The Hiddenness Argument for Atheism

[InterestedAtheist]

(aside: these formal arguments, for or against, always seem to fail at premise one. It cracks me up.)

Yeah. Premise one for a Christian is that arguments don't count unless they agree with them already.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand. But without critiquing the said syllogisms, it appears fairly simple for me...

If such a God does exist, and also claims to be loving, interactive, and answers prayer, but my requests for interaction in prayer/other go 'unanswered' for decades, one may only conclude a small handful of possibilities:

1. I'm too stupid to see God's attempts to contact me
2. God chose to not contact me, despite my earnest requests for decades, (maybe because he deems me not worthy)?
3. God may not exist, and a human wrote all of these assertions
4. God is not a slot machine, and God answers the call on His time, and not ours; (but then what would be the point of prayer in the first place)?

I'm sorry, but applying my conclusion, happily admitting to either committing the argument from ignorance fallacy, or, adhering to Occam's Razor; I conclude option 3.

You do realize that Occam's Razor can be shown to be somewhat duller in sharpness than we once thought, right? Happy reading!

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah. Premise one for a Christian is that arguments don't count unless they agree with them already.

What are we all supposed to agree with? Somehow, the Supreme Proposition seems to elude me.

 

[NBB]

Usually kids don't resist the idea of God, adults become corrupted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because people trying to nail down the divine like an insect specimen is funny!

Same for when they make grandiose "rules" that implicate how things must be beyond our or any other universe (like they do with kalam). Massive overreach beyond our grasp. I find that funny. But I'm weird. I know that.

Yeah, that overreach thing seems to happen on all sides of the equation, whether it's the Christian side or the Atheistic side that thinks String Theories answer our ultimate questions.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh really?

Why are you putting up such a fight against unicorns and the Hawaiian gods who ride them?

Because I'm a product of a post-Enlightenment, rationalistic, secular culture and have an immediate negative reaction to anything that looks like superstition. My skepticism is not entirely rational, but it's proven too deep-set to really tear out entirely.

On the other hand, I'd rather not offend the fair folk by making claims of their existence or lack thereof.

I think if you were to say that 4 fails, then at some point in our evolution long before monotheism emerged, our species began “resisting” something of which they had no concept, which is difficult. Perfect nonresistant nonbelief may or may not be possible now, but I think the ignorance of the ancients probably counts.

Have you heard of Wilhelm Schmidt and Urmonotheismus? The anthropological issues here are pretty difficult too--it's not uncommon to find some sophisticated theistic concepts in aboriginal peoples, so I don't think we can say for certain that monotheism is the sort of thing that evolved over time. It's not impossible that it was the primordial belief and people only afterwards became civilized and fell away into polytheism. When it comes to prehistorical times, we just can't know. So I think 4 still fails.

"No finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists,"
It seems that we could make some caveats of mental health like most epistemic models would suggesting properly functioning so to eliminate psychology. But it does seem to me that if I had love for an individual the way the monotheistic books talk about God's love as parent for a child, well then we would have reason to expect quite lavish attempts to make one's presence known. After all what kind of parent (the Bible's analogy not mine) would hide from their child?

I don't see why lavish attempts would even be desirable. I don't think absolute knowledge concerning the existence of God is compatible with freedom--I actually find theism overwhelming, and being capable of doubt serves as an escape from the all-encompassing nature of God. I only occasionally can fully wrap my head around what theism really means, and I think that's for the best.

So even divine hiddenness can work with the parental analogies, since what type of parent smothers their child with their presence 24/7?

 

[cvanwey]

...Oh, the crazy things we human beings do with language. I guess If I can have a "relationship" with God-----in the colloquial sense-----then I can also go "hug a hurricane," as much sense as that phrase makes (which is nearly none). So, if this is the case, why would I ever expect things to be otherwise while here on this terrestrial mud-ball? I mean, there's what God actually does, and then there's what we 'wish' God would do, and somehow we often seem to think that if we can manipulate language in certain ways, we can force God to forever play our games, and not only that, but on our terms and in our favor.

So, yeah. Schelling is wrong.

Kool, Schelling is 'wrong'. Does that mean God exists?

