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 
Thanks Josh. Actually I kind of thought I was rambling a bit – I didn’t feel it was one of my better comments.
I also would like to comment on what you just said about Hell to Nate. I think the approach you describe is very similar to the approach that I took back when I was a Christian. It seemed the only way out for me to resolve the fact that the bible definitely talked about Hell more than just once and it also seemed clear that it would at least be a sad place forever. I think what happened for me was that I realized that any form of eternal sadness was just too big of a problem for me to resolve with the belief in an all loving God. Rodalena’s comment above expresses the conundrum I fought with while I was a Christian.
It seems the approach that you are taking now and that Capon in his book is taking is so incredibly close to Universalism, which is yet another interpretation of the passages about salvation. As Capon expresses in his book he believes that God has already given the free gift of salvation to everyone. Universalism believes this same thing, and goes further to say that all people will be saved, period. So no Hell. Another question I have for you is this: it seems like sometimes you may be suggesting that while the sadness of Hell may be eternal that God will allow anyone at absolutely any time in eternity to decide that Hell is not where they want to be and that they can change their minds even after they have been in Hell for however long after death and then God will still accept them into Heaven if they accept the free gift. I would say this would be another solution to Nate’s issue with the problem of Hell. Is this what you believe?
LikeLike
Howie-
What you describe in your last few sentences is very close to what I believe. I wouldn’t necessarily advocate it, as I don’t know that it’s really something I could defend in any way. However, it does jive with the passages about God’s patience and desire that all would come to him. I think it’s also something Capon sort of passively advocates at times. Rob Bell struggles a bit with the same issue. I have put my trust in God’s mercy and compassion, and that often carries me through passages where I can’t seem to understand the “punishment” being described.
Nate-
Thanks! I know I often write things that are not clear or contradictory. But, I try to be as open as I can about my understanding. I appreciate the chance to have a place to share and hear ideas.
LikeLike
Josh – Yeah, Capon wasn’t clear in the book I was reading, but he at least gave the impression that there would be another choice right after death. But so far in what I’ve read he hasn’t talked about there being a choice after someone has been put into Hell. It’s an interesting thought. Like you said, I think the idea is hard to justify from the bible, but I at least think it goes a way in resolving the problem of Hell.
LikeLike
UnkleE, looking back I see that you replied to me as well as Nate.. I did not see that this morning! Nate, do you have to “publish” comments that contain links in them?
If we should not jump to conclusions then we should all be agnostic and just say that we don’t know what caused the big bang or our universe. If we want to go further we should employ the scientific method and create theories and models and use computer simulations to try and discover possible scenarios. Or we can wait around for the next Einstein to come along and shed some light on the situation. I don’t see how saying fairies did it! or god did it! adds anything to the table.
If I understand your position it sounds like you are saying that there is a disembodied “mind” that has existed for eternity and is capable of going “poof” and creating material universes. Would you also say that this floating mind made of nothing wants to have some kind of relationship with us or expects anything from us? How is this not jumping to a conclusion?
LikeLike
@Nate: that reply of Unklee’s didn’t make it through to my e-mail either. I’ve had others not make it also (and not sure if they had links in them or not).
@Unklee:
Your wording in your statements above seems wrong. I don’t understand why there cannot be a physical cause of the universe outside of itself. In fact many of the current hypotheses in science include the assumption that there was something outside of the universe that was physical (perhaps naturalistic is the better word – and maybe that is within the “non-physical” category). I’ve heard your argument before but it looks like a straw-man. If you leave out the words “external” or “internal” from what you have written then it looks correct.
But you believe that God is something (is He nothing?) and you also believe that he has no cause.
LikeLike
Hi guys,
Yeah, any comments with 2 or more links were getting caught in a filter where I would have to approve them. Just an effort to weed out spam. I increased the limit to 4 though — maybe that will help in the future.
LikeLike
I think something for Christians (a minority in this thread, I understand :)) to consider with regard to the topic of hell is to take a look at how Jesus used it. The clearest way, I believe, to interpret his warnings is directed at those who think they have it all together, can earn their way “to heaven” by comparing their performance with others’, or ward themselves over others they deem “less than” based on some standard. More often than not, this is a religious person falling into this category. I think we Christians would do well to point the finger of hell back at ourselves when we become too arrogant and intolerant, and begin from there. Hell, at least in much of Jesus’ teachings, was not a warning given to the sinners, the lost and the searching. It was given to those who thought they had it all together and had all the answers.
