The Hiddenness Argument for Atheism

[durangodawood]

...Either way, it's a big epistemic mystery, an inconclusive mystery that we all need to admit to, don't you think?

I dont know. Many people seem to fare better by positing certainty rather that admitting mystery. They seem to live more peacefully that way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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...?

Whoever said that I think ANY syllogistic application is appropriate here, in any capacity? Geez! One would think we actually had enough data to align nothing but valid and sound propositions to lead us to a true conclusion. But, we don't have that kind of data.

NO, the truth is, we don't "know" that there is a God TODAY because we can't apply experimental science upon some discerned supernatural entity. So, from my point of view, which again is a more or less existential point of view, we're each left within a bound of human thought to which little or no empirical evidence can come to play and all we each can do is, instead, apply our minds like Descartes has done on the one hand (in Rationalism), but then realize the paradox and complication that exists in this endeavor, and with Pascal, we realize that this alone can't take us to the face of God, ever, and ... we then are left with a non-biblical sense of hope and human longing within our Existential quandry that this God of Jesus of Nazareth will in some way reveal Himself to us, if not now, then at some moment in the postmortem future.

On the one hand, I'm tempted to apply Rolfe King's thesis that he applies to Schellenberg's conclusions, but on my part....I'm much more tempted to just scrap the whole Hidden God project and simply say that I've had enough of this syllogistic garbage. We don't know that God exist. We don't know that God is "love" in any sense which our modern minds conceive of "love." No, all we have before us is an old dusty tome of propositions from the past that we each have to existentially evaluate and decide to wager upon (Pascal) and respond to (Paul and Kierkegaard) in some way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I dont know. Many people seem to fare better by positing certainty rather that admitting mystery. They seem to live more peacefully that way.

Then the next philosophical question, in this case is, "Is Ignorance and naivety bliss"?

All I can say is that it wouldn't be for me. If there is a God, particularly the one with whom Jesus of Nazareth, the assumed Christ, is a part, then I'd like to have Him reveal Himself to be in an empirical manner just as much as the next guy or gal does. But, realistically, and understanding the epistemological propositions that sit within the pages of the New Testament, I hold out little hope that that will be the case in my lifetime. No, the best I can do right now is "keep on keeping on" with ongoing expansive, investigative interest and inquiry, in the hope that I can maintain a 'belief' and a motivation to follow Christ in faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, hence the caveats and qualifiers applied.

OH? And which caveats and qualifiers are you speaking of? Are these expressed within the article I posted for you?

 

[durangodawood]

Then the next philosophical question, in this case is, "Is Ignorance and naivety bliss"?

All I can say is that it wouldn't be for me. If there is a God, particularly the one with whom Jesus of Nazareth, the assumed Christ, is a part, then I'd like to have Him reveal Himself to be in an empirical manner just as much as the next guy or gal. But, realistically, and understanding the epistemological propositions that sit within the pages of the New Testament, I hold out little hope that that will be the case in my lifetime. No, the best I can do right now is "keep on keeping on" with ongoing expansive investigative interest and inquiry, in the hope that I can maintain a 'belief' and a motivation to follow Christ in faith.

Good post.

And if empirical revelation doesnt appear to be forthcoming, then many people will go for the "next best thing": logical proofs or reasoning toward probability. So far, my encounters with those (and they are admittedly limited) have been laughable, with grandiose assumptions typically baked into the premises.

I'm not religious at all. But the only way I could see going forward on a Christian path is in response to: does it intuitively feel correct?, and, does it make my life better?.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good post.

And if empirical revelation doesnt appear to be forthcoming, then many people will go for the "next best thing": logical proofs or reasoning toward probability. So far, my encounters with those (and they are admittedly limited) have been laughable, with grandiose assumptions typically baked into the premises.

I'm not religious at all. But the only way I could see going forward on a Christian path is in response to: does it intuitively feel correct?, and, does it make my life better?.

Touché! (Good post, as well.)

The problem here is that while you are correct in a sociological and psychological context that "people go for the next best thing," the problem is that, as I've implied above, this act of going for the next best thing can vary, sometimes very widely, in quality of with each individual. So, in my estimation, and rationally speaking, I think it's a bit vague to assert that logical proofs or solid reasoning are indeed abstracted and applied in equal manner by each individual person who feels that "God has failed to appear."

Am I applying that I'm super smart and that from some superior vantage point, I can look down and see that everyone else is failing in something that I am somehow rationally succeeding at? By no means! But what I am implying is that I, as an individual who is striving to 'find God' with all the rest of the people in this wide world, I can tell that some are doing better than I am in attempting to be indeed rational about it all, and I can tell that some aren't doing better. Some who are atheistic are perhaps more rational than me (although, I don't know who those fine chaps or ladies are! ); and some who are atheistic are not doing better than me in being expansively inquisitive in seeking after the possible God of Jesus of Nazareth.

