The argument from divine hiddenness

One of the best arguments for atheism I've found is at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/burningbush.html. I invite theists to try to refute ebon's argument.

Forgive the long post, I summarized it as much as I could by deleting some sections (. . .) and with small additions (in brackets [ ]).


One More Burning Bush: The argument from divine hiddenness

[Summary]
The argument so far can be summarized as this: When we study history, we encounter stories of great miracles and appearances of God. These stories are not corroborated by any similar events in the present. There are no reliable means for humans to detect the existence of God, and although theists tell us God has the power to bridge this evidentiary gap from the other side, there are no occurrences that can reasonably be interpreted as this happening. In short, God is absent, and evidence of his activity is nowhere to be found.

[T]he argument from divine hiddenness . . . builds on the fact that God's presence is not obvious, supplementing it with the proposition that, if God existed, there would be good reasons for him to make his presence obvious - and from there concludes that the most likely explanation for the lack of divine manifestations is that there is no divine being at all.

The lack of obvious manifestations of God is better explained by assuming that God does not exist than by assuming that God does exist but chooses to remain hidden.

[Formal Outline of the argument]
Assumption (1): God exists.
Assumption (1a): God desires that people be aware of his existence.
Assumption (1b): God desires that people worship him in specific ways.
Assumption (1c): God has the ability to make his presence obvious and explain clearly what he desires.
Premise (2): God's presence is not obvious in the world.
Premise (3): Many people do not believe in God because of a lack of evidence.
Premise (4): Many people who do believe in God do not agree on what he desires, because of a lack of evidence.
Premise (5): For God to make his premise obvious and explain his desires would remedy both (3) and (4), without having any significant negative side effects.
Conclusion (6): If God exists, he would make his premise obvious in the world and explain what he desires. (from (1),(5))
Contradiction: But no such thing has happened. (from (2))
Conclusion (7): God does not exist. (from (6),(2))

[Exception]
[T]here are some theistic traditions that face no difficulty from the argument from divine hiddenness. However, most religious traditions believe that God wants us to both believe in his existence and worship him in specifically defined ways, and it is these against which the argument from divine hiddenness is most effective. For if there exists a God who desires that humanity believe in him and come to know him, why would he not take the most effective possible action to ensure that this occurs?

Granted, this argument does not claim to offer certainty, only probability. The more confidence we have in its premises, the more confidence we can place in its conclusion; but these premises, like all our knowledge, cannot be absolutely proven.

Response 1: God's existence is obvious. Those who deny this do so out of stubbornness or selfish personal reasons.

Even the most fervent of believers must admit that God's presence in the world is not obvious in the way it could conceivably be. If there is a deity, it could make its presence apparent in a way that requires no "inference" whatsoever. Why would God, if such a being exists, not reveal himself in a way that demonstrates intentionality and miraculous power and allows for actual communication? It is one thing to claim that the existence of pattern and regularity in the world implies a hidden intelligence behind it all; it is quite another for that intelligence to actually speak to us directly. While the former claim is uncertain and disputable at best, surely not even the staunchest atheist could deny a god that simply shows up and talks to us in the way that any close friend would. This defense to the argument from divine hiddenness cannot explain why God would not choose to do this, and therefore it cannot be considered a success.

Response 2: For God to clearly reveal himself would violate our free will because humans would then have no choice but to love and follow him.

The most obvious counter to this argument is to point out that the traditions of most religions refute it themselves. For example, . . . [t]he Old Testament scriptures likewise tell of the Egyptian Pharaoh who refused to release the Israelites from their captivity despite overwhelming displays of God's power; the Israelites themselves repeatedly stumbled into idolatry throughout their history despite painful familiarity with the divine wrath that inevitably followed. . . . The list goes on and on. If it would be coercion for God to manifest himself, display miraculous power and demand our worship, as some theists hold, why is it that, according to those theists' sacred books, he did exactly that on many occasions in the past? Why was God not concerned about coercion then? And why is it not coercion when God's followers wrote down accounts of those miracles and presented them to others as truth?

