A Hidden Weakness of Divine Hiddenness (Dr. Andrew Cullison)

0:00 Introduction

01:40 How did you get interested in the Problem of Divine Hiddenness?

03:16 The Main Argument from Hiddenness

05:48 Defense of Premise 1 of the Argument from Hiddenness

09:28 First thought experiment (Turing Chat Room) that attempts to provide a counterexample to Premise 4

11:36 Two possible rebuttals to the Turing Chat room thought experiment

13:30 Second thought experiment (Hallucination Scenario) that attempts to provide a counterexample to Premise 4

15:29 Possible rebuttals to the Hallucination scenario thought experiment

19:18 Responses to the fictional character rebuttal

21:16 What is the weaker claim of Premise 1 of the Argument from Hiddenness?

23:44 How do you respond to the weaker claim of Premise 1

28:41 How do you respond to the third claim of Premise 1 - belief significantly increases the chance of a personal relationship?

31:20 Second Response to Schellenberg’s Problem of Divine Hiddenness argument

37:52 Other philosophers’ responses to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness

41:33 How to interpret Matthew 27:46?

46:28 If belief isn’t required for a relationship with God, what are the implications for someone’s salvation or saving faith in God?

53:53 Conclusion

In this interview, Dr. Andrew Cullison (a professor of philosophy at the University of Cincinnati) lays out two unique solutions to Schellenberg's Problem of Divine Hiddenness. His first solution attacks the assumption that belief is required to have a personal relationship with God. His second solution casts doubt on the claim that the greatest good is a personal relationship with God. For more on Dr. Cullison's arguments, check out his paper linked below.

For more on Dr. Cullison, check out his website:

[londontheist]

Brilliant episode. Great responses to DH. Thank you

[KennyRegan]

Another way that one could respond to the "relationship without belief" examples is to say that the hope itself is a kind of belief, albeit of a very limited kind. So, the difference between King Kong and Turing Chatroom is that you have certainty about Kong's fictional nature, but you are uncertain about the chatroom (i.e. you have minimal belief).

My response to this response is that if that is all that is required for (minimal) belief, then it seems intuitively plausible that our universe *does* make such belief possible for everyone.

[PresbyterianPaladin]

The reference to the "Buddy Jesus" from Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma" made my day. Lol But I really loved this entire episode and the responses to the problem of hiddenness therein. That being said my preferred response to divine hiddenness is given by R. Zachary Manis' and is a consequence of his divine presence model of hell. If you could interview him that'd be dope. 😁

[MBarberfanlife]

3:55, that was never Schellenberg's argument. By "reasonable" Schellenberg was talking about 'inculpable', as mentioned. AND 'inculpable' has nothing to do with epistemic justification, rationality, or "reasonability" in itself nor by itself. In other words, Schellenberg is NOT arguing that prima facie epistemically justified nonbelief is proof that God does not exist! He explicitly says this in his 2006 revised edition (in the preface). And he implicitly says this elsewhere with regard to weak belief and his position that God would not compel us to believe with things like miracles.

Of course, part of the problem is that we need to distinguish the "reasonability" of persons and the "reasonability" of beliefs. Schellenberg is focused on belief, so he's not saying that (for example) a bipolar person isn't capable of a conscious relationship with God, nor is he saying that a bipolar person's nonbelief (in relation to the claim that God exists) is unreasonable.

[urikamoment]

Loved the episode, although I disagree with some of the defenses.

For example, the main difference between an AI, an hallucination & a fictional character on the one hand, and a hidden God on the other, is that the person isn’t experiencing control over the former, even if he is aware of what they are. These things are facts imposed upon him in a way that a hidden God is not. Very different internal experiences. To illustrate, think of the experience of reading about a fictional character vs. fantasizing more stories about that character. These things don’t feel the same, and the latter is closer to how a non-believer experiences a hidden God. Not only does he not believe, the chat box is also empty.

[jochannan]

His Bob and Jane analogy is fundamentally flawed. Bob experiences Jane, yet is presented with evidence that she isn't real. That's the exact opposite of the divine hiddenness problem. We are told that (a) god really exist but we don't experience that god it any way.

One: does Jane not exist even though she appears to do so?
Two: does God exist even though he doesn't appear to?

[si]

Hello, I need some advice on how to respond to a non-believer I was conversing with on YouTube.

His comment was, “The thing is, Christianity being contained within distinct geographical boundaries is not unique to it. Rather this kind of geographical sectioning is an aspect of all religions. Assuming Christianity is true, this means that if you were born into a different religion such as Islam, you inevitably break the 2nd commandment whether you like it or not. ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ That means that every non-Christian who have sincerely believed in their religion to be true, worshipped their religion and had never heard of the Gospel is condemned to Hell. That is a great proportion of the humans that have ever existed in hell all because of when and where they were born and the simple fact of human psychology. Assuming Christianity is true, and it’s god is all-loving and omnipotent, why does it appear to not want to share the gospel to all people across all times? Under a theistic worldview, how can you answer this? However, under a naturalistic worldview, it’s easily explained by the man-made nature of religion.”

I have some answers but was wondering about the best way to respond to his criticism. Thank you for the help!

[uzomaobasi]

Just started watching, 8:18 min in, it seems to me that one doesn’t first have to believe the God exists, doesn’t the bible affirm this? I shall keep watching, perhaps it will be further explained!

[jochannan]

Sorry, yet another comment: The more I think about bob and jane, the less relevant it seems. The question about divine hiddenness is not whether humans can develop relationships with entities of whose existence they cannot be sure. The question is: Why would a god who, according to Christians, wants a relationship with us, stay so perfectly hidden as if it didn't exist? Why is the god we experience indistinguishable from no god at all?

[KennyRegan]

If knowledge of God's existence (and resurrection, heaven, etc.) undermines sacrifice, does that also undermine Jesus' sacrifice given that he had certainty of God's existence (etc.)?

[stanleyhyde]

I want there to be a god out there, I really do but I don't see how this helps anyone get there. The idea that a book can tell me that this god wants me to believe in them but not because of anything definitive feels like a big ask. There is a claim here that god wants a loving and personal relationship with me, ok. Could you please define that for me because I feel like we're working off of a different understanding about what that is.The person being interviewed here can't even describe what it would look like to have this loving and personal relationship. Let me try. A loving and perosnal relationship works favorably for both parties. People in these kinds of relationships tend to care deeply about how their actions effects their partners. They also take an interest in the needs and wants the one they're with.

Assuming god is real he/she does none of these things. A relationship with god is manipulative. Coaxing and convincing through silvery toungued liars twisting "the good book" around to grow their following. If the stories are true then how is anyone convinces that god cares even a little bit about how his/her actions effect us. The entire world was killed off because god was offended. Then there was the city that got burned to the ground and the woman got turned to salt for turning to look on the place she grew up as it burned. Further more let's go to a third world country where a lack medical resources is resulting mounting death toles. These people need help. Mother Teresa was preying for the health of people and how many of those people got what they needed. Not wanted, needed. Those people needed health and they died enmass.

I'm willing to accept that the people in this video really believe this stuff but it all falls very flat for me.