DOCSLIB.ORG

Divine Hiddenness and the Challenge of Inculpable Nonbelief Matthew R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Divine Hiddenness and the Challenge of Inculpable Nonbelief Matthew R University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 5-2012 Divine Hiddenness and the Challenge of Inculpable Nonbelief Matthew R. Sokoloski University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Epistemology Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Sokoloski, Matthew R., "Divine Hiddenness and the Challenge of Inculpable Nonbelief" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 342. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/342 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. DIVINE HIDDENNESS AND THE CHALLENGE OF INCULPABLE NONBELIEF DIVINE HIDDENNESS AND THE CHALLENGE OF INCULPABLE NONBELIEF A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy By Matthew Ryan Sokoloski Freed-Hardeman University Bachelor of Science in Biology, 2003 Freed-Hardeman University Masters of Arts in New Testament, 2004 University of Mississippi Masters of Arts in Philosophy, 2006 May 2012 University of Arkansas Abstract Divine hiddenness is the idea that God is in some sense hidden or obscure. This dissertation responds to J.L. Schellenberg’s argument, based on divine hiddenness and human reason, against the existence of God. Schellenberg argues that if a perfectly loving God exists, we would not expect to find such widespread nonbelief in God’s existence. Given the amount of reasonable nonbelief in the world, Schellenberg argues that an agnostic ought to conclude that God does not exist rather than conclude that God is hidden. Schellenberg’s argument has three major premises: (1) If there is a God, he is perfectly loving; (2) If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur; (3) Reasonable nonbelief occurs. I provide a theistic response to the argument from divine hiddenness in an attempt to offer the agnostic a reasonable reply that prevents an atheistic conclusion. In order to defeat the prima facie evidence for Schellenberg’s argument, I first question the amount of reasonable nonbelief in an effort to reduce the evidential force of Schellenberg’s third premise. This is followed by a consideration of possible defenses to challenge the second premise that if a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur. Free-will defenses are considered, but I conclude that they are not sufficient as a response to the challenge that Schellenberg has developed. Instead, I argue that skeptical theism is a defense which can be successful in preventing an agnostic from being necessarily led, epistemically, to conclude that God does not exist. Finally, I develop a second defense motivated by concepts from Paul K. Moser that I take to be the most promising response to Schellenberg’s argument from divine hiddenness. By casting the evidence for God in a new context, I conclude that the challenge that Schellenberg has developed can be overcome by providing a defense which shows that God, motivated by divine love, may in some sense be hidden so as to allow reasonable nonbelief to occur at least for a time. This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. Dissertation Director: Dr. Thomas Senor Dissertation Committee: Dr. Lynne Spellman Dr. Jacob Adler Dissertation Duplication Release I hereby authorize the University of Arkansas Libraries to duplicate this dissertation when needed for research and/or scholarship. Agreed Matthew Ryan Sokoloski Refused Matthew Ryan Sokoloski Acknowledgements Special thanks to my parents, Larry and Terri, who have always shown their love and support. Also, special thanks to my wife, Aleshia, for supporting me and helping me through this journey, and for always being understanding whenever I had to give attention to writing this dissertation. I owe her many evenings, weekends, and home-cooked meals. I want to thank my dissertation advisor, Tom Senor, for guiding me through this process and seeing it through to the end. I also want to thank my supervisor in the Office of International Students and Scholars, Michael Freeman, for always being supportive and understanding of this endeavor. And finally, I want to thank Rolland Pack, a great man and philosopher, for being my mentor and role model throughout my entire higher education experience. Dedication For my wife, Aleshia, who is a blessing and an everyday reminder of God’s love for me. Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Argument ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Responses ................................................................................................................................................. 2 A Look Ahead ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 1: The Argument from Divine Hiddenness ...................................................................................... 6 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Schellenberg’s Three Premises ................................................................................................................. 7 If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.................................................................................................. 7 If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur ................................................. 8 Reasonable nonbelief occurs .............................................................................................................. 10 Implications of Schellenberg’s three premises ....................................................................................... 12 The Hiddenness Argument from Analogy ............................................................................................... 14 Challenging the argument from divine hiddenness ................................................................................ 17 Parameters of the responses .............................................................................................................. 17 Relationship to the argument from evil .............................................................................................. 19 Common Approaches .......................................................................................................................... 20 Questioning Premise (3)...................................................................................................................... 21 Questioning Premise (2)...................................................................................................................... 25 Skeptical Theism ................................................................................................................................. 28 Reinterpreting the Question ............................................................................................................... 31 Understanding the God in question........................................................................................................ 34 Chapter 2: Inculpable Nonbelief ................................................................................................................. 35 Motivations for questioning (3) .............................................................................................................. 35 Culpability ............................................................................................................................................... 37 Schellenberg’s definition of culpability ............................................................................................... 37 Model Penal Code ............................................................................................................................... 40 Involuntary Sins ................................................................................................................................... 42 Nonbelief ................................................................................................................................................. 48 Reflective Inculpable Nonbelief .......................................................................................................... 49 Unreflective Inculpable Nonbelief ...................................................................................................... 57 The Noetic Effects of Sin ......................................................................................................................... 60 John Calvin and the Fall ...................................................................................................................... 61 Jonathan Edwards and true benevolence ........................................................................................... 63 Heinrich Emil Brunner and the law of the closeness of relation .......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Does Reasonable Nonbelief Exist?
