The
Analogy Argument
1.
A
loving mother would not be hidden from her child in circumstances like those
mentioned if she could help it because: (a) A loving mother would consider each of her child’s serious requests important and seek to provide a quick response.
(b) A loving mother would wish to spare her child needless trauma, or, more positively, woud wish to foster her child’s physical and emotional well-being.
(c) A loving mother would seek to avoid encouraging in her child false or misleading thoughts about herself or about their relationship.
(d) A loving mother would want personal interaction with her child whenever possible, for the joy it brings as well as for its own sake.
(e) A loving mother would miss her child if separated from her.
2. In the actual world, there are circumstances involving God/seeker very similar to those mentioned in the mother/child stories.
3. God would not be hidden from any of God’s children (i.e., all human beings) in circumstances like those mentioned if God could help it because:
(a) God would consider each serious request submitted by any of God’s human children important and seek to provide a quick response.
(b) God would wish to spare all human beings needless trauma, or, more positively, woud wish to foster their physical and emotional well-being.
(c) God would seek not to encourage in any human being false or misleading thoughts about God or about the divine-human relationship.
(d) God would want personal interaction with all human beings whenever possible, for the joy it brings as well as for its own sake.
(e) God would miss such personal interaction if it were absent.
4. God is hidden from many human beings.
5. If (1)-(4), then either God does not exist or God can’t help but be hidden.
6. Therefore, either God does not exist or God can’t help but be hidden. (1-5)
7. But God can help but be hidden.
8. Therefore, God does not exist. (6, 7)
Shellenberg entertains a number of objections to this argument. He replies to those objections. Which of these objections do you think is most compelling? What do you make of his reply (or replies) to that objection? Are there better objections to The Analogy Argument that Shellenberg doesn't consider? What are they? How might he reply?
Enjoy a good, rigorous discussion of this argument. Be sure to interact with each other.
9 comments:
The conclusion of the Analogy argument is alerting to say the least, thus for my Christian faith and view of God to be rational, I must search for a hole in the argument and explain why "divine hiddenness" is not as big of a problem as Schellenberg makes it out to be.
The objection that seems most plausible after thinking through them is his 5th objection that he addresses. It reads, "God does respond, but seekers simply miss the response because they are expecting a certain kind of response from God." I would like to mesh that objection with #4 by saying that they are expecting a certain type of response because of their moral defect, namely sin.
Schellenberg says, "Many who seek God seem in fact to be quite blameless in the relevant respects." The key term that I shall exploit here is "relevant respects." No one is good, not even one. We have all turned away. If we were born into this world, we have a sin nature. That sin nature puts a fog over our eyes that does not allow for us to see what we were meant to see, at least not easily. Our vision is blurry by nature. What many seekers do is try to see a picture of God clearly (meaning the picture that they have formulated in their heads) and in so doing, come up empty because their vision is blurred by their sin nature. Furthermore, the signs that the seeker is looking for are often selfish, tainted by that sin nature themselves. When a sign does come, such as a miraculous healing from a disease, the seeker is prone to say, "That could happen to anyone, why doesn't God just put His name in the sky for me to see." This attitude is selfish and that is not that quality of faith that God is looking for. God desires a quality relationship with humans and doesn't want a phony relationship driven by selfish desires.
If a seeker is seeking for selfish reasons, he will not "find" God. It is only when a seeker realizes his fallen state and his need for a savior that God will lift the fog from his eyes. Humanity is fallen, and that fact alone separates us from God until we realize it and genuinely desire a right relationship with our Creator. Look at Schellenberg. He doesn’t realize his fallen state and his vision is still blurry.
These are obviously just the beginnings of my thoughts beings that I wasn't able to write an entire article on the subject, but fire away responses!
Zach:
I also found objection #5 to be the most plausible. One of my biggest points of tension with Shellenberg’s argument is that the terms that would constitute “finding God” are so subjective. While I agree that a specific event may strengthen one person’s faith in a way that wouldn't even so much as affect another’s, it still isn’t entirely subjective. It seems that Shellenberg greatly downplays the role of faith because, no matter how clear a certain experience with God may be, the seeker can always ask for more clarity and then give up if not given or noticed. I know that I could ask question after question for the rest of my life and never run out of questions or doubts to entertain but I have chosen to live by faith according to what I have come to perceive as being most plausible (and worthy and desirable of being plausible too! [As Blaise Pascal once said.]). Ultimately, all of us have to make a choice regarding where we will place our faith and how we will then live in accordance with that faith.
You said, "It is only when a seeker realizes his fallen state and his need for a savior that God will lift the fog from his eyes." That comment particularly reverberated with me because, ultimately, this is not about finding some sort of ethereal positive experience, this is about discovering and surrendering one's will and life to the true embodied God and Savior who alone meets our deepest needs in a way that no random positive experience would.
Zach, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that because of the sin nature many that seek God do not see convincing evidence for the existence of God. Since these people presumably choose to remain in sin, they remain unable to see evidence for God, even though God is in fact responding.
I still find this response somewhat problematic because it seems that some people are unaware of their sin nature. So, they do not realize that their choice to remain in sin is impeding their search for God. In cases like these, would a loving God not do more to make sure that these people realize the consequences of their choice? Schellenberg says that “in the case of the unencumbered mother and her child, nothing apart from the mother actually coming to her child in a manner recognized by the child would qualify as a loving response.” Granting that the sin nature does keep people from recognizing God, why is it that a loving God would not show up in a way that the seeker recognizes in spite of the sin nature?
--Bayer
Along with what Bayer said, isnt Shellenberg's arguement that there are people out there seeking God's direction and guidance to a better (less sin-filled) life, but God is never revealed to them?! Which would be problematic to the point Zack is trying to protray that sin is what is causing these people to be blind to God's presences.
"A loving mother would seek to avoid encouraging in her child false or misleading thoughts about herself or about their relationship." Seemed to be the point that was the most plausible for myself. I do have prior issues to comparing God to a mother (or a father,) but if we are going to use that, it was seem ration to believe that over anything God/a loving mother would not want to mislead us... because they are loving. The relationship between a mother and a child is also supposed to be one of the purest and trustworthy relationships one can be in, which would make lying or false hope obsolete.
Along with Zach, I agree that one of the more convincing objections to Shellenberg’s argument is the one that God is actually responding to the people who are seeking him. However, these people are too blinded by their sins to recognize that God has, and continues to reveal himself to them. This puts a damper on the spirits of those who have sought after God and not been successful.
I wonder if Shellenberg’s thought experiment can be applied to this situation in a way that supports a Christian outlook. Assume for the moment that the mom and the child had switched roles, and now the child is the seeker and the mom is hiding. By hiding she is doing more than merely playing a fun game with her child, but she is also working on developing his reasoning skills. So as her child counts, she sets up clues all around where they are playing. She makes exaggerated foot prints leading in the direction of where she is hiding, and she leaves one of her possessions laying in the yard near by her location. She is confident that her child is capable of reading the clues and discovering where she is hiding. However, when he is done counting, he immediately begins to panic and is incapable of finding the clues that point to his mother. He begins to sprint about the yard haphazardly yelling accusations about how he no longer believes in his mother’s existence. The mother, now decides to wait patiently and remain hidden. Instead of going out to reassure her child that she is still living, she decides that it would be a maturing experience for her son to learn how to collect himself and look for the clues to find her.
In the same way that the mother is wanted her child to come find her, God is waiting for his people to earnestly seek after him. Although, people are naturally blinded by sin, I don’t think this prohibits us for making an honest inquiry about the existence of God. It may be an obstacle that can only be overcome by Christ, but God has also given people the unique ability to reason and form opinions about his existence in which he will guide and intervene where he sees fit.
~Rachel
Zach, you said "Furthermore, the signs that the seeker is looking for are often selfish, tainted by that sin nature themselves."
That may be true. But consider things from God's point of view; isn't it the case that God should want to give us these signs that appear selfish, so that there may be relationship with him? After all, you might say "it's selfish for me to want you to give me $1000, but it's generous of you to actually give me $1000." What is selfish for one person to want is generous for another person to give that first person.
Furthermore, you state "This attitude is selfish and that is not that quality of faith that God is looking for. God desires a quality relationship with humans and doesn't want a phony relationship driven by selfish desires."
God is omnipotent and omniscient. Shouldn't he know exactly what to do to bring about the type of quality and legitimate relationship you claim God is looking for?
Imagine this scenario: There's a guy that desperately loves a girl, but they've never met and the girl has never even noticed his existence. The guy leaves hints all around - notes from an anonymous lover, he bumps into her occasionally and says he's sorry with a big smile, he always shows up around where she is. But he refuses to actually go up to her and introduce himself to her, because in the name of a "quality relationship" he's wanting her to approach him. Meanwhile, the girl is trying to find out who her secret lover is, but she's simply not capable.
Wouldn't it seem silly for the guy to *not* go up to her? Likewise, isn't it silly for God to not at least obviously appear and introduce himself? If we take sin nature seriously, it seems likely that some humans would reject God even after God clearly reveals himself, so it appears any relationship started with God after such revelation could still be legitimate.
Tommy you said, " Isn't it silly for God to not at least obviously appear and introduce himself (to us)."
