abundance of evidence for God’s existence would rob people of their freedom to believe or disbelieve, is like saying the abundance of evidence for a round Earth robs people of their freedom to believe or disbelieve it. Freedom of choice is not eliminated by evidence, but rather directed by the evidence. Because the evidence for X is good, we freely choose to believe X rather than –X. To claim otherwise is to say we cannot freely choose to believe any X if the evidence is overwhelming that X is true. But surely this is mistaken. If we consider evidence on a scale of one to ten, with one being “poorly evidenced” and ten being “overwhelmingly evidenced,” would it make any sense to say one freely chooses to believe X when it has an evidential factor of nine, but loses the freedom to believe X when its evidential factor increases to ten? Clearly not! All but a few truths are corrigible, and thus no matter how good the evidence may be for any X, there is always the possibility that X may be false, and thus we must choose to believe X is true (even incorrigible truths must be believed by choice since one can doubt or deny an incorrigible truth, even if their doubt/denial is unfounded). The difference between a well-evidenced belief and a poorly-evidenced belief is not that the former is determined while the latter is freely chosen, but rather that we can freely form the former with a high degree of confidence that it is true.
James E. Bruce isn’t persuaded by this explanation of divine hiddenness either. He says the claim that God’s existence is so easily deniable because “God does not want the knowledge of God to be forced on people” is to say “because God wants people to love him freely, he makes it easy to think that he does not exist.”[1] Well put!
The second response I wish to discuss is theologically accurate, but unlikely to persuade anyone other than Christian theists. This response asserts that God has not made His existence more obvious because He is not particularly interested in whether people believe He exists, but rather that they enter into a loving relationship with Him. It’s not obvious, they say, that if the knowledge of God was as obvious as the nose on their face, that more people would come to a saving relationship with Him. Some might even resent God for “throwing” His existence in their face. God’s constant reminders of His existence might even be perceived as an annoyance that interferes with their ability to freely engage in moral rebellion.
While I agree that God is more interested in humans entering into a loving relationship with Him than He is interested in their mere acknowledgment of His existence, and while I agree that a clear knowledge of God’s existence does not guarantee that people will enter into such a relationship with God, non-theists will respond that it stretches credulity to suggest that the number of people who would come to a loving relationship with God would be no different if God’s existence was more obvious than it is. After all, one cannot enter into a relationship with someone they do not know (or are not sure) exists. Knowing that someone exists logically precedes a relationship with that individual. Are we to think that not even a single individual throughout the history of mankind failed to enter into a relationship with God because—for whatever reason—they were unsure of His existence, but would have entered into a relationship with God had they been convinced He existed? It seems incredible to think all non-believers would persist in their unbelief even if God’s existence was obvious to them (or more obvious than it is).
The theist may counter that given the amount of evidence God has provided us for His existence, skepticism regarding God’s existence is unwarranted. To this the non-theist might respond that there are various lines of evidence for God’s existence, but many of those “evidences” are ambiguous and subjective, while others are quite philosophical in nature and not readily apparent to those who have not been instructed in them. In response, the theist may counter that the knowledge of God belongs to all men by nature, so even if someone is unaware of some of the more nuanced philosophical arguments for God’s existence, non-theists are without excuse for their lack of belief. Indeed, according to Romans 1-2 God has made His existence known to all people via creation and conscience. The non-theist is unlikely to accept that premise as true, but even if he did, he could point out that some people are persuaded out of that knowledge by seemingly cogent arguments to the contrary. Perhaps the problem of evil has caused them to doubt God’s existence. Perhaps arguments for Darwinian evolution caused them to think God is superfluous. Whatever the reason, some people have come to doubt or disbelieve in God, either because of what they perceive to be a lack of evidence for His existence, or because of evidence they think disconfirms His existence. Perhaps if the existence of God was more obvious, such individuals would not be deceived by such arguments. As a Christian theist, I do not think this is true. According to the Bible, the ultimate reason people reject God is because they do not want to accept Him as their sovereign, not because of intellectual arguments against His existence. The problem is volitional, not intellectual. While they might appeal to the problem of evil or the evidence for evolution as justification for their rejection of God, these are excuses rather than reasons. The real reason for their unbelief is their moral rebellion against the Creator. While this makes for good theology, it will not be effective in convincing the defender of the HoG argument that God exists, and thus I do not recommend offering this response to an unbeliever. It is, however, an appropriate response for Christians who question why God doesn’t make His existence more plain.