Mere knowledge that he exists would not compel us to obey him, any more than we are forced to obey anyone else whose existence we are certain about. Even if we knew for certain that God existed, we would still be perfectly free to disregard his commands or reject him as a tyrant unworthy of our worship.

Response 3: God does not clearly reveal himself because he knows that doing so would do no good; those who disbelieve and rebel would continue to disbelieve and rebel.

I am an atheist, as many others are, precisely because of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of any supernatural being. If this evidence was provided, I would believe, as would many others; imaginary personal motives have nothing to do with it. . . . If God exists and wants me to believe in him, there is no reason why he should not provide it. . . . To say that an unmistakable direct manifestation of God would not convince anyone to change their mind is to show a complete ignorance of human psychology. History teems with reports of vast numbers of seemingly otherwise rational people who willingly abandoned their families, their possessions and sometimes their lives to follow self-proclaimed religious leaders on the flimsiest of evidence. If anything, we as a species are too eager to follow authority.

Response 4: God does not clearly reveal himself because he desires worship rather than mere acknowledgment of his existence.

True, belief in God's existence is not a sufficient condition for producing such a relationship, but it is certainly a necessary one. A person cannot love or worship what they do not believe to exist. Even granting for the sake of argument that an obvious manifestation of God would not produce mass worship (although in actuality it almost certainly would), it would lay the essential foundation on which such a response could be developed. Once a manifestation of the divine had made untenable the proposition that God does not exist, proselytizers could cease their efforts to overcome this objection and instead concentrate on providing reasons why God should be worshipped and obeyed. Surely this would be a much easier task!

Response 5: God does not clearly reveal himself because worship based on miracles rather than faith would not be lasting.

However, any proposed solution to the problem of divine hiddenness must accommodate not just the fact that miracles do not occur today, but also the fact that they were once claimed to be abundant . [i]f God's performing miracles would only invite subsequent generations to demand to see more just as good as the ones their forefathers witnessed, then it seems he has already given the game away: the Bible and other holy books contain many accounts of dramatic, earth-shaking miracles. If not fostering people's dependence on him is God's paramount concern, then why did he perform them so often in the past?

God could reveal himself to us and interact with us in the same way human beings interact with each other - not in blazing displays of cosmic power, but in the simple, everyday ways that convey the message that the other party is there, that they are who they say they are, and that they are willing to communicate. These things are the basic and essential components of a relationship. Does it ruin your relationship with your best friend for you to be able to see them and talk to them every day? If not, then what justification can there be for applying a different standard to God?

Conclusion / One More Burning Bush

If God is loving and compassionate, why would he hide himself away? Why would he let people stumble in the dark when he could so easily enlighten them? There are many people who struggle with their faith, who are plagued by doubt, and who put themselves through mental anguish trying to make themselves believe; many of them ultimately become atheists. There are others who are all too willing to inflict the most horrendous suffering on their fellow human beings because of their beliefs. Why does God not put a stop to this? Just a few simple words from him could calm the doubts and fears of so many, put a stop to the religious violence that has spilled so much innocent blood, and give humanity a new shared purpose and an invincible source of hope. His absence, by contrast, allows crises of faith and religious warfare and bloodshed to continue unabated.

According to many religious traditions, the fate of those who die without believing in God, or believing incorrect things about God, is an eternity of torment and suffering in Hell. As any theist would agree, this is a horrible fate; and presumably God, if he is good and not evil, does not desire that anyone be condemned to undergo it. Why, then, does he not take all available measures to warn people? Does he consider it more valuable that people believe without good evidence than that they be saved from the fire by whatever means possible?