LikeLike
As usual a gracious comment from you Josh! I really appreciate your candor and kind perspectives. Actually, this is gonna sound weird coming from me, but to be honest, I don’t mind if there is a God “pointing the finger” at me for my stubbornness or my inability to see things properly. I always realize I could be wrong, but I do feel I’m giving it my best shot at trying to figure out the proper perspective. With regards to this particular issue of Hell, It’s just the eternity of sadness with no chance at getting out that is the major difficulty. Again I realize that you kind of think that may not be the case.
LikeLike
“I think something for Christians (a minority in this thread, I understand :)) to consider with regard to the topic of hell is to take a look at how Jesus used it.”
Several comments to answer, let’s start with this one from Josh (also answers a question from Dave).
Josh is spot on. I have done a fair bit of research on the topic of hell (see Hell – what does the Bible say? and I believe the following is clear from the Bible:
1. Paul, the great christian missionary of the first century, never mentioned it.
2. Jesus used the word while talking to religious people or followers, not to the marginalised people often looked down on by the religious.
3. He never said there would be everlasting torture, but rather the loss or ending of life in the age to come (for some), while others would enjoy life in the age to come.
Hell is just a word, what matters is the content, and I believe the above is the correct frame.
LikeLike
That’s interesting about Paul. I didn’t know he never once used the word “hell.” However, he did seem to think some kind of punishment was in store for people after death:
LikeLike
“Then that brings us back around to the original post. If there are two groups, and reward and punishment hang in the balance in some way, why is God (and Jesus) so hidden?”
Nate, one possible answer (which I believe) is to question your apparent assumption that the rewards and punishment depend on passing some knowledge exam, or responding in some way that requires particular knowledge, and that knowledge being denied to some people.
But I say (and I think the Bible says) that assumption isn’t true.
We are not judged on matters that depend on particular knowledge, but on our response to whatever light we have. Check out Romans 2:12-16, especially verse 15.
LikeLike
“It seems you are trying to sneak in theism as the only alternative to naturalism, but the opposite of naturalism would be supernaturalism which includes fairies, demons, leprechauns, angels, ghosts, super heroes, gods and everything else that people can make up.”
Hi Dave. I can hardly be said to be trying to “sneak in” theism. That is the topic of Nate’s post, and the word and the concept “God” were mentioned many times before I first commented. Theism is on the table, and now we are discussing it.
Words are just labels, what matters is the content. So it doesn’t matter if you use the word “ghost” or “demon” or “demigod”, what matters is the content. The various arguments for God’s existence, if they are effective in showing God is more probable than not (as I believe) lead to the conclusion that a non-physical, non temporal, rational, ethical, powerful mind designed ands created the universe. We usually use the word “God” for such a postulated being, whereas we don’t usually use those other words for that being. You can if you want to, but you will likely be misunderstood. So I think it is sensible to stick to the word we all know.
““Any deity that tortures human beings for all eternity for not believing in them and then hides on purpose should be considered evil. Calling this deity ‘loving’ would be a contradiction.”
Would you both agree to this statement?”
I feel a bit like the person asked to give a Yes/no answer to the question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? (I am joking!)
I agree with the first bit, but I don’t believe in the bit about hiding. Hiding is a mercy and a respect for our autonomy. I once visited a coal-fired power station and was shown around. I was taken to the outside of one of the furnaces (or whatever they’re called) and the guide opened a very small opening in the side. We weren’t directly exposed to the heat, but even in the way it was set up, we got the impression of the enormous heat inside. No-one could last a nanosecond in it.
I believe it is sort of the same with God. God’s power unveiled would completely abrogate our autonomy as human beings, something that it is very important both to us and to God. That’s why I say that just because Nate can’t understand God’s behaviour isn’t necessarily a good reason to criticise it. He and I have discussed this before, but I guess you weren’t around then, so I thought I would let you know briefly what I think.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
It seems a bit more complicated than that to me. In the first few chapters of Romans, Paul is laying out why both Jews and Gentiles need Jesus. I think the crux of chapter 2 is showing that even though the Gentiles didn’t technically have the Law of Moses, there was a moral law that God held them to. They didn’t always live up to it, just as the Jews didn’t live up to the Law of Moses. So in chapter 3, Paul says that Jesus fulfills the law — in fact, he says that God’s righteousness was made manifest apart from the law (verse 21 and following).
