Argument from nonbelief
|
|
The argument from nonbelief (also, the argument from divine hiddenness) is a recently-developed argument against the existence of God that is garnering interest in the philosophical community (J.L. Schellenberg, Daniel Howard-Snyder, and Theodore Drange are some of the important participants). The argument mirrors the classic argument from evil but appeals to different troubling facts.
A formal presentation follows:
Assume an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God exists.
- God wants all humans to believe in, know and love him. (Omnibenevolent)
- God can do anything. (Omnipotent)
- God can make all humans love him. (By 2)
- Atheists (humans) do not believe in God.
- If God wanted something it would be done. (By 2)
- If God wanted all humans to believe in him they would. (By 5)
- God does not want humans to believe in him. (By 4 & 6)
- Contradiction, 1 & 7
Conclusion: An omnibenevolent, omnipotent God does not exist.
Its motivating thought is that if God existed, surely he could have done more to help people believe in him. The fact that so many people doubt God's existence then becomes a very big problem for anyone proclaiming a God who wants humanity to know of him. Theistic evidence is mixed and scattershot and religious experience seems to miss the people who need it most. Since this is not what we'd expect of a super-competent deity, belief in the existence of God with such qualities must wane.
Summary of proposed resolutions
- To note, the argument as framed above is a non sequitur, for premise 5 does not follow from premise 2. Also, many theists would contend against the truth of premise 2, holding that God cannot do contradictory things.
- Some choose to reject Assumption #4, stating that Atheists do in fact believe in God. From some, this is just as bold-faced as it sounds. Others argue that humans are born with the "Faith of a Child" -- a faith of trust and love and absolute purity. It is only through contact with a world of evil, pain, selfishness, and harm is the Faith we were born lost with, and become corrupted. According to this argument, God gave everyone Faith that he exists and unbelief doesn't truly exist.
- A common response is to assert that anyone calling the atheist an unwitting (or unacknowledged) theist may be an unwitting atheist oneself, given the same uncertainty. As such, the rebuttal is a tu quoque, though not necessarily invalid.
- One popular theodicy should be mentioned is fideism. 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.
- Another consideration is that faith, in and of itself, is something that God wants humans to develop. Faith may be some valuable power that is not just a means whereby we can obey God. (This is a tenet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for one.)
- Open Theism challenges the assumption that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.