Divine Hiddenness: Direction-Setting

Yesterday I laid out an outline of the Divine Hiddenness argument. This is not something I have systematically studied before, so I am not going to rush through it, and I hope to learn through the process. That means I might even have to back up from a point somewhere and start over again. I have a general shape of an answer in mind, but I don't really understand things like this until I've worked them through in writing and in discussion. So if you want a really professional response, you'll want to go somewhere else!

Before moving toward answers, there are a few points about the question itself that need tidying up.

The question can be presented on three levels of challenge.

1. The Ebon Musings article I linked to yesterday represents the most serious and yet simplest challenge. Its author says that disproves the existence of God, that there is something logically contradictory in the claims made about God, in view of the way we experience the world. In order to refute this argument, all one needs to do is show a possible escape from the contradictions.

2. But it's also not terribly interesting, if we just show that the existence of God is not logically contradictory under these terms. If I say there exists somewhere a purple-and-green Canada goose, there's nothing logically contradictory in that, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to suppose such a goose exists. In fact, our experience suggests it does not. Paul and doctor(logic) seem to be saying that even if God's existence is not logically contradictory in the Ebon Musings sense, there is still no strong reason to think God exists. This seems to be more on the mind of readers here than (1), and its answer--though it can be given--will not be as easy as the first.

If you are familiar with current discussions on the problem of evil, you will recognize a parallel here. The problem of evil has been proposed as a logical defeater for the existence of God. On that level, philosophers agree it has been quite effectively dismantled. It continues to be discussed, though, on a "probabilistic" level: given the evil in the world, is it likely that God exists? Parallel questions can be asked on Divine Hiddenness.

3. I see a third level of challenge at times, which is an implied or explicit expectation that God would make himself known "the way I would do it if I were God." God ought to show himself in ways that make sense to me; he ought to show up like Santa Claus in the Macy's parade, or write his name across the sky, or do grand and great miracles, just because I think that if there's a God that's the way he ought to announce himself. The best I can hope to do in response to that is show why that's an illicit expectation. God is in no way bound to do things our way or even for purposes that we think he ought to be pursuing. If the questioner is committed to God revealing himself on that level, I'm sure they'll remain as disappointed after I'm done as they already are--unless, that is, they pay attention to reasons the challenge is wrongly based.

David and Michael wisely remind us that this discussion won't lead us to a proof of God's existence. It's still worth pursuing, though, if it helps clear away rational objections to God, and if it helps us understand better who God really is. That's where I'm hoping to arrive by the end of this. The first step, starting probably tomorrow, will be to review what the Bible says about God's self-revelation. That's the essential foundation for answering these questions.

Part of a Series:

1. Divine Hiddenness
2. Direction-Setting
3. The Demand for a Sign
4. Course Correction
5. Deus Absconditus
6. Starting Over
7. Epilogue

Posted: Thu - April 26, 2007 at 04:17 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Divine Hiddenness: Direction-Setting

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson