Skip to content

Course 14 · Lesson 6.4

The argument from divine hiddenness and Christian replies

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 14 outline

Module 1: Arguments, Existence and Necessity

  1. What natural theology attempts and what it does not
  2. Necessary and contingent existence
  3. How to read and test an argument for God
  4. Philosophy of religion today: a map of the field

Module 2: The Ontological Argument

  1. Anselm and the argument of the Proslogion
  2. Gaunilo and the perfect island objection
  3. Kant: existence is not a real predicate
  4. What the ontological argument would show if it worked

Module 3: Cosmological Arguments

  1. Aquinas: the first three ways
  2. Infinite regress: what is the problem?
  3. Leibniz, the principle of sufficient reason and the argument from contingency
  4. Objections: the brute fact reply and the fallacy of composition

Module 4: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  1. The kalam tradition: Philoponus, al-Ghazali and Bonaventure
  2. The modern argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause
  3. Did the universe begin? Philosophy and cosmology
  4. Objections and replies, and what follows about the cause

Module 5: Teleological and Fine-Tuning Arguments

  1. From Aquinas’s fifth way to Paley’s watch
  2. Hume and the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
  3. Darwin and the change in the design argument
  4. The fine-tuning argument: what is claimed and what is debated
  5. The multiverse and other replies

Module 6: The Moral Argument and Divine Hiddenness

  1. The moral argument: Kant, Lewis and contemporary forms
  2. The Euthyphro question and moral realism without God
  3. Evolution and moral knowledge
  4. The argument from divine hiddenness and Christian replies

Module 7: Contemporary Modal Arguments and Evaluation

  1. Possible worlds and modal logic in plain language
  2. Plantinga’s modal ontological argument
  3. Assessing the modal argument: what it needs and what it shows
  4. Weighing the arguments together, and what none of them prove

All courses

Program / Course 14: Arguments for the Existence of God / Lesson 6.4

What you will learn

  • State J. L. Schellenberg’s argument from divine hiddenness in numbered form.
  • Distinguish resistant from nonresistant nonbelief.
  • Describe the main Christian replies and what each costs.
  • Say how the argument differs from the problem of evil.

The big idea

The argument from divine hiddenness, given its modern form by J. L. Schellenberg in 1993, says that if a perfectly loving God existed, God would make himself available to everyone who is open to a relationship with him. Yet there are people who seek God sincerely and do not believe. So there is no such God. Christian replies include that belief is not the same as relationship, that God respects freedom, that apparent nonresistance hides resistance, and that God’s purposes in hiddenness are good. Each reply has critics.

Key terms

Divine hiddenness
The fact, or the claim, that God is not evident to many people, including some who seek him.
Nonresistant nonbeliever
A person who does not believe in God but is not resisting God and would welcome a relationship if it were real.
Reasonable nonbelief
Nonbelief held by someone who has considered the evidence in good faith and finds it inadequate.
Deus absconditus
Latin for the hidden God. The phrase comes from Isaiah 45:15 in the Latin Bible and was used by Luther and Pascal.
Relational theism
The view that God desires personal relationship with each person.
Soul-making
The idea that a world with some difficulty and uncertainty is needed for people to grow in freedom and virtue.
Epistemic distance
John Hick’s term for the lack of overwhelming evidence of God that leaves room for free choice.

Background

Hiddenness is an old theme in religion. The psalmists complain that God hides his face (Psalm 13, Psalm 22), and Isaiah 45:15 speaks of God as one who hides himself. Pascal wrote that God has willed to be partly hidden and partly revealed. Luther spoke of the hidden God. Mystics such as John of the Cross described a dark night in which God seems absent.

Schellenberg gave the problem a precise form in Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993) and later works. His is an argument against theism, not a general complaint. It belongs in this course because every defender of the arguments for God needs to face it. If God exists, why are the arguments needed? Why is God not more evident?

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The argument in numbered form

1. If God exists, God is perfectly loving. 2. If a perfectly loving God exists, God is always open to a relationship with each person, so that any person not resisting God is able to participate in such a relationship. 3. Belief that God exists is required for such a relationship. 4. So if God exists, no person who is not resisting God lacks belief. 5. But there are nonresistant nonbelievers. 6. So God does not exist.

Notice the structure. The argument claims that love implies availability, and that the facts about nonbelief conflict with this.

Step 2: Reply that relationship does not require belief of this sort

Some respond that relationships can begin before belief is firm, as when one trusts or hopes. Others say that God is available in conscience, in nature and in the church even to those who do not name God. Schellenberg replies that a relationship with a person requires belief that the person exists, at least minimally, and that hope alone does not suffice. The discussion turns on the exact nature of the relationship.

Step 3: Reply from freedom

Another reply says that overwhelming evidence of God would compel obedience and so undermine free love. Pascal and Hick hold versions of this. A God who is too evident would take away the choice. Critics answer that people in Scripture, such as Moses and Paul, had clear experiences of God and yet remained free, and that the devils in James 2:19 believe and shudder. So evidence of existence need not remove freedom.

Step 4: Reply that nonresistance is rare

Another reply says that apparent nonresistance is hidden resistance, for the heart can be closed in ways that the person does not see. Paul speaks of those who suppress the truth (Romans 1:18). Critics find this reply offensive and unfalsifiable. They say it dismisses honest seekers. Many Christian philosophers now accept that sincere nonbelievers exist and avoid this reply.