In reality, however, it is implausible to believe that any god worthy of worship would stand by and do nothing while a vast number of human beings marched toward damnation - or worse, that this god would then condemn them himself for making an honest mistake. It is implausible to believe that a loving creator would hide himself away and do nothing while his children wrestle with doubt and fear. Far more plausible, far more rational, is the conclusion that God's existence is not apparent because there is no such being in the first place, and never was. It follows as a consequence that the miracle-filled accounts of ancient history are not a reflection of reality, but an artifact of human credulity and ignorance - the farther back in time we go, the more willing people were to accept fantastic stories at face value, and the more difficult it was to test such claims even if anyone had wanted to. It also follows that the experiences of the divine people have today are not accurate perceptions of some deeper reality, but the result of wishful thinking and cultural indoctrination. But if I am wrong about this, I am willing to be corrected. As I write these words, I, along with many others, am standing on the edge of the highway. All it would take to persuade me to turn back would be one more burning bush...

What if god is really a being of Evil and Chaos, and the way he draws power from people is by creating confusion and war... which is why he made multiple religions, to cause confusion and fighting.

So I suppose an all-evil god would definitely want to hide his agenda so people woudn't stop worshiping him.

[Philboid Studge]

I don't know, Baphomet. Such a god would want to prevent humans from pursuing knowledge -- would even prohibit us from learning the difference between good and evil, going so far as to punish us if we defied its prohibition. And that's krazy talk.

Either way its stated, god is a major asshole.

"What if God turned out to be a big chicken?"

"I don't know."

"ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES, THAT'S WHAT!"

-Calvin and Hobbes

That is a really good argument that I consider unanswerable to any theist. However, the only form of god I cannot seem to touch was one I heard Ben Franklin, I think, come up with, comparing god to a clockmaker.

"Having come up with the perfect device to run the universe, he left it to run on its own."

Only argument I think can touch that one is that such a god is unnecesary, then Occam.

When I was in high school, I was a deist. Basically, I figured that some force (call it "god") set the universe in motion and it's been on autopilot ever since. Then I thought that a god that doesn't interact with or care about humanity isn't really that different than a god that doesn't exist. It was one of many realizations on the path to atheism. Alternatively, if there is a god as I described it, it would be no different than say gravity- just another principle operating in the universe. And why would anybody worship that?

Well, I do like funny hats and little cars.

[Sternwallow]

brad89 wrote

That is a really good argument that I consider unanswerable to any theist. However, the only form of god I cannot seem to touch was one I heard Ben Franklin, I think, come up with, comparing god to a clockmaker.

"Having come up with the perfect device to run the universe, he left it to run on its own."

Only argument I think can touch that one is that such a god is unnecesary, then Occam.

Another argument is that the mechanisms of the universe are far from perfect, most of them being short-term, make-do suboptimal solutions and that he didn't leave the universe to run on its own, he left it to run down.

Actually, now that I think about it, how could he make the universe run to create life? Perhaps a stupid question, but that would leave life to come about by random chance, meaning that the form of god really does care about humanity. Thus, it answers nothing.

Philboid Studge wrote

I don't know, Baphomet. Such a god would want to prevent humans from pursuing knowledge -- would even prohibit us from learning the difference between good and evil, going so far as to punish us if we defied its prohibition. And that's krazy talk.

yeah, it's a good thing the god of the bible didn't try to keep people from learning good and evil, and that he didn't punish them if they tried to or did...

"Well, that just about wraps it up for god." -Oolon Calumphid

Here's how some Christians have reacted to requests for proof:

Oh yea athesit want God in a bottle to examine, look at..poke at...take apart if possible...a demand you know perfectly well will never happen on your terms. er? You said you had been viewing this fourm for awhile...I image checking and seeing what other nonbelievers had already presented as an arguement ...and you figured trying to get us to prove miracles happened today would be impossible...since 1, none of us are medical doctors that can post on here real medical evidence which would be against the law in the first place under the privacy act. 2, your demands are on your terms making any other sources of miracles impossible to prove because all we have are words...we cannot show you physically anything.

