The Objection from Divine Hiddenness
Defeating Defeater Beliefs
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
– 1 Corinthians 2:14
Since I gave my Thanksgiving sermon a week early, this has created a gap in the homiletical schedule, for in a few weeks we will (of course) begin preparing our hearts for Advent. Therefore, I thought I would take this intervening time to return to an ongoing series of lessons (we have) on evangelism. A pedagogical effort to help us fulfill the second part of our mission statement: to reach the city.
This afternoon I want to discuss a common objection to God’s existence known as the Objection from Divine Hiddenness. According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Objection from Divine Hiddenness is an argument which tries to demonstrate that, “If God existed, He would (or would likely would) make the truth of His existence more obvious to everyone than it is. Since the truth of God’s existence is not as obvious to everyone as it should be if God existed, proponents of this argument conclude that God must not (or probably does not) exist.”
I’m going to object to the first premise of this argument. That if God existed, he would make the truth of his existence more obvious. The renowned atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked how he would justify his unbelief if he were to find himself standing before the Almighty on judgement day. His response was characteristically bold: "I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'"
A defiant retort which has been popular with unbelievers ever since. However, a clarifying follow up question which is rarely raised in response is: "Not enough evidence for what?"
It seems that what is thought to be required for belief in God is for the evidence of his existence to be coercive. To compel belief. That if God really did exist, he would write his name in the sky for all to see or stamp his initials on DNA. That his existence would be undeniable. Unavoidable, even.
Now, one cultural feature of late modernity which has made this argument even more potent is the spiritual apathy that has permeated much of the West for decades now. Most moderns have either been too busy or are too indifferent to be bothered with things beyond the physical universe. Our great material prosperity has permitted us to disregard our deeper spiritual longings and abandon our rich religious heritage. As a result, we are quite ignorant of the claims of Christianity and the evidence which supports them.
This is even more the case because we live in a post-Christian society where such claims are viewed as being terribly out-of-step with the modern world. Thus, for several generations now many people have lived their entire lives without ever seriously considering the claims of Christianity. It was never a live option for them.
For others, they abandoned their faith at a young age and have never looked back. A path which seems common among university professors who are outspoken in their unbelief and eager to spread their skepticism to their students. For many of these academics, their loss of faith happened when they were around 11 or 12 years old, and they have never really given the subject much thought since. Which means that they have rejected Jesus on the basis of the objections of a 12-year-old.
So, traditionally, when people have said that "There’s not enough evidence," what they have meant is that "There’s not enough evidence to coerce me out of my indifference. If I choose to ignore it, the evidence isn’t going to grab me by the lapels and force me to believe (as one apologist put it).”
However, this cultural apathy towards Christianity is changing dramatically. Given the chaos of the last three years, many unbelievers are beginning to reconsider their childhood faith. Others are exploring Christianity for the first time. As they search for a worldview that will bring their life greater meaning, purpose, and value.
The question is what kind of evidence should they expect. Evidence which is coercive? Which compels belief? Certainly not. No thoughtful Christian would argue that evidence for God's existence is unavoidable. For one can always find a way to suppress such truth.
Even those who witnessed Jesus’ stunning miracles were “permitted” to deny it. There was always “provided” a way of escape, a chance to deceive oneself, however ridiculous it might be (i.e., saying that Jesus performed such feats through the power of Beelzebub).
God does not compel belief. At least not yet. If you wish to deny it, you can.
The real question is not is the evidence coercive, but should it be. The atheist seems to assume that it must be. However, I don't see any good reason to see why it should be. Let me give you a few reasons for this conclusion.
A DESIRE FOR TRUTH
Firstly, we must come to understand that knowledge of God is unique in that it is conditioned by both moral and spiritual factors (which has to do with the nature of the object of that knowledge, God himself). That while a spiritually indifferent person can have profound knowledge of certain aspects of physics, or literature, or history, or sociology, or even of theology (although, on one level, their knowledge will be distorted), they cannot know God (in the truest sense).
As Paul says in our text, in his letter to the Corinthians: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). According to the Bible, the knowledge of God can only be understood by those who are spiritual, by those whose eyes have been opened by the Spirit.
This is speaking of the doctrine of illumination. Which includes the changing of the affections. Apart from such transformation man suppresses the truth about God in unrighteousness, as Paul says in Romans 1. A critical part of this affectional change is a change in desire. A stirring in one’s spirit for communion with the Almighty.
But this is only the beginning of the journey of faith, according to scripture. For divine truth must be searched for. Meaning that part of the move toward faith requires a groping around in the dark trying to feel your way to God. A hunt which demands a desire for divine truth is ultimate.
“A heart which is restless until it rest in thee,” as Augustine put it.
Or, as it says in Jeremiah 29:13: "And you shall seek me and you shall find me, if you seek for me with all your heart."
Only those whose heart desires truth as the ultimate treasure (Proverbs 2); only those who are unwilling to accept anything less as a substitute, will find it. He who hungers and thirsts for righteousness will be satisfied, as Jesus said.
This is the ultimate quest (the great drama of life), as Soren Kierkegaard would have put it. To stalk after joy, as another writer has it. Or, to say it slightly differently, supernatural truth will only give its blessing to those who are willing to wrestle it to the ground. There is a striving which is necessary in order for one to be rewarded with the gift of faith.
