I’m currently reading a book where the author said that God remains hidden from us today so that we may freely choose to love him or not. You can’t generate love through compulsion, he argued. And he’s right about that. As an illustration, he gave Kierkegaard’s story about a king in disguise:
Once upon a time, there was a king who longed to marry. One day, as he was riding through his kingdom, he happened to see a very beautiful young lady in a poorer section of the kingdom. He was struck by her beauty, so he found reasons to travel through there more often, even getting the chance to speak to her on occasion. As time went by, he realized he wanted to pursue a relationship with the woman, but how should he go about it?
As king, he could have her brought to the palace so that he could court her, or even propose marriage immediately. It would be very hard for her to refuse the king, but he wanted to marry for love. So he also considered dressing as a peasant in order to get to know her, and only revealing his true identity if she genuinely fell in love with him. But the dishonesty inherent in that approach was unappealing.
He finally thought of a real solution. He would give up his station as king and move into her neighborhood as a regular citizen, perhaps taking up a profession like carpentry [wink, wink]. Then, if she came to love him, they could marry, and he would know that her love was truly for him and not his position.
It’s a nice story, and its application is clear. God loves us and wants us to love him. Because of his position, he could command our love, but then it would not be genuine. His solution was to come in the flesh as Jesus, giving up his position in Heaven so that we could come to know him and love him legitimately.
But when you think about it, this isn’t an accurate illustration at all. In the story, the young woman only stands to gain. If she never meets the king, or if she never falls in love with him, then her life is no worse than it was before. But this is not what Christianity teaches. It claims that all humans are sinful, and we need saving. A better illustration would be a story where people on a cruise have fallen overboard. Someone still on the ship offers to throw the people a life preserver. Will those people first try to get to know him before they accept his offer? Of course not! They’ll happily take any help they can get. All that they really needed was to understand how serious their situation was.
To show the effectiveness of this, consider so many of the conversion accounts in the Book of Acts, especially chapter 2. Peter preaches to the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, and (supposedly) about 3000 of them were converted to Christ that day because of Peter’s message. Did they really know who Jesus was? Did they really have a deep relationship with him at that point? No. The implication is that they simply became convinced that they needed what only he could offer. They were drowning, and they needed rescue. According to that passage, that’s all that was required.
But since God is so well hidden that we can question his very existence, many of us don’t even know we need saving. Oh sure, there are people from a thousand different faiths telling us we need salvation, but the evidence they give to support this claim is woefully inadequate. Why doesn’t God give us a bigger sign, if we’re really in trouble? Why doesn’t he just tell us directly? Why aren’t all these people who are so ready to believe in God united by a single religion? It’s hard to believe there’s a fire when there’s no trace of smoke.
The most glaring problem with this story is Hell. Not all Christians believe in a literal, torturous Hell, but many do, including the author of this book I’ve been reading. How is Hell not compulsion? To fit it into the illustration, we’d need to change a few details. Instead of the king passively waiting to see if the maiden will accept him, he promises his love, but also promises to roast her alive if she refuses his advances. It’s not quite so nice a story when we add in that detail.
When you get right down to it, Christianity is all about compulsion. God loves you, and he doesn’t want to force you to love him or serve him. Of course if you don’t, you’ll be tortured forever.
This only shows that the problem of God’s hiddenness hasn’t been solved at all. The author of this book, as well as many other Christians, say that God is hidden so we can have the “freedom” to either believe in him or not. But their reasoning is faulty, since Christianity gives us no such freedom. It’s like saying you’re free to commit murder in the US, even though it could earn you the death penalty in most states. The fact that there are laws prohibiting it means you aren’t free to do it. When you consider that the Christian God has every reason to let us all know he exists and that he expects certain things from us, the fact that he doesn’t do this is really all the evidence you need to see that he’s either not real, or he’s not all-loving and all-good.
Finding Truth 
@Unclee
Two things that are glaring wrong in this sentence.
The first part; you state no assumption should be made, yet you use the term ‘God’ as a proper name which immediately tells us that you are already making the assumption. and you compound this by using the term in the same manner in the second sentence.
At every turn, here and on your own blog, you try to demonstrate your objectively but this is always rendered moot because what you believe is based first and foremost on faith not verifiable evidence, and certainly not honesty.
Your brand of apologetics is based on faith and interpretation of doctrine, plain and simple.
You can never be objective while you hold to the unwavering belief that this god exists.
LikeLike
@Unklee
Classic! And the ultimate hypocrisy of your brand of Christianity comes to the fore at last!
While dear Uncle Ken Ham was being roundly lambasted by one and all ( all but YEC’s) over his mind numbing Creationist claims last week you have the temerity to write such diatribe while holding fast to the utter garbage of the Virgin Birth, Walking on Water, Sending Demons into pigs, the Zombie Apocalypse and other dead people coming back/brought back to life.