In conclusion, the HoG objection to theism is multiply flawed. The conclusion is a non-sequitur; it presupposes that God wants people to believe He exists; it does not consider the possibility that God provides evidence of His existence selectively according to His knowledge of the condition of each person’s heart; it ignores the abundance of evidence for theism we do have; it presumes physical evidence is the only valid form of evidence. For these reasons the HoG objection is not successful.
[1]James E. Bruce, reviewing Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A new Look at Theistic Arguments by C. Stephan Evans in Philosophia Christi, Vol. 14, Number 2, 2012, p. 480.
October 12, 2010 at 1:12 pm
1. Jesus told Thomas ‘blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed.’
2. Paul indicates in his Mars Hill speech the reason for the creation of man was that ‘they should seek the Lord …. and find Him.’
Clearly this Being is interested in people believing and coming to Him without natural evidence supplied to the 5 senses. Why, I do not know. He did prove His existence more in the Old Testament, but a case can be made that it did not result in truly changing people’s hearts any more than they are changed today.
James
LikeLike
October 12, 2010 at 3:19 pm
James,
Right. The evidence God has provided us for His existence usually is in the form of His effects. Not only would this include such things as the existence of the universe and morality, but also miracles. One can see the miracle, but that is not the same as seeing God. One must use effect-to-cause reasoning to infer the presence of a deity to produce that effect.
And you are right about the miraculous. Even when God would supply people with more tangible evidence of His existence, it may have resulted in more people believing in His existence, but it did not necessarily cause those people to enter into a relationship with Him. Many of these people rebelled against the very God that proved Himself to them day-in and day-out with supernatural miracles. Such is the nature of the human heart.
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2010 at 9:52 am
Jason, are you familiar with Paul Moser’s writings on this subject? He put together a great booklet called “Why Isn’t God More Obvious?” (http://www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/GodMoreObvious.pdf)
Last summer, I started a thread over at Philosophy Forums on this subject (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/evidence-for-god-35442.html) that ended up lasting almost four months and included 529 posts. You might find it an interesting (albeit lengthy) read, especially the many responses from non-believers.
An important thing to keep in mind here is that no one is ultimately saved by human arguments, no matter how convincing; only the Holy Spirit can bring someone to genuine faith, which includes not only belief, but also trust.
LikeLike
October 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Yes, I have heard of Moser’s book, and I heard it was quite good, but had not read it myself.
I didn’t realize it was available as a PDF. It looks like a short book (probably shorter than the string you started on Philosophy Forums!). I’ll give it a read.
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Aletheist,
I should have asked if there were any insights from Moser’s book that you could add to the list I created? Or perhaps Moser said something that would challenge some of what I said.
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2010 at 2:11 pm
The PDF is a booklet that Moser wrote for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. He has other online stuff linked at http://www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/relWrit.shtml#mose. It has been a while since I read any of it, but my impression is that you covered a lot of the same (or at least similar) ground. In particular, he primarily takes the second tack that you discuss above – challenging the assumption that God wants people (merely) to believe that He exists and emphasizing (as you did) the volitional basis of non-belief.
LikeLike
October 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Yeah, that’s my impression as well. I started reading it during my lunch break, and I’m about 1/2 done now. Once I finish it I’ll say a few things about the book.
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Ravi has actually just recently uploaded something about the “Hiddenness of God.” If you subscribe to their iPhone app, it’s one of the most recent downloads.
LikeLike
October 14, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Aletheist,
I finished Moser’s monograph. It was a worthy read, but I was a bit surprised that Moser only offered one substantive explanation for the HoG: God is more concerned that we engage Him in a loving relationship than that we merely believe He exists. I was hoping to discover some additional responses to the objection.
Moser’s explanation for the hiddenness of God was a thoroughgoing Christian response, full of Biblical theology and citations. It is clearly aimed for a Christian audience. While I found that appealing as a Christian, non-Christians wouldn’t. Personally I would not recommend this book to a non-Christian to answer their HoG objection to the existence of God. I don’t think they would find the book very persuasive. This is no fault of Moser, since he appears to have been writing more from a theological perspective for Christians rather than from a philosophical perspective for non-Christians.
