The Problem: If God exists, then it seems that he would want to make his existence obvious, so obvious that it would be difficult to non-resistively deny his existence. But people seem to deny his existence non-resistively. So God doesn’t exist.
That’s the basic problem. To give it some vividness, we can ask--why doesn’t God put a massive cross in the sky to convince everyone of his existence? Or why doesn’t he inscribe “made by God” on every atom? Why does he leave room for doubt?
I think it’s important to realize that this problem, the problem of divine hiddenness, is a species of the broader problem of evil. We see an evil, the non-resistive lack of belief in God, and we wonder why God would allow this evil to occur. It may be that some of the suggestions that we provide to the problem of evil can be applied here as well.
The Possible Solutions:
I. WLC’s:
To appreciate WLC’s approach, we need to make a distinction between (a) belief that God exists and (b) belief in God, construed as trusting and loving God.
Now it seems evident that if the evidence for God’s existence were as overwhelming as a cross in the sky, then more people would believe that God exists. But it doesn’t follow that more people would thereby believe *in* God, in the sense of (b). Recall that the demons believe that God exists and yet do not believe in him, do not trust or love him.
Given that God isn’t interested in merely getting us to add another item to our lists of things that exist, then it’s clear that God may not be interested in making his existence as obvious as it possibly could be. His goal is instead to enter into a personal relationship with us, and so long as he presents enough evidence to make such an endeavor as that rational, then we can see that God would not have a reason to make himself as obvious as possible. God is interested in (b) and not so much (a).
That’s one part of Craig’s response. The other is that God, via his middle knowledge, knows what amount of evidence is required for a person to freely come to believe in him. If God knows that more evidence wouldn’t do any good to that effect, then his not supplying it seems to be explained, and we thus have a possible theodicy to this problem. “And for people who complain of lack of evidence, I think God would say to them on the Judgment Day, ‘I knew that even if I were to give you overwhelming evidence, you still wouldn't have believed.’” “Believed” in the sense of (b), not (a).
II. No Non-Resistive Unbelief
God has made us in such a way that his evidence will become evident to us as a matter of our epistemic build. All people are given a rational avenue to God’s existence, and such an avenue can only be spurred sinfully. So all unbelief is ultimately and eventually resistive. This point is taught in the Scriptures, so it’s a matter of dogma for Christians.
III. The Nonobviousness Allows for Other Goods
This sort of solution is more inline with the usual responses to the problem of evil. God’s nonobviousness allows for the existence of goods that couldn’t otherwise obtain. Swinburne suggests that God has to be non-obvious in order for us to freely make decisions--if God were over our shoulders at all times, we’d be compelled, rather than free. Others have suggested that the nonobviousness allows for us to band together in our search for God, allows for greater dedication in the black night, helps us to appreciate God more when he is apparent, enables us to offer genuine sacrifice in the face of the possible non-existence of God, and so on.
IV. He is Obvious
We can just dig our heels in and say that he has given overwhelming evidence. The designs of the universe, its existence, the complexities of the world, our consciousness! It’s obvious he exists!
Some useful resources:
Two Solutions to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness - Andrew Cullison
Divine Hiddenness - Veronika Weidner
Divine Hiddenness or De Jure Objections to Theism: You Cannot Have Both - Perry Hendricks
No comments:
Post a Comment