I understand your point to a certain extent, but another part of me disagrees. Exodus 33:20 says,"But, he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Therefore if God were to actually appear and introduce himself to us literally, then the Bible says we would die. I'm not sure if your intent was to actually say God should literally reveal himself to us in an incarnate sense, but if so I couldn't agree with you.
"A loving mother would seek to avoid encouraging in her child false or misleading thoughts about herself or about their relationship." Seemed to be the most convincing of Schellenburg's arguments to me. Many times in my own life I can have doubts about my Christianity- doubts about whether I am one hundred percent sure I am going to heaven when I die, doubts about the existence of God when everything seems to be going against me, doubts about whether it is truly possible to have a genuine, budding, passionate relationship with Christ when I struggle to just read my Bible everyday- so in some ways I can see how Schellenburg may feel the way he does about this aspect of God( (or in his case a lack thereof). I sometimes too wonder why doesn't the Lord put an end to these doubts in my head once and for all? This is not the way a born again believer should be thinking though. My lack of faith stems many times from lurking unconfessed sin and a selfish desire to to my own thing-to be free of responsibility and accountability. These thoughts are extremely evident of a strong sin nature- something Schellenburg and I simply are not on the same page with. If Schellenburg was chilling in my dorm room with me right now, I would not be able to argue with him on this issue on a spiritual level because he doesn't believe in the Bible. It would be pointless to bring up issues like sin or faith because he doesn't believe in those things- at least he doesn't believe what the Bible says to be true about those issues. He does believe in puting his faith in an idea (atheism), but his faith is light years away from a Biblical view on the topic. I say that to say, if we are going to attempt to refute Schellenburg, then we must do so on a ethical, logical, or rational level rather than a spiritual one.
His beliefs force him into a state of hopelessness and turmoil. He is desperately searching for that inner peace that can only be found in a real relationship with Him. Despite my doubts about my own faith at times, I am constantly reminded by the words of Scripture to remain steadfast, to persevere, and to strive with everything in me to take up my cross daily in follow Him. Despite these earnest pursuits, it can be extremely easy to fall back into thinking negatively about my faith. All it takes is a few prayer-less days, a few days of not seeing God in my day, and those thoughts come creeping in. If a 20 year old guy who has grown up in the church all his life, attended Christian school since kindergarten, and been involved in the Church since he can remember can have doubts like these then it is no surprise to me that Schellneburg has doubts like I do. He has such doubts that he claims there is no God. I do not agree with him at all on any of his claims, but I can see how thoughts like those can enter one's head and can be highly dangerous if played around with.
Clay
I might be getting ahead of myself here, but I think the most plausible response to Shellenberg comes from Paul Moser's essay. Among many things, Moser mentions that divine hiddenness may result from God's upholding the supreme value of God's invaluable ways. From what I can tell, Moser argues that God has revealed at least enough of Himself to us that we are then responsible for seeking a relationship with Him; when we seek this sort of relationship, we begin to enter into and participate in this loving relationship. It is through this relationship that God continually reveals knowledge about Himself. To quote something I found rather notable: "God cares mainly about what and how we love, not just what we believe." So in a sense, I could see this as a sort of offspring of objection 7, if you define "greater good" as human children genuinely loving God in a way only produced by the level of "divine hiddenness" Shellenberg seems to entertain.
-Kim Small
Honestly, I didn’t find any objections make me feel compelling. Maybe because those objections Schellenberg mentioned in his article are all falling into the pattern of Schellenberg’s own analogy argument pattern. Simply by my knowledge of historical theology, I believe all the theologians are struggling and try to balance the love of God and the sovereignty of God. Of cause my brief is supper simplified, but Schellenberg’s argument totally ignored the sovereignty of God. And without the balance of sovereignty of God, Schellenberg is challenging a definition of God which he made up that totally different than the traditional Jewish-Christian theism.
Schellenberg picked up all the conception about God’s love from traditional theism into his argument to make comparison. It is really unfair to me that when he ignore the struggling and balancing in traditional theism which revealed the complexity of God in this issue, he already made up a straw man which is vulnerable in his argument.
I would say that objection #5 could be a satisfy defense for theists like us. Because we, the theists like to put the responsibility of failing to know God’s love on the shoulder of persons; but I think that is not a good objection because Schellenberg’s base of reasons here is God has the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish the relationship because God should be a Loving God. How to deny the responsibility of God is crucial here. Objection #5 only made assumption that God surely respond but seekers could miss it, so the same logic go with Schellenberg that God surely under the burden of Love that He must response otherwise He is not a loving God.
I am still think how Bible drive this issue, right now, I don’t think it based on reasoning and logic, it seems more like base on God’s sovereignty and Apostolic authority.
- - Thomas Kuang
Post a Comment