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 
Nate-
I can definitely see how that feels like a slap in the face. However, you’re also telling me that what I believe can’t be true, and offer reasons that don’t make sense to me, either. That also feels like a slap in the face at times. With regard to what parts I feel you’re inaccurate on – I think you and I, and you and others have been around on – I think we’ve been over those. You see it one way. I see it another. That’s ok. UnkleE takes a very researched approach to responses. I choose to take a different approach because even the researched responses seem unconvincing one way or the other.
LikeLike
Josh, the quote wasnt yours out right, it was what I paraphrased how i took what you were saying. I was just trying to rephrase what it was that i thought you were saying.
Here’s the post where I first mentioned it:
“Josh, you’re confusing me. I have not followed the entire thread and just don’t have to today – I do apologize.
But your post in which you kept saying we must start with “if jesus was the son of god, then….” is what i’m commenting on. I took what you were saying as a way to explain that “if jesus was god’s son and all of that stuff, then we can be confident that those parts of the bible that appear to be contradictions, are not really contradictions.”
have I misread what your position is?
If I have it right, then I think my comments stand as valid.”
LikeLike
I hate to butt in here between you and nate, josh, but I am really unsure of what nate has said that doesnt make sense to you.
could you elaborate a little on that one?
LikeLike
Your criticism is fair, Josh, but I see it a little differently. You believe a doctrine that says people will be judged if they don’t follow the same doctrine. I believe nothing like that. Your doctrine also says that every one will get enough evidence to convince them of this doctrine. I also don’t believe anything like that. I’m fully aware that many people will remain religious, despite the problems I see with it. I don’t think that makes them bad people, and I don’t think it means they deserve to miss out on any of the good things in life. If there is some form of an afterlife, I don’t think they should miss out on it either.
One of the problems I have with Christianity is that it makes all these claims — very strong claims — but when the evidence and arguments for them have problems or result in contradictions (and I’m not really even talking about textual contradictions but logical contradictions in the theology — like the combo of problem of evil, all-loving god, free will, and Heaven) the individual rarely steps back to examine their beliefs and weed out the inconsistency. Instead, they’re fully comfortable saying “I can’t answer your criticism, but I’m still right and you’re still wrong, and the consequences are eternal.”
To me, there’s a difference between your position and mine in that regard, but maybe I’m not seeing it clearly.
LikeLike
Let me add to that point just a little.
Yes, we’re each saying the other person is wrong, which is not always easy to hear. But I can accept that you sincerely believe what you believe. Your religion, on the other hand, says you can’t accept my claim that I don’t have enough evidence to believe Christianity. I think that’s the major distinction between our two views.
LikeLike
Nate, this last point of your is important. I believe that Josh and Unklee and many other Christians I know are being honest, sincere when they say that they believe in Christianity. I believe they are doing their very best to come to correct conclusions about these kinds of issues. I just see it as they just come to different conclusions than myself. Everyone is different. But the Christian worldview does kind of have this extra added thing in there that makes it difficult for Christians to say that they feel the same way about nonbelievers. That may explain why sometimes these disagreements seem to come with judgments of dishonesty or some other kind of judgments to help them make sense of how the God they believe in will judge people who conclude differently from them. I’m not saying atheists never judge (obviously they do), but it doesn’t go against our belief systems to not judge and that is why I have no qualms about simply understanding that there is a disagreement in conclusions – no need for explanation – disagreement is a normal part of life on every topic.
LikeLike
I won’t be at a computer for a bit, and I don’t want to short change on any responses. So, it may be a bit before I respond.
LikeLike
No worries, Josh. Thanks for the heads up.
Thanks for the comment, Howie. I think this also ties in to what William often says about none of these religious teachings coming directly from God anyway. If it was God telling them directly that you and I and others are being dishonest, that would be one thing. But it’s coming from a book that’s certainly inaccurate about some things and was written by largely anonymous and superstitious people. Yet when it talks about my motivations it’s trusted more than I am?