I sincerely hope every non-Christian commenter takes you to the cleaners for this comment.
LikeLike
@UnkleE
If, let’s say, we did not have any ideas for how a universe could form in a multiverse scenario should we just jump to the conclusion that there are fairies who mix up the quantum particles and wave their wands to start a universe? This does not seem like a sound method for arriving at truth. Your trying to say that any gaps in scientific knowledge should be filled in with your version of theism, but that would be making an assumption without supporting evidence.
On the other hand, Nate is pointing out a problem within a hypothesis (God + Hidden + Hell). The points he makes seem like a good reason to doubt the (God + Hidden + Hell) hypothesis. This is not the same as not having an answer to something currently unknown.
Question > “I don’t know”
– is not the same as –
Question > Hypothesis > Contradiction > “I don’t know”
If the contradiction is valid, the hypothesis should be discarded. And from what some people have commented it appears you have discarded hell.
LikeLike
Hi unkleE,
I think you meant Howie instead of William, right?
I agree that we should be striving for consistency, but I think that I am being consistent. I may not have explained this well in my earlier comment, so let me try again.
The gist of my original post is that belief in the Judeo-Christian god has too many problems, so people shouldn’t believe in it. Your response is that naturalism has too many problems, so people shouldn’t believe in it either. On the surface, these seem very consistent with one another. However, there’s a big difference between God and natural laws. We already know that one of them exists, while the other is very much up for grabs. That’s why my argument and your argument are very different.
I was going to offer an illustration, but I can’t improve over what Dave just said.
LikeLike
@nate & Diana – “A young man is sitting in his office one day, quietly working, when his father bursts in and says “Son, I’m here to save you!”
The young man is startled and looks around the room. “Save me from what, Dad?”
“Why this prison that you’re locked in!”
“But Dad, I’m not in a prison. I’m working. I chose to be here… nothing’s wrong.””
This analogy would be more correct if the young man didn’t know his father, and instead of A man claiming to be his father, it was several men claiming to speak for his father.
Each of these men claiming the father wanted him to do different things… and then criticizing him when was skeptical that they even knew his father by saying, “so you dare to deny your only, loving father! If you continue to reject him, he’ll show up one day, really pissed off, and cut off your arms and break your legs! Now why don’t you accept his loving offer to flee this prison you call an office!”
Yeah, I think that’s a better analogy.
LikeLike
Hey Nate-
“However, there’s a big difference between God and natural laws. We already know that one of them exists, while the other is very much up for grabs. That’s why my argument and your argument are very different.”
I just want to tag onto what unkleE was pointing out. You make a statement here “We already know that one (naturalism) exists…”. You make a leap here, I think, from the existence of natural things to naturalism. Naturalism, as a worldview, has problems, as unkleE pointed out. Your statement that we “know” naturalism is the explanation, is the very thing unkleE was proposing as a problem. It seems you just re-asserted naturalism – as a worldview, not simply things existing – as your solution. So, I think you’re back at the same question from unkleE: if we can allow that we don’t know everything about naturalism, why can we not allow that we don’t know everything about God?
I still have a problem, by the way, with your basic assumption that we *should* be able to understand and explain God. That really permeates much, if not all, of what you post about. If God is an infinite being, which is the way I understand Him, I just don’t see how you come to the conclusion that we should be able to explain how He operates. You lay a lot on that foundation. However, if you’re talking about the God of Jesus and scripture, then you’re not talking about a God we can explain. You’re making Him too small, I think.
LikeLike
“many of us don’t even know we need saving.”
I think you hit on a huge issue here, Nate. Why do some people not see that they need saving? Personally, I find it hard to read Jesus and not get the willies when he says things like “if you hate your brother, you have committed murder in your heart”, “if you lust after someone, you have committed adultery in your heart”. I know I become angry, furiously angry sometimes. I also know I lust, and that gets pretty bad sometimes, too. These are just two things Jesus mentioned. And, they’re just statements. Examining my life, I can see innumerable ways in which I’ve hurt people, people close to me. Examining the world, I can see, despite all the “good teachers” we’ve had, we are still a violent, cruel, selfish people. That’s all of us: Americans, Europeans, Christians, Atheists, black, white, men, women. So, when you ask a question like Why do some of us not know we need saving? There’s a big part of me that wants to respond, “How could you not see that we need saving?” I think of all the “hard-hearted”, “seeing, but unseeing”, “hearing, but not hearing” verses in scripture. Some people just don’t see it. But, to me, it’s plain as day.
LikeLike
“many of us don’t even know we need saving.”
