Download
1 / 51
510 likes | 1.02k Views
Divine Hiddenness Justifies Atheism. J.L. Schellenberg's. Presented by:Blake Wilbanks. Definitions. God -
E N D
1. Divine Hiddenness and Atheism Articles by J.L. Schellenberg
and Paul K. Moser
2. Divine Hiddenness Justifies Atheism J.L. Schellenbergs
3. Definitions God - traditional God: a separate but infinite consciouness, a personal and perfect creator of the universe
4. Definitions Divine Hiddeness:
Is not the premise that there is an actual God who is simply hiding. Such a premise would be self defeating.
A premise that asserts the existence of God cannot lead to God not existing
5. Hiddeness Less literal
Absence of convincing evidence of God
Absence of positive experimental evidence of Gods existence
6. Analogy Argument Situation 1: You are a child playing hide/seek with your mother. She seems to disappear.
You call for her but she doesnt answer
Would she not come if she could hear you?
7. Analogy Argument Situation 2: You are a child with amnesia. You can only remember a few days prior. You do not know if you have a mother, but you search for her.
Would she not come if she knew/ heard you?
8. Analogy Argument Situation 3: You are a child who has amnesia and you are lost in a jungle. You look for your mother but cannot find her
You are attacked by a jaguar, in desparation you call for her, but she does not come
Would she not come if she could?
9. Analogy Argument Possibilities of why the mother did not come:
The mother does not care
Mother wanted to come but could not because of external factors
10. Analogy Argument If the mother is a loving mother then we must reject the first premise and accept the 2nd premise. Or we can reject the existence of the mother
11. Analogy Argument A loving mother would not be hidden from the child in circumstances like these mentioned if she could help it because
12. Analogy Argument 1. A loving mother would consider her childs serious requests important and seek to provide a quick response
2. A loving mother would wish to spare her child needless trauma, for her childs physical and emotional well being.
3. A loving mother would seek to avoid encouraging in her child false and misleading thoughts about herself or their relationship
4. A loving mother would want personal interaction with her child whenever possible.
5. A loving mother would miss her child if separated from him or her.
13. Analogy Argument If these premises are true then a loving mother would not be hidden from her child
The key point is a mother would do these things if at all possible
14. Analogy Argument There are analogous situations in the real world:
1. People who start out believing in God but because of a lack of evidence they lose their belief
2. Others are like the second child who do not know if there is a God, but seek him.
3. There are others who find themselves in trouble and call for God in their time of need.
15. Analogy Argument If real people find themselves in similar situations then we can replace the mother with God.
16. Analogy Argument 1. A loving God would consider her childs serious requests important and seek to provide a quick response
2. A loving God would wish to spare her child needless trauma, for her childs physical and emotional well being.
3. A loving God would seek to avoid encouraging in her child false and misleading thoughts about herself or their relationship
4. A loving God would want personal interaction with her child whenever possible.
5. A loving God would miss her child if separated from him or her.
17. Analogy Argument Thus a loving God, who could help it, would never be hidden in those circumstances.
Becaue of Gods omnipotene, the qualifier who could help it can be removed
If God exists, this form of divine hiddeness does not occur. But it does occur. Therefore, we have powerful reason to believe that God does not exist.
18. Conceptual Argument 1. If God is an all-loving God, then he would provide evidence for non-resistors
2. Since there are no obstacles and God doesnt provide evidence, then God cannot be all loving
3. Since evidence isnt readily available, God doesnt exist.
19. Response to Schellenberg Presented by Jonathan Bost Inference from Analogy Argument:
Very probably, a God who could help it would never be hidden.
Difficulties with Analogy Argument:
No evidence that divine answer will not occur in future,
Other seekers have found response
Proves limited agnosticism at best
Withholding judgment until response
20. Response to Conceptual Argument Inference from Conceptual Argument:
If a loving God exists, then evidence sufficient to form belief in God is available to everyone capable of personal relationship with God and not inclined to resist such evidence.
Difficulties with Conceptual Argument :
Not all who hear correctly identify source
i.e., conscience
21. Response to Conceptual Argument (contd) Difficulties with Conceptual Argument :
Lack of a quick response not a lack of response
Delay can develop admirable spiritual characteristics, e.g., patience
Vague definition of positive experiential result
Does not justify Atheism
22. The Bost Response to Schellenberg To the Analogy Argument:
Analogy fails to address free willhumans are not always children
To the Conceptual Argument:
Presumptuous to expect God to respond:
Within a limited amount of time and
To respond in a particular manner
23. The Bost Response to Schellenberg Formulations of Hidenness Ignore:
Incarnation
Divine presence in bodily form
Atonement
Gods ultimate display of love
Intervening to bridge a relationship unattainable because of sin
Characteristics of God:
Not only all-loving, but all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.
24. Divine Hidenness Does Not Justify Atheism Paul K. Mosers
25. Clarifying the Question Definitions:
Godnot as a personal name but a supreme title who is:
Worthy of worship,
Moral perfection, and
All-loving character.
Justifiesthe evidence indicates that the proposition is true
Fallible: can be false;
Defeasible: cease to provide justification once more evidence is obtained.
26. Clarifying the Question Definitions:
Hidenness(borrowed from Schellenberg)
Literally the absence of convincing evidence for the existence of God or
Specifically the absence of some kind of positive experiential result in the search for God.
27. The Kind of God in Question Philosophers must attend adequately to the notion of God and Gods purposes.
Helps understand what kind of evidence we are to expect.
Hebraic God famous for hiding at times.
An all-loving God is not always obvious to all normal humans.
How could an all-loving God fail to manifest Gods reality in a way that removes all serious doubt about Gods Existence?