Step 5: Replies from God’s purposes

Paul Moser argues that God hides from those who seek only intellectual evidence, and discloses himself to those willing to be transformed. Others say that hiddenness leaves room for the growth of virtue, for human responsibility toward each other as mediators of God’s love, or for a deeper longing. Critics ask why a loving God would let many suffer with doubt for these goods. Some Christians respond with humility: the purposes of God are not fully known, though the experience of hiddenness is real and painful.

Step 6: Compare with the problem of evil

Hiddenness differs from the problem of evil. The problem of evil begins from suffering, which a good God could prevent. Hiddenness begins from the lack of belief, which a loving God could remedy. Some think hiddenness is the stronger argument, as it does not turn on questions of free will in the world’s evils. Others think the replies are better, as the goods concerned are more clearly bound up with God’s nature.

  1. Do you think there are people who sincerely seek God and do not find him?
  2. Is belief that God exists necessary for a relationship with God?
  3. Would clear evidence of God remove freedom?
  4. Is the reply that nonbelievers are secretly resisting fair?
  5. What do the psalms of lament suggest about hiddenness?
  6. Which reply seems strongest to you, and what does it cost?

Examples

The psalmist’s complaint

Psalm 13 begins, How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me? The believer in the Bible does not hide the experience of God’s absence. The complaint is part of Israel’s prayer.

Mother Teresa’s letters

After her death, letters were published in which Mother Teresa described decades of spiritual dryness, in which she did not feel God’s presence. Christians read these as an example of the dark night, in which faith continues without consolation. Skeptics read them as evidence of doubt. The letters are cited on both sides.

A former believer

A woman raised in the church prays for years, wanting to believe again, and finds nothing. She is not angry at God and is not trying to avoid him. She is the kind of person Schellenberg describes as a nonresistant nonbeliever. (A constructed example.)

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic spiritual tradition knows the dark night of the soul, taught by John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. The Church teaches that God gives enough light for those who seek him, and that those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ may be saved (Lumen Gentium, 16).

Orthodox

Orthodox theology stresses that God is beyond comprehension and known in experience, and that the divine presence is veiled as well as revealed. Elders speak of times when God withdraws to deepen love. The Orthodox emphasis is on the path of purification, not on belief as an intellectual assent.

Protestant

Luther spoke of the hidden God and of faith in the dark. Pascal, a Catholic with Augustinian leanings, spoke similarly. Reformed writers may point to the effects of sin on the mind, and some evangelicals favor the reply that God discloses himself to those who are willing. Others stress the freedom reply.

Philosophical views

Schellenberg, an atheist, holds that the argument is strong. Daniel Howard-Snyder, Paul Moser, Michael Murray and others defend replies. Some philosophers think the argument shows that God, if he exists, is not a God of the sort that traditional theism describes. The debate is vigorous.

Skeptical views

Skeptics treat widespread nonbelief, especially in cultures and periods without access to Christianity, as evidence against a loving God who desires relationship with all. They find the replies ad hoc.

Why it matters

Hiddenness presses on the heart of the question. It affects those who doubt and those who believe, and it asks whether the arguments for God are enough. A fair student states it at its strength and notes that the Bible does not deny it.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Only people who hate God are unbelievers.

Correction: Many unbelievers are sincere. Christian tradition itself recognizes that God may be present to those who do not know him by name.

Misunderstanding: Hiddenness shows God does not exist.

Correction: It is an argument that many philosophers find serious. Others find it answerable. It is not a proof.

Misunderstanding: Believers never experience God as absent.

Correction: The Psalms and the lives of saints show that believers often do, and tradition treats the experience as part of the life of faith.

Misunderstanding: Hiddenness is the same as the problem of evil.

Correction: They are related but distinct. One begins from suffering and the other from the lack of belief.

Knowledge check

State Schellenberg’s argument.

If God exists, God is perfectly loving and so open to relationship with anyone not resisting him. Such a relationship requires belief that God exists. So no one who is not resisting God would lack belief. But there are nonresistant nonbelievers. So God does not exist. The argument turns on the claim that love implies availability.

What is a nonresistant nonbeliever?

It is a person who does not believe in God but is not resisting God. Such a person would welcome relationship if it were real, and has sought in good faith. The argument holds that such persons exist. Some Christian replies deny this, saying that apparent nonresistance hides resistance, though many Christian philosophers now accept that sincere nonbelievers exist.

Give two Christian replies and a problem with each.

One reply says overwhelming evidence would remove freedom. A problem is that people who experienced God in Scripture remained free, and belief is not the same as love. Another says God discloses himself to those willing to be changed. A problem is that this seems to overlook sincere seekers who are not helped.

How does hiddenness differ from the problem of evil?

The problem of evil begins from suffering that a good God could prevent. Hiddenness begins from the lack of belief that a loving God could remedy. The replies also differ, since free will accounts for many evils but seems less suited to the lack of belief. Some philosophers think hiddenness is the more difficult.

Think it through

  1. What does the experience of God’s absence mean in the life of faith?
  2. Is belief the right thing to focus on, or trust?
  3. How should a believer treat a friend who sincerely cannot believe?
  4. Does the Bible’s honesty about hiddenness strengthen or weaken the argument?

Independent assignment

Hiddenness in numbered steps

In your own notebook, write 350 to 500 words. Write Schellenberg’s argument in numbered steps. Choose the premise you find weakest and write the best reply of a Christian philosopher. Then write what Schellenberg would say in answer. Finish with your own judgment. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study