I was disappointed to see Moser making the very same mistake I spoke of in my blog: claiming that if God’s existence were more obvious than it is, people would be compelled to believe in Him, and thus be robbed of their free will. Moser writes, “God aims that all people freely choose to be transformed by God from self-serving to self-giving, loving children of the God of morally serious love. … As all-loving, God desires that eventually all people freely come to be morally and lovingly perfect as God is morally and lovingly perfect (Matthew 5:48). Given this aim, God is not required to offer undeniable, or insuppressible, evidence that would produce universal mere propositional knowledge that God exists. Love of God, like ordinary friendship, cannot be coerced but must be freely given, and God is in the full-time business of promoting love of God. In respecting human freedom, God has offered evidence of God that allows for deniability of God’s existence. God does not generally value knowledge that God exists apart from filial knowledge of God.”
While I obviously agree that God is more interested in people having a relationship with Him than He is that they merely believe He exists, there is no sense in which someone would be robbed of their free will if God’s existence was more obvious. They would still be required to freely submit to a loving relationship with that God (what he calls “filial knowledge” of God).
Moser rightly recognizes that “filial knowledge of God requires propositional (or, intellectual) knowledge that God exists, but it exceeds propositional knowledge. One can know that God exists…but fail to love God.” But that’s precisely the problem. If a relationship with God must be preceded by propositional knowledge of God’s existence, and if the reason some people fail to enter into a relationship with God is because they do not think He exits, then it makes sense to ask why God wouldn’t make His existence clear to everyone since that would seem to increase the number of people who enter into a loving relationship with Him. Moser does not seem to recognize this problem, or provide an answer to this.
One point Moser made that I liked concerns the claim skeptics make that if God would just perform the miraculous for every one, His existence would be proven and undeniable. Moser points out that such events would still be subject to interpretation, and those bent on not accepting God’s existence can always appeal to some other explanation for how the event transpired that does not require a deity.
Jason
LikeLike
October 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
James,
I looked on Ravi’s website, but didn’t find anything on that topic in the various audio shows he produces. I did find an undated article one of his staff wrote on the topic, however. It was short, and didn’t engage the issue much. It did bring up a few Christian answers to explain why God is hidden, however: to grow our faith, our sins and disobedience hides us from God, or at least keeps us from seeing God properly, or because God loves us and knows how much and how often we need to “find” God.
Perhaps you could give me the title of what you received and I can look for it.
Jason
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 4:54 am
Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden
A, Properties of a Whole Thing
If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.
Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.
B. CLIMAX
I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.
LikeLike
February 27, 2013 at 11:55 am
[…] have blogged on this issue previously (here and here), so I won’t rehearse the arguments again. Instead, I’ll simply assert that I do not accept […]
LikeLike
October 25, 2013 at 2:05 am
Hi Jason, don’t know if you still monitor old posts but I’ve been an avid reader and subscriber since this year. As a previous agnostic now Christian, I’ve been Blessed by the articles. Could you help me with any biblical references apart from Romans 1 to support this statement?
“According to the Bible, the ultimate reason people reject God is because they do not want to accept Him as their sovereign, not because of intellectual arguments against His existence. ”
Thanks a lot.
C.N.
LikeLike
October 25, 2013 at 10:34 am
Hi Chuma,
Thanks for your readership! I would suggest you read two of my other posts for additional support:
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/the-making-of-an-atheist-part-i/
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/the-making-of-an-atheist-part-ii/
It’s a review of James Spiegel’s book The Making of an Atheist.
Jason
LikeLike
March 12, 2014 at 8:29 am
Hi Jason,
I just saw that you responded to me! I kinda lost track with this page where I left this comment and I am glad to have found it again. Thanks a lot. I have really been blessed by your blog as well as the websites of William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, etc. I still find it amazing that there are highly intellectual Christians with very persuasive arguments for theism that one NEVER gets to hear about in the mainstream media! Instead, folks like Hume, Hitchens, et al are almost deified (pun intended) to make it appear that Christianity is a faith for the intellectually deficient. What a shame.
May God continue to strengthen you and be rest assured that there is (at least) one soul God has used your blog to change the terrible course of his life.
LikeLike
February 10, 2015 at 2:40 pm
[…] The Hiddenness of God Objection to Theism, Part II […]
LikeLike