LikeLike
This probably won’t shock you, Nate. But, I don’t actually believe this. Judging people for not following the same doctrine was the business of the Pharisees. Jesus had a lot to say about that. Jesus actions do not seem to necessitate that someone has understood, acknowledged, and accepted all the doctrines of “Christianity” prior to him forgiving them. Some examples that come to mind are the paralyzed man lowered into the house by his friends, the woman with the bleeding problem, the prostitute at the dinner party, the thief on the cross. Not to mention the fact that Jesus’ disciples are nearly always portrayed as not having the faintest clue what it is he was talking about. This also flies in the face of a problem in our own time. What about those that have been so burned by a church – a church that wouldn’t know Jesus if he was hanging on a cross in front of them – that they will never step foot in another church again? Will these people be condemned because of human failures? That seems to fly in the face of everything Jesus stood for and did. I understand you’ll probably bring up passages in the NT that seem to teach the opposite. However, I always start with Jesus, and then work out toward passages I find hard to understand. If a passage seems to contradict something that Jesus said or did, then I go with what Jesus did, and assume I am not understanding the passage. Maybe there’s a problem with that. But, Jesus’ actions seem to me the best of any place to start when interpreting what “Christianity” is.
Nate and Howie-
I don’t think either of you are being dishonest. I think you are honestly trying to seek the truth. I believe God has used imperfect vessels to communicate his message (this is clear throughout the OT and NT). The God of Jesus allows for miscommunication, misrepresentation, and imperfection. He forgives people in spite of the fact that they think they are rejecting him based on the poor representation he has had from others. I believe God has a way of working around us when we stumble and fumble our way through trying to point people to him. See above for some examples of Jesus forgiving people who knew nothing about him or his “religion”. This is another one of the compelling things about Christianity to me. Scriptures record the messed up communication coming from God’s own people without editing out how horrible it makes those people look. In many ways, despite many of the inconsistencies I will freely admit there are in scripture, it is one of the most honest looks at people’s misrepresentation and misunderstanding of their own God that you will find in a religious text that is supposed to be “promoting itself”.
LikeLike
William-
I was not intending to prove Christianity by appealing to Christianity. I was attempting to respond to Howie’s comment about how Christianity deals with the problem of evil within it’s own teaching. Does that make sense? I’m not sure how else to explain it.
LikeLike
Josh, do people have to believe Jesus was the son of God to be saved? Not trying to catch you in anything, just curious what you think is expected/required of those who will be saved.
LikeLike
Yeah Josh I think what you were trying to outline in response to me was a fair approach. I don’t want to speak for William but maybe he just wanted to show that things make more sense if you assume a view that doesn’t include the Christian God.
LikeLike
I’ll trust that you are not trying to catch me in anything. But, I know I’ll open myself up to being caught with my answer :). I’m going to assume that by “believe Jesus was the Son of God” you mean something similar to the following: 1) A person must have heard of Jesus; 2) That person must know what the NT claims about Jesus; 3) Accept as true the claims the NT makes about Jesus; 4) Place trust in the fact that Jesus – his life and actions on our behalf – is the only means of salvation; 5) Make verbal assent to the fact that Jesus is Savior. Would it be accurate to state what you mean in that way? If so, then I’ll respond to that. No, I do not think that a person must possess this knowledge and make this assent in order to be “saved”. Similar to unkleE, I think there is Light we are all given that reveals who God is. It is to this we must respond. Like I mentioned above, there were people Jesus forgave without them knowing who he was, and, in some cases, without even saying anything (paralyzed man, prostitute at the table). Additionally, there are all of those who died before Jesus. Unless none of those people were indeed “saved”, thus Jesus’ actions must have been intentionally deceitful, then the idea that someone must know, believe, and assent that Jesus is the son of God in order to be “saved” cannot be true.