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 18 Issue 1 Article 6 1-1-2001 Does Reasonable Nonbelief Exist? Douglas V. Henry Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Henry, Douglas V. (2001) "Does Reasonable Nonbelief Exist?," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 18 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil200118114 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol18/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. DOES REASONABLE NONBELIEF EXIST? Douglas V. Henry J. L. Schellenberg's Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason claims that the exis­ tence of reflective persons who long to solve the problem of God's existence but cannot do so constitutes an evil rendering God's existence in1probable. In this essay, I present Schellenberg's argument and argue that the kind of reasonable nonbelief Schellenberg needs for his argument to succeed is unlikely to exist. Since Schellenberg's argument is an inductive-style version of the problem of evil, the empirical improbability of the premise Ichallenge renders the conclusions derived fron1 it empirically improbable as well. 1. Introduction In Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason, J. L. Schellenberg presents a special version of the problem of evil, one that is an interesting, significant, and genuinely new contribution to the scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heritage of Non-Theistic Belief in China
    The Heritage of Non-theistic Belief in China Joseph A. Adler Kenyon College Presented to the international conference, "Toward a Reasonable World: The Heritage of Western Humanism, Skepticism, and Freethought" (San Diego, September 2011) Naturalism and humanism have long histories in China, side-by-side with a long history of theistic belief. In this paper I will first sketch the early naturalistic and humanistic traditions in Chinese thought. I will then focus on the synthesis of these perspectives in Neo-Confucian religious thought. I will argue that these forms of non-theistic belief should be considered aspects of Chinese religion, not a separate realm of philosophy. Confucianism, in other words, is a fully religious humanism, not a "secular humanism." The religion of China has traditionally been characterized as having three major strands, the "three religions" (literally "three teachings" or san jiao) of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism. Buddhism, of course, originated in India in the 5th century BCE and first began to take root in China in the 1st century CE, so in terms of early Chinese thought it is something of a latecomer. Confucianism and Daoism began to take shape between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE. But these traditions developed in the context of Chinese "popular religion" (also called folk religion or local religion), which may be considered a fourth strand of Chinese religion. And until the early 20th century there was yet a fifth: state religion, or the "state cult," which had close relations very early with both Daoism and Confucianism, but after the 2nd century BCE became associated primarily (but loosely) with Confucianism.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fundamental Problem for Skeptical Theism
    A fundamental problem for skeptical theism Atle O. Søvik Det teologiske menighetsfakultet Postboks 5144 Majorstuen 0302 Oslo [email protected] Abstract: The argument from divine hiddenness says that since probably there is pointless divine hiding, then probably God does not exist. Francis Jonbäck argues that a good response to this argument is to deny that one can assign a probability value to the claim that there is pointless divine hiding. I argue in this article the opposite, and that we should instead choose a theodicy response. Keywords: Skeptical theism; divine hiddenness; value agnosticism; Francis Jonbäck; theodicy Introduction Skeptical theism is acknowledged by many as a good response to the problem of evil and the argument from divine hiddenness.1 Simply put, the problem of evil is that we would expect the world to be better given that there is a good and omnipotent God, while the argument from divine hiddenness is that we would expect to have more evidence of the existence of God given that there is a good and omnipotent God. Skeptical theism responds to these arguments by challenging the idea of what we have reason to expect. God may have good reasons for allowing evil or hiding which we have no reason to think that we should know, and thus these arguments are not good arguments against the existence of God, according to skeptical theism. In a recent clearly written and well structured book, Francis Jonbäck presents a defense of what he calls value agnosticism as a response to the argument from divine hiddenness.2 Value agnosticism says that we are not is a position to estimate how probable or not it is that God has good reasons for hiding.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scriptural and Philosophical Evaluation of the Open Model of God As an Ontological Necessity and Its Compatibility with Evangelical Theology
    Ouachita Baptist University Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita Honors Theses Carl Goodson Honors Program 2007 A Scriptural and Philosophical Evaluation of the Open Model of God as an Ontological Necessity and Its Compatibility with Evangelical Theology Richard Garrett Ham Jr. Ouachita Baptist University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/honors_theses Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Practical Theology Commons Recommended Citation Ham, Richard Garrett Jr., "A Scriptural and Philosophical Evaluation of the Open Model of God as an Ontological Necessity and Its Compatibility with Evangelical Theology" (2007). Honors Theses. 44. https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/honors_theses/44 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Carl Goodson Honors Program at Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CI IAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. ! Til£ EV.- \ 'I'GELICAL U'I'OEHSTAND II\"G OF SCIHPTUJn: ............................................................................................ 1 1'l1e Nature ofScriplllre ... ................................................................................................................... .................. 3 The Purpose ofScripture. ....... .... ......................