I think you hit on a huge issue here, Nate. Why do some people not see that they need saving? Personally, I find it hard to read Jesus and not get the willies when he says things like “if you hate your brother, you have committed murder in your heart”, “if you lust after someone, you have committed adultery in your heart”. I know I become angry, furiously angry sometimes. I also know I lust, and that gets pretty bad sometimes, too. These are just two things Jesus mentioned. And, they’re just statements. Examining my life, I can see innumerable ways in which I’ve hurt people, people close to me. Examining the world, I can see, despite all the “good teachers” we’ve had, we are still a violent, cruel, selfish people. That’s all of us: Americans, Europeans, Christians, Atheists, black, white, men, women. So, when you ask a question like Why do some of us not know we need saving? There’s a big part of me that wants to respond, “How could you not see that we need saving?” I think of all the “hard-hearted”, “seeing, but unseeing”, “hearing, but not hearing” verses in scripture. Some people just don’t see it. But, to me, it’s plain as day.
LikeLike
Apologies for posting that twice. Unintentional, though I do think it’s important 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
Great to hear from you again!
I didn’t actually say that naturalism is true — I said that natural laws are. If we want to deny natural laws, we’re going to get into the philosophical weeds, and I’d rather not do that. Let’s just assume that we’re not brains in a vat or someone’s dream and that the reality we experience is true reality. Given that, we know that natural world exists. We don’t know if anything beyond it exists.
Are there still things about our existence we can’t explain? Of course! Just like people couldn’t explain rain thousands of years ago. But just as we eventually uncovered the mysteries of rain, we may one day uncover the mysteries of consciousness, free will, and whatever came prior to the Big Bang. But until that time, I don’t think it makes sense to throw our hands up and say “God did it!” just because we haven’t answered all questions yet.
Now, if I hadclaimed that naturalism answers all those questions that unkleE put forth, then it would be fair game to critique that response and point out its flaws. But I didn’t do that — at least not in this thread. I’ve only said that we don’t know the answer.
Christians, however, have thrown out an answer for those things, and there answer is God. Since that’s their hypothesis, it’s fully legitimate to examine it, point out its problems, and ask for clarifications/explanations. As Dave pointed out in his comment, the combination of God + Hidden + Hell creates a contradiction. If it can’t be satisfactorily answered, it’s hard to justify maintaining the hypothesis.
UnkleE gets around it by removing Hell, but many Christians don’t do this — they just say we can’t understand it. And this gets to your other point. I’m not saying we should be able to understand every aspect of God if he exists. I’m saying that even God is bound by the laws of logic: for instance, even if God’s all-powerful, if he’s the supreme being, he can’t make a God more powerful than himself. Or create a rock too heavy for him to lift. Those are paradoxes. In the same way, the version of God that many Christians hold to, and that I’m attacking in my post, is a paradoxical God. His definitions are contradictory. While we may not be able to understand everything about him, those aspects of him should be understandable. When they’re not, it implies a major problem.
LikeLike
But so what? I don’t mean that to sound dismissive, it’s just that it’s obvious we’re not perfect. We can all learn to live better. But why does that mean we need saving? And is that even the kind of saving that the New Testament promises? To me, it’s always sounded like salvation just means having your sins forgiven so you can live in Heaven one day. In fact, I believe you’ve even said that becoming a Christian doesn’t mean that all those imperfections are fixed. You’ll still live the rest of your life as a “sinner,” right?
Just because the Bible points out something true about human nature — that sometimes we think immoral things — does not mean it’s true about all its cosmic and supernatural claims. We are human, and humans are imperfect. That’s simply the way it is, and it’s something that anyone could have noticed and written down.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, Nate. I misunderstood your quote because you said naturalism in one sentence, and then said natural laws in the next. I thought you meant basically the same thing by those phrases given their proximity.
LikeLike
No worries. I had to re-read my comment to make sure I hadn’t misspoke anyway.
LikeLike
It is obvious that we’re not perfect. You said “We can all learn to live better”, and “We are humans, we are imperfect.” In your worldview, why is it that, though we can learn to live better, we don’t actually become that much better? I’m assuming here that all of us can remember times when we’ve learned how to better interact with others, yet continue to make the same mistakes. If that’s not you, then you and I are different kinds of people. How does your wordlview explain the inability to put what we learn about becoming “more perfect” into actual, lasting perfection in aspects of our life?
LikeLike
“you’ve even said that becoming a Christian doesn’t mean that all those imperfections are fixed.”
Yes, and I have an explanation for that in my worldview. I’m wondering what the naturalistic explanation for the inability to put that information into practice is.
LikeLike
I think we do become better. Not all of us, certainly. But many of us can and do learn from our mistakes and make strides toward being better. I think you’re being too hard on yourself.
Furthermore, I think society in general has improved. As we’ve become more aware of the importance of equal rights, we’ve begun to be much more inclusive. Not all cultures have progressed at the same rate, but honestly, religion seems to be one of the major holdups.