LikeLike
Hey Josh – and like we discussed yesterday you may even believe that somehow some people will be given that Light after they die for some reason and given a chance to make a choice then and maybe even always have a choice. I want to reiterate that your views really do display a great kindness of heart in you. I wish other Christians could have such a similar view of others like you do. It’s hard for them to hold that view though when there are passages like Luke 16:19-31 and Hebrews 9:27 and other passages which seem to indicate the urgency of being saved by believing in this lifetime.
LikeLike
Howie-
I completely agree. I have been one of those who had difficulty holding that view. Jesus’ entire ministry was about subverting the assumptions of the religious elite. One of the things he seemed most interested in subverting was the assumption that God brings home only those who are morally upright and have all the right doctrines under their belt. Grace, God’s grace and his grace alone, permeates Jesus’s life and teaching. Once we take upon ourselves to judge who is saved and how they are saved, we stop displaying grace. I think those who fail to hold this view miss Jesus’ primary message. Even the parable in Luke 16 is pointed at Pharisees who think the rich and upright and knowledgeable get to heaven while the untouchable beggars are obviously condemned.
LikeLike
But Josh, the thing about Luke 16 is that it shows that there’s no other chances after death, and it also talks about how nobody will be sent from the afterlife to warn those living because they already have a hard time believing in a claimed resurrection. It assumes those kind of people who question miracle claims won’t accept any kind of evidence – this kind of viewpoint is used in a lot of apologetic material. But most apologists (as well as this passage) seem to believe that we’ll all know for sure after we die. If there is a way we can know for sure after we die you would think there would be ways in which God can make it clear before that.
And then there are more perspectives about those who have a difficult time believing, like Psalm 14:1. You can see a post related to that here. I’ve tried leaving a couple of comments on that post a week ago but they never made it past moderation. And all I did was kindly suggest that she may want to consider a different point of view. Her’s is a common viewpoint that I believe comes from the bible.
LikeLike
Hello again Dave,
Is it really? How do you know? It has been proven to be good at answering the physical questions, but it is metaphysical questions that we are discussing. I think this question is still open.
I put the case in the page I referenced. Basically it asks (1) whether Jesus’ behaviour indicates that he thought he was speaking on God’s behalf, and (2) whether we have reason to believe he was telling the truth. That is a matter of judgment.
Muhammed didn’t make a claim as radical as Jesus did (he clearly never claimed to be Messiah, son of God, etc) so we can easily think him partially right and partially wrong. But we would test his claims the same as for Jesus – (1) what do the historians say? (2) how can we best interpret the historical evidence, then (3) do I believe this man was telling the truth? etc.
If we define the universe (as we should) as everything physical (i.e. everything involving matter & energy), then science can only address matters within the universe, not outside it (if there is anything outside it, it isn’t something science can work on). So logically, either (1) the universe caused itself to exist, which is self contradictory, or (2) science cannot address the cause. All the so-called scientific explanations of the universe start with something already there (basically a quantum field,). They don’t get to the heart of the problem.
Did you have other reasons to believe at that time, or was the Bible your whole reason? Would you be interested in sharing a little more about how it went for you?
Yes, I understand that. But how can we say suffering is bad? We know it is unpleasant, but for the argument from evil to work, we need an ethic that says that suffering is objectively evil. (Otherwise we’d better call it the argument from unpleasantness, and that is a difficult argument to construct!) How would you propose to show that step of the argument without God?
As you have already said, the fine-tuning of the universe seems to indicate this.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
“The problem of evil is a serious problem for the Christian viewpoint because it is internally inconsistent. So even if someone doesn’t believe in objective good/evil, if they were to examine the Christian worldview they would be caught with a very difficult problem to solve.”
Hi Howie, I agree completely. It is a difficulty for a christian. But I think it is not a reason not to believe because it implies one argument each way (evil vs moral), which balance each other out.
“Dave has brought up several other problems here with the theistic solution, so a case of “4-1″ in your original objection is continuing to be shown incorrect.”
That 4-1 comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. But without taking it literally, I think it is broadly true – i.e. there are (for me) many more arguments that point to God than those that throw doubt.