28. The Kind of God in Question Sometimes divine hiddenness of the Hebraic God occurs for Gods own purposes:
A response to human disobedience,
A reaction to morally significant indifference toward God, and
A constructive effort to encourage deeper human focus, longing, and gratitude toward God.
29. The Kind of God in Question Hebraic theism places divine hiding in the context of Gods primary desire to have people lovingly know God and there by become loving as God is loving.
He wants all people to become part of His kingdom.
For our own good, God is after something more profound and more transforming than simple reasonable belief. As all-loving, God will not settle for anything less.
30. The Kind of God in Question Divine hiding typically results from deficiency of some sort on the human side of the divine-human relationship.
Helps understand what kind of evidence we are to expect.
Gods self-revelation is not bound by human expectation of how that revelation is to occur.
Human expectations must be transformed into the character of God.
31. The Kind of God in Question According to Hebraic Theism, human wisdom is insufficient:
It is usually superficial,
Often misplaced when Gods loving intentions and character are considered.
Key: How may humans acquire knowledge of the Hebraic God?
32. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God HumilityA staple of Jesus teaching.
filial knowledge: one humbly, faithfully, and lovingly standing as a child before God, the righteous and gracious Father.
Not a mere intellectual assent;
Rather, person-relational (one comes to know God by personal interaction and one is personally accountable to God).
Gods gracious self-revelation makes personal relationship possible.
33. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God Humans cannot know God on self-serving terms.
Humility allows one to acknowledge Gods better terms for relationship.
One must make God the center of his worship (in terms of who he values, loves, and follows).
34. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God Divine hiding upholds the supreme value of Gods loving ways from those who might compromise that value.
Gods ways must remain sacred and not diminish in value.
Purpose of divine self-revelation is transformation the recipient towards Gods loving character.
i.e., to become a part of His kingdom
God must be careful not to coerce a response.
35. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God Gods kind of sacrificial love and reconciliation is difficult to grasp.
It is non-coercive.
Analogy: Receptiveness often dependent on receptive attitude
Individuals closed to the idea of the true God will often be blinded to His self-revelation.
Individuals who experience a change in attitude will comprehend the evidence correctly.
36. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God Humanity has failed to manifest Gods all-loving character.
We become blinded by counterfeit intelligence and wisdom.
Become slaves to selfishness.
Self-protective fear
Fear of another being ultimate authority.
Humans want to be, or want to appoint, the ultimate authority in their lives.
37. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God Extent of understanding and perceiving divine self-revelation dependent upon willingness to accept Gods authority.
Difficulty develops from resistance to transformation.
Presumptuous to think all those that seek are in appropriate moral and cognitive position to correctly perceive divine self-revelation.
38. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God God cares about how we handle the evidence He provides:
Knowledge of God is an extreme transformation rather than a spectator sport.
Active commitmentWe come to know God only as God becomes our God.
Dangerous to purport exhaustive evidence without experiencing profound transformation.
Inherently ethical and practical.
39. Proper Knowledge of the Hebraic God The Hebraic God is neither cognitively safe nor controllable.
The hebraic God leaves us empty-handed when we insist on seeking with our self-made tools, including familiar recipe-like religious practices.
40. Evidence of God Two types of knowledge of God:
Propositional Knowledge
Knowledge that God exists
Filial Knowledge
Knowledge of God as righteously gracious Father
Requires transformation in who we are and how we exist
Knowing God in the divine second person
41. Evidence of God Filial Knowledge:
Must know God as Lord
Cannot make demands on how God should reveal Himself
Fidelity to:
Loving character and
Promises stemming from such a character.
42. Evidence of God Gods ways of imparting knowledge:
Differs significantly from natural expectations
Hebraic theism disallows God being trivialized in the cognitive domain.
Gods Presence Ambiguous?
Some decisive manifestation of Gods awesome power
Comment: Possibly that has already come!
43. Evidence of God The Sign:
The Morally Transforming Signs
Changes in ones moral character toward the moral character of God (1 John 3:14; 4:8)
Unique that it is antithetical to natural tendencies
Filial knowledge of God
Morally transforming sign is foundation
Personal intervention by God forms basis for personal relationship
44. Evidence of God The Provision of Evidence:
Comes at Gods appointed time
Moves one beyond propositional knowledge to filial knowledge (personal acquaintance)
45. Hiding, Seeking, and Theodicy Hiding
Cannot generalize experiences of divine hiddenness
Why is God not more obvious?
Why do we fail to apprehend Gods loving reality and presence?
Seeking:
Each person must seek with due humility and moral seriousness
Filial knowledge is by grace
46. Hiding, Seeking, and Theodicy Theodicy:
Difference between:
If one seeks God aright, he will find God and
If one seeks God aright, he will find adequately, comprehensive explanation of divine hiddenness
Lack of adequate explanation of Gods hiddenness does not challenge evidence of Gods reality and love
47. God, I shall argue, does indeed supply sufficient decisive evidence. The decisive evidence supplied, is however, profoundly different from what we naturally expect.
Schellenburg would respond with the Analogy argument: There isnt an intimate relationship, notably a lack of physical salvation Response to Moser Presented by Blake Willbanks
48. If we leave the notion of God amorphous, our question about Gods existence will be similarly obscure and resistant to worthwhile reflection. We would then not know what kind of evidence for God to expect
Schellenburg would respond by asking how we would define God without any evidence, especially experiential. Response to Moser
49. Without suitable openess to transformation toward Gods character, we maybe blinded by our own counterfeit intelligence and wisdom. We will then lack the kind of openness, humility and filial obedience appropriate to relating, cognitively and otherwise, to the God of the universe.
How would we become open to Gods character if we have no evidence of his existence?
Response to Moser
50. Objections to Moser
51. Questions? Audience Participation Segment of the Program