LikeLike
Maybe I am being too hard on myself. Or, maybe I’m not?
Truthfully, though, this is probably one of the biggest differences in our views. I see my need for a savior, and how that gives me peace. I can feel that peace tangibly at times when I most need it.
I do agree with you: I think in a lot of ways religion is a major holdup. I think any view that allows you to put yourself above others is a holdup. The way I see it, though, is, if the major truth of your world is your God becoming human and dying on a cross for people who hated him, there is a much that motivates you to be merciful with those who are different. I’m not saying others can’t be that way, just that it’s hard to find a foundational truth that promotes that. A lot of people, even those without religious beliefs, have expectations of others that, if those others don’t meet the expectations, then they are worthy of being judged. Jesus taught clearly that we are not to judge others, that only he has the right to do that. And, he didn’t judge. He died for them.
LikeLike
Well, yes… but judgment is still in there. Plenty of passages talk about the judgment that non-Christians can expect to face. Even Jesus said as much: “depart, I never knew you…”
Granted, your version of Christianity sounds much nicer than many other religions, but it still seems to me that your version has to ignore a fair number of difficult passages.
LikeLike
Josh,
I don’t know if you’ve ever checked out the “Jericho Brisance” blog by a guy named Matt. He comments here from time to time. He recently did a few posts talking about the way many Christians view the Holy Spirit working in them, and I think you might find them interesting. The first is here:
iGod Part 1: Divine Uplink
Matt’s entire story is very interesting. He only left Christianity last year, and he details much of that journey and his thought processes in his “Journey” section. I highly recommend his blog.
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
I personally see us all as a mix of good and bad and some have more of one than the other.
I’m not sure why not believing in demons, gods, and spirits makes the above statement problematic. In a natural world I kind of think that is what we would expect. And if there are no gods then there is no need for being saved from some cosmic judgment.
I don’t need to believe that there is a fallen angel nor do I have to believe that someone improperly ate an apple long ago in order to explain that we are all a mixture of different things.
By the way, I’m 75% done with that book you recommended a few weeks ago (Mystery of Christ). It has helped me understand your views better.
LikeLike
Could you remind me of the author of that book? There are several with that title…
LikeLike
Nate-
I appreciate what you’re saying. I wouldn’t say that I ignore those passages – I think I take them maybe differently than you do. I assume I can never know who knows/will know Christ, and who doesn’t. Does Jesus know? Yes. Is there a teaching in scripture about an eternity apart from him for those who don’t believe? Yes. In many of Jesus parables where there is judgement involved (The Prodigal Son, The King’s Banquet, The Ten Virgins, etc), those who are left on the outside at the end were invited in during the course of the story. The Elder Brother chooses to stay outside because he’s ticked the younger kid gets a party. He doesn’t see that the party, for whatever reason it’s thrown, is for everyone to partake. The King’s Banquet is the same. Those who are outside were invited in, but refused the King’s invitation. The Ten Virgins, the same. The five who left didn’t have to go back for lamps – the host said nothing about lamps. He simply said to meet him. They chose to return, thinking the lamps were the important piece, not joining the host. Jesus does teach that he will say to some that he doesn’t know them. But, they seem to be the ones who say first to him, “I don’t know you” or “I don’t want to be at the party, unless…”. They can’t accept the invitation alone – they attach something to it. Another interesting thing to keep in mind, is that the figure who is very often the one left out of the party in the end is an image of the Pharisees of Jesus day. He seems to be telling them that they MUST get their head around the idea that Jesus is here to forgive ALL, even the despicable “sinners”. He seems to be teaching the Pharisees (elder brother, original invitees to the banquet, five virgins who thought they needed to bring a lamp) that he came to offer forgiveness to all. He is saying the Pharisees, or those who base their judgment on who is in and who is out on moral performance, will likely decline Jesus’ invitation when they see who else is invited.
LikeLike
Howie-
Glad you read it.
Nate-
Robert Farrar Capon is his name. I’m reading another of his called Parables of the Kingdom, Parables of Grace, and Parables of Judgment.
LikeLike
Thanks for the author’s name. I’ve added it to my “to read” list.
As far as judgment goes, whatever the reasons are, there are still two groups of people — those whom Jesus will accept and those whom he won’t. I’m just trying to point out that even though it sounds nice to say “he died come to judge them but to die for them,” etc, the details get a bit trickier.
LikeLike
Yes, there are two groups. I’m going to argue semantics with you, and ask that we phrase it “there are still two groups of people – those who accept Jesus and those who don’t”. So, the two groups remain. But, it’s not about Jesus not accepting some. He has offered, is offering, will offer at some point, the invitation. Many will say yes. Many will say no. That seems to be what he is teaching.
LikeLike