“I learn more when you write facts and arguments (which you do well) rather than judge others for being inconsistent when it’s way too subjective of a topic to make a call like that.”
I’m sorry if you, or Nate, think I am judging him in this. My judgment on him, which I have told him several times, is that I think he is a very genuine guy who I could probably be good friends with if we were neighbours.
My judgment is on his arguments. I still think that his argument on hiddenness implies a premise that his response to other pro-theistic arguments ignores, and I have seen no reply to this that convinces me otherwise. I still think the test would be to formulate the hiddenness argument formally, and see.
LikeLike
“So unkleE, we need to assume your God is responsible for both good and evil and this is why we need to assume he is real ?”
Hi Ken. No, my God is the God of Jesus. Anything that doesn’t conform to that must be reconsidered. I think Isaiah is the high point of the OT, but I think we have to read him very carefully. In the OT, they tended to view God as responsible for everything (including sending evil spirits to King Saul), and in a sense that is true because he made it all. But I don’t believe he is directly responsible for evil.
LikeLike
Nate, I think I’m going to try to wind down my involvement in this discussion, but I wanted to clarify a couple of things, building on a couple of things you said.
Freewill implies choice. We need choice on earth to be autonomous. I think in heaven we may not have the choice any longer, we have made our choice to go God’s way. God is hidden now to give us that choice, but he won’t be hidden then. Besides, we will be re-made, new creatures, and that will include being unable to sin because that is the choice we have made here on earth.
Obviously this is just speculation, but it shows me that though your questions are good ones, they are hardly reason in themselves not to believe. (Of course I recognise you have other reasons, but, apart from the problem of evil, I can’t help think most other reasons not to believe are similar to this, just inabilities to understand.)
I’m with Josh on this, that’s not a fair statement of what I believe either. This statement assumes that the criteria for entering heaven must include things we can only learn from the Bible.
But I don’t think this is true, neither did CS Lewis, and I have seen a quote by Billy Graham that he didn’t think so either.
We all believe that God judges according to the light we have, not the light we don’t have, that he judges those who haven’t heard the message of Jesus by conscience as it says in Romans 2.
Earlier in this discussion I said: “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.” So people can be saved through Jesus even if they don’t know him, and I (and CS & Billy) believe that can happen to contemporary people too.
I realise that most of your experience of christianity is of the more fundamentalist kind, and your arguments give you good reason to reject that form. But many of your arguments are not relevant, or not so relevant, to the form of christianity that many others hold. It seems to me that it would be helpful for your thinking, and for this blog, to make that distinction.
Thanks for always welcoming me here.
LikeLike
@unkleE, “I think Isaiah is the high point of the OT, but I think we have to read him very carefully. In the OT, they tended to view God as responsible for everything (including sending evil spirits to King Saul), and in a sense that is true because he made it all. But I don’t believe he is directly responsible for evil.”
So Isaiah didn’t hear this word from God correctly ? If we have to read Isaiah very carefully, would we not have to read Matthew , Mark, Luke, and John just as carefully ? If you are claiming that Isaiah didn’t quote God correctly when he said, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” Shouldn’t we also be questioning what the gospel writers claim about what Jesus said ?
I think as usual you are being very selective in your interpretation of the bible. Oh but I forgot you just told Nate , “Of course I recognise you have other reasons, but, apart from the problem of evil, I can’t help think most other reasons not to believe are similar to this, just inabilities to understand.” So it is our inabilities to understand and yet you can.
Another condescending statement unkleE.
LikeLike
“So Isaiah didn’t hear this word from God correctly ? If we have to read Isaiah very carefully, would we not have to read Matthew , Mark, Luke, and John just as carefully ? “
Hi Ken. I have said many times I am a christian, and the person I am following is Jesus. He is the fullest revelation of God we have, and anything that tells us differently to what we see and hear in him has to be carefully considered.
