Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Schellenberg
-
Schellenberg
I’m gonna be offering an objection to J.L. Schelleneberg’s Argument regarding divine hiddenness from his work What Divine Hiddenness Reveals, or How Weak Theistic Evidence is Strong Atheistic Proof.
He lays the argument out like this…
-
If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships–i.e., able to do so just by trying to
-
No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.
-
If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
-
It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden.
-
It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4).
-
If God exists, God is perfectly loving
-
It is not the case that God exists (from 5 and 6)
I believe that one can in fact have a relationship with God without believing God exists or knowing Him
I believe there are several examples of such a relationship existing including the film Mrs. Doubtfire
In the film Robin Williams disguises himself as an older woman so as to work as a maid for his ex-wife so he can continue to have a relationship with his children. The children only believe they have a relationship with Mrs. Doubtfire but they are actually in a deep relationship with their father. Their knowledge of Robin Williams’s character’s true identity is not necessary for the existence of the relationship.
Another example of this idea is proposed by Andrew Cullison
He suggests the idea of a man, Bob, who is speaking to an AI program named Julie in a chat room. Bob has evidence that Julie is in fact AI that can replicate human conversation perfectly. Bob withholds belief that Julie is a real person, but holds out hope that she is, and continues the conversation. Bob has a personal relationship with Julie even though he does not believe she exists.
This relationship is not founded in belief per say but rather it is founded in hope. Either way there is a relationship that exists.
As far as scripture goes there are numerous times it is communicated that our actions are what determine our salvation or relationship with God not our claims regarding our relationship with him (Luke 6:43-50)
The biggest one that reinforces this idea that specific knowledge of God is not entirely necessary is Revelations 20:12-13
“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelations+20%3A12-13&version=NIV
Our deeds are what are judged. While this is of course talking about salvation, I believe salvation is evidence of a relationship that exists with God so I believe that scripture to be relevant.
-
-
3 Replies
-
The first example is incorrect.
1. The children know Mrs. Doubtfire.
2. Mrs. Doubtfire is their father.
3. Therefore, the children know their father.The second example requires examination what properties the AI exhibits exactly. What if the computer is not very advanced, but really basic? Basic conversation software was written forty years ago and today could probably run on more advanced calculators. Would the example work as well?
‘Bob has a conversation with his calculator and hopes it is a real person’. Something is amiss, is it not? Bob has to know that the entity he is conversing with shows some features that at least could be mistaken for a human. That is, the entity has to be personal enough for his hopes of it being a person to be at least likely. He would not hope to have personal relation with a toaster.
-
I don’t agree with your counter examples either. The children have the relationship with the fictional character Mrs Doubtfire since she is who the interact with. It doesn’t matter that the character is ultimately played by their father, their relationship is with her and not him. They knew she existed because they interacted with her.
To argue that because Mrs Doubtfire wasn’t actually real.because she was a.charactee being played by an actor just pushes the step back. Any interactions with the character were then interactions with the actor and then the relationship would also be with the actor. In this case the kids never had a relationship with the character despite their interactions. You can’t have it both ways.
In the case of the ai, the does exist though. It may not exist apart from its digital form, but it does actually exist, so I don’t see how that helps the case.
To make the analogy work more akin to god, you have to introduce some second or third hand accounts. It gets troublesome because you only need to believe the other party exists in order to build up this one sided relationship from your side. However it becomes impossible if you don’t even believe the other party exists. If you fall in love with a fictional character (as some people do), is that a relationship? I don’t think so.
-
The film Mrs. Doubtfire holds special meaning for me, only not from Robin Williams. For the analogy you propose to hold true, God would have to masquerade as different folk, then anyone who is drawn to one of the apparitions is authentically seeking the Lord. Jesus said no one comes to the Father but through Him, but if He appeared as Buddha before He appeared as Jesus, the Buddhists would also be following His path.
There’s not a small movement of humans who believe this, and not only the Hindus though this is the major influence. Hindus teach that you can repeat not only one Name of God, such as Jesus, but many. Indeed, “There is a prayer in Hinduism that has 1000 names of lord Vishnu, named Shri Vishnu Sahasranamam,” that are listed here:
https://mukundkapoor.com/1000-names-of-lord-vishnu/
But the analogy brings up an even more important possibility, that God could, like Robin Williams, masquerade as a female as well (as I referenced in another recent post). The Catholics teach God is neither male nor female, but on Earth must choose one of the two. Indeed, time may show you chose the analogy well, that God’s female part was very near.
As for the AI analogy, I’d say if humans believe there can be relationships there (or with pets) they should try to better define for themselves the real meaning of a relationship. As for deeds I’d come back to Buddha that the deeds that matter are the defiance of self-will.
Fetters of wood, rope, or even iron, say the wise, are not as strong as selfish attachments to wealth and family. Such fetters drag us down and are hard to break. Break them by overcoming selfish desires, and turn from the world of sensory pleasure without a backward glance.
Log in to reply.