And you seem to be enjoying watching us post after post in a vain attempt to prove miracles to you which you will just keep saying its not good enough...so what is the point of this game?

To undermine the miracles in the bible I image...to try to undermine our faith and prove you are right, we are wrong which means God is not there...if you can.

Actually I agree with you on we do not see the 'miracles' on the huge and intense scale they did in the OT...and why is that? Because many of those miracles that happened in the OT were God's judgment on certain wicked people, or nations. The miracles of Jesus Christ were for the benefit of us...meaning He claimed to be God, so folks would at least be expecting some God powers to happen, wouldn't they? Yet look at how He was treated for what He did? The religious leaders of His time blasted Him for 'healing on the Sabbath'...they consider it 'work'....they accused Him of having satan's powers...I mean gee wiz they constantly harassed Him every time He tried to help anyone!

If you had the ability to go around healing folks but were constantly followed, spied on, harassed, and it got so bad that these folks plotted to even have you killed...wouldn't you reach a point of just throwing your hands up in the air and giving up? I probably would in disgust...of course Jesus didn't do that, He continued on until He ascended to Heaven.

The healing and miracles of directly helping people continued on through His disciples and even Paul and others...why they are not nearly as intense now is up for debate...I mean we debate it all the time! Some say the spiritual gifts like these have stopped, some say they haven't...some think its simply God's word has gotten so distorted and watered down and faith isn't what it used to be...

Whatever the reason is there will be a day coming where even greater miracles will happen once again, in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ...and then you won't have any doubts, but by then, it may be too late.

I have a feeling you are like Thomas, unless you see it with your own eyes, you refuse to believe...and I have a feeling even IF a miracle happened in front of you, you would still refuse to believe unless you also had the medical evidence to prove what you saw, uh? That is really pretty sad actually.


and



Well, you're one in 6.2 billion on this earth, one teeny tiny speck of dust in the vastness of the universe, and you're wanting God to drop everything He's doing to put on a show for you... If sight is miraculously healed, if the lame miraculously walk, it's because THERE IS SOME GREATER PURPOSE TO IT... it's because for some reason, in God's plan, that person needs to be able to see or that person needs to be able to walk.. perhaps that person has to be able to walk to save the life of some child crossing the street, about to be hit by a bus, who instead of dying, will grow up to be some great leader, and great force for good in this world...

(It's all too complex...)

I would think that if God were to start bending the very rules he wrote, the laws of nature, the laws of science, of physics... and to effectively destabilize the system for the rest of the 6.2 billion people in the the world, there would have to be an INCREDIBLY GOOD REASON that couldn't have been accomplished without.

I mean, imagine, booming thunder in the sky and the clouds open up, a beam of light shoots down from heaven and heals the lame man's leg... what are the rest of the people who witness this going to think? They're going to flip out, is what they're going to do. All of a sudden, those nice neat laws that God wrote by which everyone experiences reality are shattered, and suddenly, not only does the lame man walk, but you've got tons more people who are frightened, confused, and questioning their own sanity.

And unless that is part of the Divine Plan, I don't think that God wants to destabilize things on such a fundamental level.

[Sternwallow]

If you had the ability to go around healing folks but were constantly followed, spied on, harassed, and it got so bad that these folks plotted to even have you killed...wouldn't you reach a point of just throwing your hands up in the air and giving up?

If I were able to heal people and I were God, they either would not be infirm in the first place or their infirmity would be my will and not to be changed. If I were to proceed to heal people anyway, I would ignore the harassment and murder plots because, unless it is my desire, as God, they cannot lay a glove on me. It is one of my miracles.

Jesus should have told the Sanhedrin "You are a bunch of evil pompous jackasses and you can't lay a finger on me because I am God."

"You are a bunch of evil pompous jackasses and you can't lay a finger on me because I am God."

Try saying that to the cops!