As an illustration, look at the conversion accounts of the saints in scripture and those in church history. The gift of faith often comes as a reward at the end of a great odyssey. Even the apostle Paul, who meets the Lord in the most dramatic way on the road to Damascus, spends three days contending with the profound revelation he had been given before surrendering to it in baptism.
The truth of God must be sought for as treasure hidden in a field. It must be hunted down.
WHAT DO YOU SEEK?
A question I always ask an unbeliever, the question which would be asked of a new arrival at the monastery. What do you seek? Quid Petis?
What is it that you are after, ultimately? What is the ultimate good you desire? For you must value the prize of the gospel before you will be willing to pay the price for it. What is the joy that is set before you? Meaning that delight must come first. For apart from delight you will not be willing to follow the desires of your heart beyond what the evidence compels.
Spirits must be tested, and defeaters defeated, but the beauty of truth must be given the greatest weight. For it is what will carry you across the threshold of the kingdom. Which means that if you don’t want it to be true, then there isn’t anything I can do to help you.
The Oxford Chemist Peter Atkins was recently asked if there was any evidence which would convince him of God’s existence, and he said essentially “No”. Any such evidence he would attribute to madness rather than the messiah. No one is going to compel you to walk the Via Dolorosa. You must freely choose to journey down it. A journey which will be powered by delight.
JOYFUL SURRENDER
So, in the biblical view, God has given evidence of himself which is sufficiently clear for those who seek him with an open mind and a longing heart, but sufficiently vague so as to not to compel those whose minds and hearts are closed. The evidence is there for those who have eyes to see it, as Jesus might say. And blessed are those who see it, as Jesus told Thomas.
I don’t think that the atheist's assertion is true that if the evidence for God was completely obvious then more people would be saved. For it fails to take into account the moral and spiritual factors which condition faith.
Think of Pharoah who witnessed all of the miraculous plagues of God but who still hardened his heart to their truth. Or consider Abraham’s response to the rich man in Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazareth. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazareth to warn his brothers of the punishment to come. To which Abraham responds, they have Moses and the prophets to guide them. To which the rich man retorts, but if someone were to be raised from the dead, then they would believe. If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, says Abraham, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
The point is that even if God were to write his name in the sky, or stamp his initials upon human DNA, it may lead more people to a compelled assent, but not to joyful surrender. For many people saw Jesus' miracles and believed in his deity, but far fewer continued to follow Him when they heard his teaching. In other words, many left when they counted the cost of discipleship.
The truth wasn't worth giving up their autonomy and surrendering their lives to God. Blaze Pascal put it this way: "Had I seen a miracle," say men, "I should become converted." How can they be sure they would do a thing of the nature of which they are ignorant? They imagine that this conversion consists in a worship of God which is like commerce, and in a communion such as they picture to themselves.
True religion consists in annihilating self before that Universal Being, whom we have so often provoked, and who can justly destroy us at any time. The call of the gospel is radical, says Pascal. It requires a death to self. And so even works of awe and wonder in and of themselves are not enough to compel surrender to the Lord Jesus. And that is why when the big crowds formed after he performed miracles, Jesus was not excited (like many today might be), he was suspicious.
So, he preached a hard sermon to thin the herd to see who was willing to really follow him (Eat my flesh. Drink my blood. His true disciples had no idea what he was talking about, but where could they go, for Jesus had the words of eternal life).
A PATH TO FAITH
Now, while there’s not enough evidence to be coercive, there is certainly enough evidence for faith to be rational. There is enough evidence for warranted belief. And, as we have said previously, after you take the leap of faith, further evidence will be provided to you. Confirmatory signs and wonders that you are on the right path. Evidence which you will only have access to if you start the journey.
Finally, given everything we have just said, let’s conclude with a proposal for an evangelization method. A general outline for shepherding genuine seekers along the path to faith. Following others, I think that Blaise Pascal provides us a good model.
Pensee #187: Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.
Some have outlined Pascal’s approach into three steps.
First, the gospel must be presented briefly but so vividly and attractively that the listener is virtually compelled to say "It would be wonderful if that were true, but it can't be!" In order for them to be awakened from their spiritual apathy they must see the value in Christianity.
We must first create motivation for them to listen or they will simply tune us out. Because that is what spiritual apathy and the defeater beliefs which support it do– it makes people super-impatient with any case for Christianity. It’s not a live option and so they are ready to dismiss it out of hand. Unless they find a presentation of Christ surprisingly attractive and compelling (and stereo-type breaking) their eyes will simply glaze over when you try to talk to them.
We must make Christianity a live option again. Now, at the present moment, many people are beyond this stage. The collapsing West has done a lot of the work for us. They already wish Christianity were true.
The second step is to deal with the defeaters themselves, in a manner which is clear and convincing. Defeaters are deconstructed when, first, the person feels that we have presented their objection to Christianity in a clearer and stronger way than even they could have done it, and then secondly by undermining their confidence in such a belief. Often, you don’t have to demonstrate that it is false, only that it may not be true.
Now, if a person acknowledges that we have undermined their defeaters, you can then return to presenting, at greater length, the gospel meta-narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. Creation to consummation, which is step three.
However, the order to work these steps in is important: Because if you try to do apologetics before you pull off a quick, attractive presentation of Christ, people's eyes will glaze over, and they will become bored. And if you try to do a very lengthy explanation of the meaning of Christ's cross and resurrection before you convincingly deal with the defeaters, they won't listen to you either.
“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” – Matthew 28:18-20
Video Link: The Objection from Divine Hiddenness - YouTube