    [Show full text]
  • IS OPEN THEISM EVANGELICAL? . . . Bruce A. Ware
    JETS 45/2 (June 2002) 193–212 DEFINING EVANGELICALISM’S BOUNDARIES THEOLOGICALLY: IS OPEN THEISM EVANGELICAL? bruce a. ware* i. introduction Clark Pinnock is exactly right. After noting (correctly) in his Most Moved Mover that Arminians and Augustinians have co-existed throughout much of the church’s history, and that a number of evangelical theologians today (and not just open theists) are working toward refinements in an evangeli- cal doctrine of God, he asks, “Why draw the line at foreknowledge?”1 A few pages later, he returns to this question: “In raising the issue of the divine foreknowledge, we have not transgressed some rule of theological discourse and placed ourselves outside the pale of orthodoxy. Why can an evangelical not propose a different view of this matter? What church council has de- clared it to be impossible? Since when has this become the criterion of being orthodox or unorthodox, evangelical or not evangelical?”2 What does Pinnock mean when he says that open theists have raised the issue of divine foreknowledge? Simply this: Open theism affirms God’s ex- haustive knowledge of the past and present, but it denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge, in that it denies that God knows—or can know—the future free decisions and actions of his moral creatures, even while it affirms that God knows all future possibilities and all divinely determined and logically- necessary future actualities. As William Hasker explains, “Since the future is genuinely open, since it is possible for a free agent to act in any of several different ways, it follows that it is not possible for God to have complete and exhaustive knowledge of the entire future.”3 So, the specific denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is embraced in open theism as central and essential to its own identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Origins of Religious Universalism Peter R
    Ancient Origins of Religious Universalism Peter R. Bedford, Union College (A précis, of sorts) It is commonly considered By HeBrew BiBle scholars that monotheism in Ancient Israel—and By ‘monotheism’ I mean the Belief that there is only one God and that other ‘gods’ people worship are in fact figments of human imagination, idols that do not exist— emerged around the middle of the first millennium BCE in the context of Israel’s political subjugation and exile at the hands of successive Near Eastern empires, the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-BaBylonian, and the Achaemenid Persian empires. Imperialism is key here since the political sovereignty of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah was undermined By these empires and with it the royal-state ideology that averred that Yahweh, the god of these kingdoms, was their sovereign lord who superintended their affairs and well-being. The political power of these foreign empires compromised the authority of Yahweh since it very much looked like their gods had greater authority than the god of Israel and Judah and that these imperial gods dictated what would happen to Israel and Judah, their kings and their peoples. One reaction of a suBjugated people to the demonstrated power of successive empires and their chief deities—Assur for Assyria, Marduk for Babylonia, Ahura Mazda for Persia—is simply to recognize that your own god is one among many who serves the Great God of the empire in the heavenly court, and so suBjugated peoples here on earth must serve the Great King of the empire who acts as the imperial god’s vicegerent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil As a Moral Objection to Theism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AS A MORAL OBJECTION TO THEISM by TOBY GEORGE BETENSON A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2014 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract: I argue that the problem of evil can be a moral objection to theistic belief. The thesis has three broad sections, each establishing an element in this argument. Section one establishes the logically binding nature of the problem of evil: The problem of evil must be solved, if you are to believe in God. And yet, I borrow from J. L. Mackie’s criticisms of the moral argument for the existence of God, and argue that the fundamentally evaluative nature of the premises within the problem of evil entails that it cannot be used to argue for the non- existence of God.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading a Polytheistic Faith to the Monotheistic
    The Asbury JOllmaI66/2:77-91 © 2011 "\sbury Theological Seminary Leading a PolYtheistic Faith to the Monotheistic God' A S tu4J in I dentijjing Barriers to the Gospel in a Chinese Buddhist Community and W qys to Overcome those Barriers Abstract This article is written for the purpose of exploring a way to lead a polytheistic faith, prevalent in the local Chinese Buddhist community (LCBC) in Brunei, to the reality of a monotheistic God as revealed in the Bible (1 Corinthians 8:6). It serves as a guide for the local Chinese church (CC) to lead the LCBC to see that God as a Creator is sufficient to be their God. This article identifies the need of a missiological package in order to lead the LCBC to Christ. The CC needs to assist the LCBC to become receptive before the core of the gospel message is proclaimed to the community. This article thus presents a missiological package which consists of ministries of witnessing Christ with good conduct, building good relations, taking dialogic action, establishing a well-organized team, contextualizing the gospel critically, directing the community to the Father of all, and applying consensus and pluralism in mission. Keywords: Chinese Buddhism, Chinese culture, worldview, Christian mission, evangelism, critical contextualization, and consensus and pluralism. Agnes N. A. Woo received her doctorate in missiology from "\sbury Theological Seminary in Wihnore, Kentucky. 77 78 I The Asbllry JOllrnal 66/ 2 (2011) The Yellow River is a place where the Chinese can trace their origin, a place where all the Chinese ancestors lived, and a place which tile Chinese should call home ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil
    The Problem of Evil Leslie Allan Published online: 28 July 2015 Copyright © 2015 Leslie Allan The existence of evil, pain and suffering is considered by many philosophers to be the most vexed question concerning the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect deity. Why would a loving God permit wanton acts of cruelty and misery on the scale witnessed throughout human history? In this essay, Leslie Allan evaluates four common theistic responses to this problem, highlighting the benefits and challenges faced by each approach. He concludes with a critical examination of a theistic defence designed to show that the problem of evil is not a problem at all. To cite this essay: Allan, Leslie 2015. The Problem of Evil, URL = <http://www.RationalRealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/problem-of-evil.html> To link to this essay: http://www.RationalRealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/problem-of-evil.html Follow this and additional essays at: http://www.RationalRealm.com This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms and conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.RationalRealm.com/policies/tos.html Leslie Allan The Problem of Evil 1. Introduction The problem of evil, pain and suffering is considered by some philosophers to be the most telling philosophical objection to theistic belief. At its heart is the notion that if God existed, he would be powerful enough to be able to prevent evil, wise enough to know how to prevent it and benevolent enough to want to prevent it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Theodicy from William Rowe's
    Liberty University Department of Philosophy The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Doing Theodicy from William Rowe’s Evidential Argument from Evil ------------------------------------------- A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Philosophy Department of Liberty University In Partial Fulfilment Of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in Philosophical Studies -------------------------------------------- By Olaoluwa Apata -------------------------------------------- Lynchburg, VA May 2016 Abstract In this research, we discussed the types of evil: moral and natural, which are cited by atheistic philosophers as evidence against the existence of God. The so-called evidence from evil has been used by the atheistic and other non-theistic scholars to raise hypothesis on evaluating the possibility or likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God exists in a world that is littered with evil. Moral evil is evil that arise from the misuse of free will by moral agents, while natural evils are natural disasters such as: earthquakes, famine, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. We discussed moral evil and Plantinga’s free will defense. We also discussed the natural evil and how it poses threat to theism. The logical and the evidential arguments from evil are the forms of arguments developed from moral and natural evils. While many scholars have agreed that Plantinga’s free will defense adequately responds to the problem of logical evil, the same consensus does not necessarily apply to the evidential argument from evil. We also examined William Rowe’s evidential argument which he developed from cases of intense animal and human sufferings considered by him to be pointless or gratuitous with no known reasons or goods for which God should have allowed the visceral experience of such sufferings.
    [Show full text]
  • Pentecostalism and Shamanism in Asia and Beyond: an Inter-Disciplinary Analysis
    Pentecostalism and Shamanism in Asia and Beyond An Inter-disciplinary Analysis Alena Govorounova “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.” Isaac Newton, Third Law of Motion, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica “The unlike is joined together, and from differences results the most beautiful harmony, and all things take place by strife.” Heraclitus of Ephesus, On Nature Erich Neumann suggests in The Origins and History of Con- sciousness that human consciousness is subjected to the constant process of centroversion and differentiation (Neumann 1973, 261). This tendency of human thought—to constantly strive toward polarities and reorganize itself again as a holistic mode—seems to pertain to all layers of human cog- nitive architecture, from archetypal pre-reflective self-awareness to highly analytical interpretative supra-consciousness. It is reflected in the evolution of cultures and civilizations and it seems to be the driving force behind his- * Alena Govorounova is a Research Associate at the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture. The quotations from the Bible are from the niv (New International Version, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984). 54 alena govorounova | 55 torical changes in the intellectual climate and scientific paradigm shifts (see Kuhn 1962). As Friedrich Nietzsche (1999 [1888]; 1966 [1886]) once ironi- cally observed, we are doomed to think in opposites and controversies, we are trapped in categorical dualisms of “good and evil,” we are conditioned by contrast-based human language, where each unit of meaning is defined against what it is not. We are carried away in the endless play of différance1 in search for identity and meaning and we need the Other to define who we are.
    [Show full text]