Plus, there are other passages that talk about salvation being only through belief in Jesus. To me, that does set up a knowledge standard that not everyone will meet.
For a while, as a Christian, I flirted with the notion that God treated every case differently — just do your best, no matter your religious beliefs, and that was enough. Passages like the Parable of the Talents factored heavily in this idea of mine. But the problem with that was that it made it very hard to square the stricter passages. And really, if the salvation plan is that nebulous, why would God bother telling us about it anyway? All the world religions, non-religions, and splintered sects of Christianity show that giving us the message in a flawed text hasn’t worked out too well as a communication strategy.
LikeLike
So the great examples of faith in the Bible, Moses, Abraham, David, Paul, etc had no autonomy?
LikeLike
UnkleE,
No, I realize you are not sneaking in theism on Nate’s blog, but I think you are trying to make it sound like a default position against naturalism which I don’t think it is.
Understood, but sometimes I think we use the word so much that it becomes taken for granted and just assumed. We say “God” and instantly a picture pops into our head of the grand king sitting on a throne in the clouds or something as if he were actually there. I just felt like reminding everyone that gods are man-made ideas just like spirits and goblins.
Do you have evidence for each of these claims? You don’t have to answer that if you think it will sidetrack too much from Nate’s main topic. Sorry Nate.
LikeLike
No worries. It’s all related. 🙂
LikeLike
Dave, I asked a similar question several postings back (Feb. 10) and never got an answer. I will be interested in reading any responses that you get. Maybe it makes a difference on who asks the question?
LikeLike
Unklee, sounds like you are an annihilationist (which Josh is not). So your concept of God does not have the problem that Nate is describing in this post, so your original objection to him may have been pointless.
It looks like now the only differences you have are in how to properly interpret the bible passages about the afterlife.
LikeLike
Wow. Thanks Howie!
LikeLike
“So the great examples of faith in the Bible, Moses, Abraham, David, Paul, etc had no autonomy?”
Hi Nate, I’m surprised you asked this, for I think you already know my answer. In my views of the OT, I follow CS Lewis, arguably the most influential English speaking christian of the 20th century, and a well-read expert on ancient history and language. He believed that Genesis 1-11 was myth (though “God’s myth”), and the OT from Abraham to David was a mix of history & myth. That may make my view non mainstream, but it can hardly be “fringe”.
So we don’t know how much many of these characters experienced God. We do know David often complained in the Psalms (assuming he wrote these Psalms) that God was far from him.
Paul is an interesting case, and I don’t know – it may be that he didn’t have the same autonomy because he was a “chosen vessel”, but like Judas, he could still have refused.
So I think my tentative “explanation” can stand on its feet.
LikeLike
“If we should not jump to conclusions then we should all be agnostic and just say that we don’t know what caused the big bang or our universe. If we want to go further we should employ the scientific method and create theories and models and use computer simulations to try and discover possible scenarios.”
Hi Dave, thanks again for your questions.
The above assumes that the scientific method, including experiments and computer models, is the best approach to solving this problem. What makes you think that it is? Do you use computer models to determine which friends you will trust, your partner(s), if you will have children, who you vote for, whether you think the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, etc?
I use what I think is the appropriate method – looking at the evidence, constructing logical arguments and considering them. (I have even used a computer probability/spreadsheet model to analyse some things, but then, I’m a nerd!) That evidence and those arguments lead me to conclude that the God hypothesis is distinctly more probable than any alternative. If you don’t come to that conclusion, you may at least recognise that I believe that for what I genuinely consider to be good reasons.
“If I understand your position it sounds like you are saying that there is a disembodied “mind” that has existed for eternity and is capable of going “poof” and creating material universes. Would you also say that this floating mind made of nothing wants to have some kind of relationship with us or expects anything from us? How is this not jumping to a conclusion?”
Two very strong reasons.
1. It has been estimated that 300 million people have experienced or observed a healing miracles after prayer to the christian God. If we included miracles after prayers to other Gods, there may be more (I don’t really know). Many of these miracles have been supported by good documentation (though of course many have not). I don’t think I can believe that every last one of these people were mistaken or lying, so I think that is good evidence that God exists and cares.
2. There are good historical reasons to believe Jesus existed and did and said many of the things recorded in the gospels. I have read at great length on this topic, and I think the best explanation of the historical “facts” is that he really was communicating something from God. So again, I have good reason to believe God exists and cares.