As far as intuition is concerned, I'd highly advise against going ONLY with that as a personal barometer for detecting truth. Egads! I hope you don't do that as well with your ethical deliberations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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!)

Could it perhaps be, speaking by way of more sublime intuitions, that what we personally apply to God in our relational expectations................in some way parallels and reflects our hopes and expectations for what we could find in an "Ideal Lover"? (I just have to ask......................)

 

[durangodawood]

Could it perhaps be, speaking by way of more sublime intuitions, that what we personally apply to God in our relational expectations................in some way parallels and reflects our hopes and expectations for what we could find in an "Ideal Lover"? (I just have to ask......................)

For sure. Lots of Christian and Sufi mystics express their search for God in terms of love poetry.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For sure. Lots of Christian and Sufi mystics express their search for God in terms of love poetry.

Yes, they do! (Sometimes, too much so, in my estimation! Honestly, I'm more into existential, wordless awe than anything else....think something along the lines of the movie, Gravity.)

I'll admit upfront that love poetry is one aspect of more mystical approaches to religion with which I often have a problem finding relevancy. However, I'll also admit that during certain of my mood swings, I enjoy a good biblical Psalm as much as the next guy or gal. Then again, I'll have to confess that I also enjoy some of the modern Christian music that is being produced, such as the following:

So wonderfully mystical!!!

 

[Silmarien]

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

Well... I don't know that it is all or nothing. According to the mystics, he still is present, and you can get some pretty interesting treatments of divine absence from figures like Saint John of the Cross.

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?

No, I'm saying that a certain degree of distance is necessary for freedom and personal development to be possible at all. I think direct knowledge of the existence of God would actually be extremely harmful for many people, myself included. That's not a false dichotomy.

I don't think many people on either side really wrap their heads around the "God-fearing" aspect of theism these days. Psalm 139 is a really scary mental place to be in all of the time, and that is what certainty would look like.

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.

Genuine Pyrrhonian skepticism actually is a dirty word to many atheists. People don't like having to field questions from postmodernists doubting the objectivity of science, or from idealists arguing that matter might not actually exist.

I'm pretty cool with genuine skepticism, actually. I am one, to a certain extent. Congrats on not jumping to conclusions and assuming with no evidence that I was threatened by it, though. Well done.

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.

Yeah, but the way you're working through it is odd in the extreme. If God were like us, it would be good for him to be a fullblown tyrant? Unless you think that tyranny represents the best part of what it means to be human, I don't know where this conclusion is coming from at all. Not human psychology.

I think Schellenberg is specifically arguing against the Christian God here, which is a conception strongly based in revelation. Whether Christianity in specific presents a coherent picture of God is a pretty legitimate question. (Same goes for other religions.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well... I don't know that it is all or nothing. According to the mystics, he still is present, and you can get some pretty interesting treatments of divine absence from figures like Saint John of the Cross.



No, I'm saying that a certain degree of distance is necessary for freedom and personal development to be possible at all. I think direct knowledge of the existence of God would actually be extremely harmful for many people, myself included. That's not a false dichotomy.

I don't think many people on either side really wrap their heads around the "God-fearing" aspect of theism these days. Psalm 139 is a really scary mental place to be in all of the time, and that is what certainty would look like.



Genuine Pyrrhonian skepticism actually is a dirty word to many atheists. People don't like having to field questions from postmodernists doubting the objectivity of science, or from idealists arguing that matter might not actually exist.

I'm pretty cool with genuine skepticism, actually. I am one, to a certain extent. Congrats on not jumping to conclusions and assuming with no evidence that I was threatened by it, though. Well done.



Yeah, but the way you're working through it is odd in the extreme. If God were like us, it would be good for him to be a fullblown tyrant? Unless you think that tyranny represents the best part of what it means to be human, I don't know where this conclusion is coming from at all. Not human psychology.

I think Schellenberg is specifically arguing against the Christian God here, which is a conception strongly based in revelation. Whether Christianity in specific presents a coherent picture of God is a pretty legitimate question. (Same goes for other religions.)

...and if Christianity is "true," then there's that nasty little bit where, whether God shows up or not, He may ... even ask us (or make us) "share in the sufferings of Christ." This is a part that, unlike the Apostles of Jesus, I can admit I'd be highly tempted to ask God to spare me from in having to face all of the messy potentiality it could entail, especially if His showing up in an empirical fashion in my life, as Jesus did for each of the Apostles, then perhaps means.......I have to die a martyr's painful death.

"Ok, Lord. Maybe, it'll be better if you just.....like....not show yourself, if such a showing will mean that I have to jump through a gauntlet of fire? Maybe?"

