Argument from nonbelief
One popular theodicy should be mentioned. This is that, were God to reveal himself, he would take away our freedom to believe or not believe. Or, in the same vein, God wants our choice to follow him to be genuine and one not motivated by blind fear of Hell. The usual responses are
- that having strong evidence for a proposition doesn't deprive one of freedom, it only gives one good reason to believe;
- that post-revelation worship could and would often still be quite genuine (think of non-Christians just waiting for the right evidence to come along); and
-
if worship being motivated by fear of Hell is grounds for dismissing it as cheap
worship, then a great percentage of real-world theists are in serious trouble.
However, since faith is similar to knowledge, and realistically operates in degrees with it, then why would a little more obvious revelation of God be that harmful to faith? Think of the person who smokes, knowing full well that it is unhealthy. He has knowledge that it is unhealthy and he still has trouble bringing himself to stop. It can be argued that it is not the knowing of God's existence that makes religious life hard or easy, but our own laziness and carnality, even in the face of great knowledge! Faith viewed in that sense cannot really be harmed by a greater affirmation of the existence of God.