So that applies to the entire OT. I understand the OT in the light of the NT. That includes Isaiah. Whether he didn’t hear accurately (possible), or it wasn’t recorded accurately (possible) or we don’t understand the context (more likely) or don’t know exactly how to interpret it (also more likely) are options about which I have no definite opinion.
“So it is our inabilities to understand and yet you can. Another condescending statement unkleE.”
Ken, have I given you any reason to say this? Can you point to anywhere that I have said or implied that you all don’t know things that I know?
I can point you to many places where I have made it clear many times that I recognise I don’t know many things, and I think we ALL are unable to understand many things about God.
So I make no special claims for my own understanding.
I think some things we can’t understand are fair reasons to doubt God’s existence, but I think many others are not good reasons because we simply don’t know. If you or Nate disagree (as I know he does), you are free to put an alternative opinion (as he has on several occasions). These comments are an opportunity to each put our opinions and consider each others’ views. I do not think making this sort of accusation, particular when it is based on your misunderstanding, is helpful to the conversation.
I hope that explains things for you. Best wishes.
LikeLike
And one of these things is the nature of this god which you worship and have yet to define. Also, by continually using the capital inferring a proper name you are assuming something based on no evidence, merely faith.
The correct term of address when referring to the deity you believe is Yahweh.Or Yeshua, or Jesus, if you prefer.
This is its (his) name.
LikeLike
Yeah UnkleE I can’t blame you for wanting to wind down, these discussions do tend to drag on a bit with not much resolution. If other Christians on here want to clarify things then that may help. I’m still not understanding the original inconsistency objection. You believe in God because there are things you don’t have an answer to like the beginning of the universe. That seems to be the same “hidden premise” that you are saying that Nate has in his argument. All of us try to look at different worldviews and if things in those views either seem contradictory or bring up difficulties then we either believe the worldview to be false or we at least suspend belief. So it looks to me like we’re all applying this same criterion in our analyses, but the arguments just have different levels of impact on each of us because we are different people (genes, experiences, etc.)
And I really don’t know how to make the “hiddenness” argument not be problematic for me. When I think of the ways in which I can show that my mother/father/wife/kids exist, none of those ways pass when I apply them to the idea disembodied minds. I can feel the hug of my family members, I can see them, I can hear them speak at the same time I see their mouths move, I can give them a hi-5, I can ask them to pick up things around the house and I can see that those things get moved by their hands, I can ask them to go on a scale and I see the scale register something, I can feel their body heat. I could go on of course. Now no argument is a 100% full proof argument for the non-existence of absolutely anything at all that we can conceive, but for me this argument has a lot of strength in some reasonable sense of trying to come to a correct conclusion of truth when I apply the same criteria for whether or not I believe other things exist or not.
And I still don’t understand why the argument from evil/suffering loses force for someone that doesn’t believe in God. Theists are suggesting that we believe that God and objective morality exist, and once we do that then the full force of the argument is seen. I believe William Lane Craig conceded this point to Stephen Law in their debate. Stephen basically said “the argument from evil can still be run even if you don’t believe in objective morality”.
LikeLike
@Howie
The only way ( for someone such as Unklee) to argue for belief in something untenable is to create an argument that presumes it is tenable. Thus the use of the word God for example.
The capital letter makes it a pronoun and immediately adds weight, or begins to ‘flesh out the bones’ and subtly creates a (barely) tangible entity in our minds eye giving it a human value; as we cannot call something a He, Him etc without attaching some humanness to this character.
Once the believer has set out their argument like this every point debated is from the believer’s worldview, who will, time and again, in one form or another challenge you to defend your non-belief in the ( already established ) character.
It is a situation from which he (the believer) cannot lose.
And if you visit Unklee’s blog, or any outright believer, you will see when this basic premise is challenged/ comes under serious attack the believer will eventually close the argument , often, by moderating the challenger’s comments or with a thinly veiled condescending closing remark.
Ultimately, faith requires no evidence.
Surely, you have ‘argued’ with Unklee for long enough to recognise that he never leaves Nate’s blog conceding a single point. Not ever.
LikeLike