What be the 'correct' syllogism for divine hiddenness, if there 'is' one, that is...?

Here's my take...

One could postulate a syllogism, deemed 'correct' by all sides, for a God. However, in regards to the Abrahamic God specifically - 'divine author of the Holy Bible', the above needn't necessary...

Instead, we can simply flip the paged of repeated assertion (i.e.) the Bible. Devise a standard or mechanism to interpret those asserted pages, and then possibly test such asserted claims deemed falsifiable. If it all checks out, now we have something. But as it stands, here's what we appear to instead be dealing with...

There exists no standard for translation of it's pages, directly opposed to the 'fact' God chose the Word to convey truth. Such proof causing multiple denominations of direct disputing factions... Bazaar...

God provides humans with 'reason', and the ability to study and test claims. Seems odd that God might assert events us humans later conclude as 'false.' Begs a possible question... Is this God's test, or is God allowing Satan's 'free will' to tamper with the evidence?

The Bible states God answers all prayer. Seems suspicious that if God answers all prayer, at least one of those prayers would have been for God to reveal Himself to all. But ironically, either no one prays for such, God may not be adhering to His word, God knows what's best for us (which then begs yet another question about the need for prayer), or, just maybe, it IS just a collection of assertions tied to an imaginary deity...?

 

[cvanwey]

I understand. But without critiquing the said syllogisms, it appears fairly simple for me...

If such a God does exist, and also claims to be loving, interactive, and answers prayer, but my requests for interaction in prayer/other go 'unanswered' for decades, one may only conclude a small handful of possibilities:

1. I'm too stupid to see God's attempts to contact me
2. God chose to not contact me, despite my earnest requests for decades, (maybe because he deems me not worthy)?
3. God may not exist, and a human wrote all of these assertions
4. God is not a slot machine, and God answers the call on His time, and not ours; (but then what would be the point of prayer in the first place)?

I'm sorry, but applying my conclusion, happily admitting to either committing the argument from ignorance fallacy, or, adhering to Occam's Razor; I conclude option 3.

You do realize that Occam's Razor can be shown to be somewhat duller in sharpness than we once thought, right? Happy reading!

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

Yes, hence the caveats and qualifiers applied.

 

[durangodawood]

Because I'm a product of a post-Enlightenment, rationalistic, secular culture and have an immediate negative reaction to anything that looks like superstition. My skepticism is not entirely rational, but it's proven too deep-set to really tear out entirely.

On the other hand, I'd rather not offend the fair folk by making claims of their existence or lack thereof....

Fair point.

But, as long as we're making all manner of assumptions about the divine, as the "hidden God" argument seems to demand, here's another: the all loving personal relationship offering God would know how to crack that resistance like it was nothing.

 

[Silmarien]

Fair point.

But, as long as we're making all manner of assumptions about the divine, as the "hidden God" argument seems to demand, here's another: the all loving personal relationship offering God would know how to crack that resistance like it was nothing.

Yikes, that sounds like something out of a dystopian novel.

 

[durangodawood]

Yikes, that sounds like something out of a dystopian novel.

Yeah except the dystopian rulers are always trying to play God.

God, otoh, can just be God.

 

[Silmarien]

Yeah except the dystopian rulers are always trying to play God.

God, otoh, can just be God.

Which apparently looks like acting like a dystopian ruler? I mean, you're kind of implying that the universe should be set up so that God "breaks the resistance" of those who don't want to deal with him.

 

[durangodawood]

Which apparently looks like acting like a dystopian ruler? I mean, you're kind of implying that the universe should be set up so that God "breaks the resistance" of those who don't want to deal with him.

No, I'm just wildly speculating on how I might expect this creature that I've defined should act according my my little mortal notions of correctness that I've cobbled together from my little time as a human animal on earth.

....basically, what the hidden-God argument people are doing.

(And no, my perfect God would not look like the dystopian ruler because She would know how to get it right. She'd be the utopian ruler!)

 

[Silmarien]

No, I'm just wildly speculating on how I might expect this creature that I've defined should act according my my little mortal notions of correctness that I've cobbled together from my little time as a human animal on earth.