The God who we arrive at from the philosophical arguments is very consistent with the God revealed in these two ways. It all adds up (for me).
I hope that answers your questions. I really have thought and read about all this a lot. That doesn’t make me right, and many people here believe I am sadly mistaken, but please be assured I try to make sure everything I say here has a sound basis. Best wishes.
LikeLike
Hi Howie, my apologies for calling you William before – not sure what happened there, but it was late at night and I am getting old (violins play softly in the background!).
“I don’t understand why there cannot be a physical cause of the universe outside of itself.”
If the universe is defined as everything that exists that is matter, energy, space and time (i.e. physical), then there cannot by definition be anything physical outside it. Then my options are all there is.
“and something having no cause is likewise illogical
But you believe that God is something (is He nothing?) and you also believe that he has no cause.”
Yeah, my bad, I was too brief. The usual philosophical statement is the principle of sufficient reason – everything has a cause for its existence, either external to itself or within itself. Philosophers go on to define necessary entities as have their reason to exist within their own nature, whereas contingent entities depend on something else for their reason to exist.
Thus you and I are contingent (the world could have turned out that we never existed) but numbers are necessary (no-one caused them to exist, they just are.
So the questions are:
1. Is God necessary? Most philosophers I have read agree that if God exists, he necessarily exists, and if he doesn’t, then he necessarily doesn’t exist. You can argue that if you like, but it is I guess part of the definition of God.
2. Could the universe be necessary? well, no, it appears that it could easily have been different – e.g. regarding you and I.
So the argument proceeds that if we have a chain of contingent cause and effect stretching back into time, one of two possibilities must pertain: either the chain goes back for ever, or it ends in a non-contingent event or entity. What other candidates do we have for a non-contingent entity other than God??
LikeLike
Hi Nate,
“I simply see no reason to assume the supernatural when every thing else we understand is natural.”
We don’t assume, we use logic like I have just outlined to Howie. If nothing natural can do the job, then we settle for having no explanation at all (which is the point I started with here) or we accept a non-natural explanation.
“I think the crux of chapter 2 is showing that even though the Gentiles didn’t technically have the Law of Moses, there was a moral law that God held them to.”
Yes, and that moral law is within them, what we would call conscience. So they are not judged on something they don’t know, but what is at the very core of their being.
“Plus, there are other passages that talk about salvation being only through belief in Jesus. To me, that does set up a knowledge standard that not everyone will meet.”
But Nate, it is easy to see that this isn’t true. Just ask yourself were there any Old Testament characters who God saved but didn’t know Jesus? I believe they were still saved through jesus, they just didn’t know that was how – all they saw was the “parable” seen in the sacrificial system.
LikeLike
Hi Dave, this is getting hectic!
“Do you have evidence for each of these claims? (a non-physical, non temporal, rational, ethical, powerful mind designed ands created the universe)”
It depends what you define as evidence. You will recall the statement I made was this:
I believe the arguments are effective for reasons which I cannot go into here (I refer you to Is there a God? if you want to understand why). If you look at the conclusion of each successful argument, they postulate a being that resolves several dilemmas that naturalism (arguably) cannot. To be a being that resolves these dilemmas, that being has to have certain characteristics, which are the ones I outlined.
For example, to resolve the dilemma of how the universe exists for no apparent reason, the Cosmological argument postulates (and demonstrates to be probable in my view) a being that exists outside of the time-space-matter-energy of the physical universe, and created it. That gives several of those characteristics straight up. Other arguments add in other characteristics.
So that is the evidence and logic behind that statement, as briefly as I can express it.
LikeLike
“Unklee, sounds like you are an annihilationist (which Josh is not). So your concept of God does not have the problem that Nate is describing in this post, so your original objection to him may have been pointless.”
Hello again Howie. I don’t like the word “annihilationist” – I’d prefer to say God gives us this wonderful life we have, and the opportunity for more. We either accept it or not.
But yes, I think that takes some of the sting out of Nate’s argument. Another aspect is the fact that I don’t think God judges on what we don’t know, but on what we do know. I think that takes the rest of the sting out of his argument.
But I still think the bigger problem is the one I raised – the inconsistency of using a criterion of not being able to explain God’s actions being a reason to disbelieve, but not applying a similar principle to matters that an atheist cannot explain.
Having got the that point, I think I’ll retire for a while. Thanks and best wishes.
LikeLike