So, with some of the contexts you've provided above then added to what I'm mentioning here, can we then all ask: Are we definitely sure we want God to---in no uncertain terms---show up in an empirical fashion and thus become UN-hidden?

 

[durangodawood]

....Yeah, but the way you're working through it is odd in the extreme. If God were like us, it would be good for him to be a fullblown tyrant? Unless you think that tyranny represents the best part of what it means to be human, I don't know where this conclusion is coming from at all. Not human psychology. ....

Oh I dont think so. Its considered tyrannical when humans do it to each other.... but not when you do it to your dog.

 

[RDKirk]

J.L. Schellenberg is has lovingly made this argument, that has been around for decades, more accessible to the layperson and gives a good reason to reject theism.

1. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person.

Wait, where is the actual argument for this conclusion? I see only one premise stated.

 

[RDKirk]

Not sure why you are cracking up.

"If perfectly loving God exists, then there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person."

God being open to a personal relationship is not univocal with,
"Perfect love from God's position (stipulated) of perfect knowledge (which we cannot access) may not look like the "personal relationship" we want or expect.... or may not look like a personal relationship at all, to us."

The first premise just says if God is loving then implication is he must be personal and open to a relationship with finite beings. It would be a strange feature to have a "personal relationship," with any person including God and be unaware of it as you suggest above. Please give us an example of a personal relationship you have had or someone else has had in history where they were unaware that they were in a personal relationship sans mental illness of course.

Did you ever read Great Expectations?

 

[Silmarien]

Oh I dont think so. Its considered tyrannical when humans do it to each other.... but not when you do it to your dog.

I don't think animal abuse is considered okay in most circles.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think animal abuse is considered okay in most circles.

Training your dog, or "breaking" a horse to accept a rider, is not considered abuse in most circles.

 

[Silmarien]

Training your dog, or "breaking" a horse to accept a rider, is not considered abuse in most circles.

That's not really the equivalent of tyranny, though, any more than disciplining a child is. There's a difference between training a dog and torturing a dog. (Though to what extent domestication is moral is an interesting question.)

I agree that there are things that we largely consider acceptable behavior towards animals that would not be towards other humans--like breeding them for slaughter. I don't know how many people actually think that's admirable behavior, representing the best of humanity and the sort of thing that would be expected of an omnibenevolent God. Just because we're exploitative, it doesn't mean that exploitation is good.

 

[cvanwey]

Whoever said that I think ANY syllogistic application is appropriate here, in any capacity? Geez!

I actually asked more of a hypothetical:

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

Pardon me if you took it personal

What do you say about someone whom evaluates the Bible's direct claims against perceived reality, and such? Basically, everything in I mentioned there-after?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I actually asked more of a hypothetical:

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

Pardon me if you took it personal

What do you say about someone whom evaluates the Bible's direct claims against perceived reality, and such? Basically, everything in I mentioned there-after?

What do I say about some such person, as opposed to what others may say about that same person? I'd say that person seriously needs to widen his perspective and expand his willingness to consider not only additional points-of-view, but the deeper issues of human mental perception and conception. I can't speak for @Silmarien, but I've found that Philosophical Hermeneutics is a good beginning point by which to reorient one's self for a more 'Lewis & Clark' style of inquiry when a person decides (and by which I mean very seriously and deeply decides) to engage the Christian faith.

On the other hand, if someone wants to hole up in a cacoon of empiricism, waiting passively for something to "come to him," I can't stop him, but I think that the kind of cognitive stagnation which can come from being essentially stuck within such a cacoon doesn't befit the mental capacities God has generally given to most human beings, not the least of whom is an intelligent person like yourself. And that's what I think!

I know one thing's for sure: I'm not going to allow myself to become trapped by the indoctrination that more stringent Christian Evangelicals, and especially Fundamentalists, try to pawn off on their congregations. No, it's much better, not to mention more realistic and coherent, to lessen one's assumptions about exactly HOW God is to be perceived....especially if the Bible turns out to be indeed true in some very substantive sense.

 

[durangodawood]

That's not really the equivalent of tyranny, though, any more than disciplining a child is. There's a difference between training a dog and torturing a dog. (Though to what extent domestication is moral is an interesting question.)

I agree that there are things that we largely consider acceptable behavior towards animals that would not be towards other humans--like breeding them for slaughter. I don't know how many people actually think that's admirable behavior, representing the best of humanity and the sort of thing that would be expected of an omnibenevolent God. Just because we're exploitative, it doesn't mean that exploitation is good.

Well I'm not justifying every aspect of human animal relations.

Look at it in terms of how we set limits on childrens behavior, experience, exposure in so many ways. If we treated other adults like that it would absolutely seem tyrannical. But God ("the father") in relation to humans?