Your little mortal notions of correctness involve cracking people's resistance like it was nothing? That's some pretty wild moral reasoning you've got going on there.

(And no, my perfect God would not look like the dystopian ruler because She would know how to get it right. She'd be the utopian ruler!)

And maybe "getting it right" involves... not acting like a dystopian ruler? If it's the wrong way to do things, I'm not sure how you can do it right except by not doing it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yeah, that overreach thing seems to happen on all sides of the equation, whether it's the Christian side or the Atheistic side that thinks String Theories answer our ultimate questions.

On the Christian side, we have: "There is an all-powerful being who created the universe, actively intervened in human history to set up a religion, manifested himself on Earth, performed miracles, and listens to our prayers. More than that, you never actually die, your soul just goes to heaven, or to hell, depending on whether you do what we say God says you should do."

On the atheist side, we have: "Really? What evidence do you have for that?"

It isn't the atheists that have the problem with "overreach".

 

[Moral Orel]

So even divine hiddenness can work with the parental analogies, since what type of parent smothers their child with their presence 24/7?

Why so all or nothing? Why not just answering the phone once in a while?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So even divine hiddenness can work with the parental analogies, since what type of parent smothers their child with their presence 24/7?

False dichotomy. You're saying that the reason God doesn't show up at all, ever, is that it's better to do that than to overwhelm us with his constant...love? Presence?
I can't have a relationship with someone if I don't know that they exist. If God wants me to believe in Him, then why does he stay so determinedly hidden away and unfindable?
I imagine the answer to this is "God isn't unfindable! You can find Him in any church, or indeed anywhere at all. All you have to do is open your heart to Him."
But that wouldn't be a good answer at all. I'm supposed to "open my heart" (ie, believe) in God, and then...I'll believe in Him?
Evidence for something isn't real unless it can stand the test of skepticism. Skepticism (to pre-empt another objection) isn't a dirty word; it just means viewing all the facts and not jumping to conclusions.
The funny thing is, there should be so much evidence for God. Look at the stories in the Bible. We should have priests and prophets parting seas, bringing rain in deserts; there should be pillars of fire, angelic visitations caught on camera. There should be all sorts of things. Why don't we live in a world where God still does miracles like He did in the Bible?
Instead, it seems that this world is just what you'd expect to see if God didn't exist, but people thought He did.

 

[Moral Orel]

Number 6 is a false dichotomy. Maybe a god who hates us exists, and wants to remain anonymous.

I'm willing to bet you're on his extensive Ignore List too, but that was my first thought too. Too bad he'll never see it to address it...

 

[durangodawood]

Your little mortal notions of correctness involve cracking people's resistance like it was nothing? That's some pretty wild moral reasoning you've got going on there.

Well, ignorant mortals would botch it completely. But for God who could accomplish this without causing any harm.... thats a different story.

And maybe "getting it right" involves... not acting like a dystopian ruler? If it's the wrong way to do things, I'm not sure how you can do it right except by not doing it.

Yeah, I know. What we're doing here is working through the "if God was like me/us he would behave like this..." discussion. Which is where premise 1 of the argument comes from.

I'm highly skeptical that we can model God's wisdom & motives based on our own.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On the Christian side, we have: "There is an all-powerful being who created the universe, actively intervened in human history to set up a religion, manifested himself on Earth, performed miracles, and listens to our prayers. More than that, you never actually die, your soul just goes to heaven, or to hell, depending on whether you do what we say God says you should do."

On the atheist side, we have: "Really? What evidence do you have for that?"

It isn't the atheists that have the problem with "overreach".

That could be the case, and as a philosopher, I'll readily admit that religious people have a tendency to overstep the bounds of prudent discernment in allocating meaning to some religious idea. Perhaps atheists, due to their (claimed) reliance upon reason, tend to do the more thoughtful thing and refuse to posit realities that they don't know are actual. Of course, the extent to which reasoning actually takes place within any one single atheist's mind will depend upon the particular atheist whom we might hold up to the light of scrutiny.

As for me, I'd rather hold suspect the existence of a Creator God AND the existence of multiple universes from which our universe could have come. Either way, it's a big epistemic mystery, an inconclusive mystery that we all need to admit to, don't you think?