Theistic Argument Against Apologetics
Religious apologetics is often divided into ‘defensive’ and
‘offensive’. ‘Defensive’ apologetics attempts to answer objections to the faith
and demonstrate it to be internally consistent, whereas ‘offensive’ apologetics
offers positive reasons for the non-believer to accept it.
The field of apologetics may be broadly divided into two sorts:
offensive (or positive) apologetics and defensive (or negative) apologetics.
Offensive apologetics seeks to present a positive case for Christian truth
claims. Defensive apologetics seeks to nullify objections to those claims. -
Craig
Believers often maintain that the reason god won’t
physically reveal himself is to safeguard human freewill and moral autonomy.
For some mysterious reason, God’s physical presence is more doxastically coercive
than threats of hellfire. If God were to reveal himself, we would all be so
overwhelmed by his power that we would instantly be cowed into submission, but
this is not the case with the threat of being eternally on fire.
But, if this is the case, why are religious apologists
attempting to logically prove the existence of god with scientific and
philosophical arguments? Are apologists trying to violate our freewill?
“But” the apologist says “Why would an abstract proof, as
opposed to a physical one, violate our freewill? Surely empirical proof is more
compelling and coercive than abstract proof?” This may appear possible.
However, if the proof is conclusive, it would force us to accept it on pain of
irrationality. Once we are given the proof, we have to be theists. The freewill
answer to the problem of divine hiddenness rules out a knockdown proof of God’s
existence.
The apologist could point to the fact that according to the
Bible (or something), Satan freely rejected God, although he knew he existed.
But this works against the apologist. Satan rejected God even with physical
proof – showing that physical proof does not violate freewill any more than an
abstract one does. (Perhaps a theist would say Satan did not have physical
proof, but there are other examples that could be cited, such as Adam and Eve).
There are many theists who argue that theism is the only
rational worldview. But if the theist uses the freewill defence to the problem
of divine hiddenness, offensive apologetics loses its bite. The offensive
arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument or the fine-tuning argument have
to be reformulated as defensive – as valid but not cogent enough to change the
mind of a reasonable non-believer. For example, Plantinga says that one can
choose to accept or reject the first premise of the ontological argument, which
makes belief in god reasonable, though not rationally required. If my argument
is correct, this will be the most that theists can aspire to in principle.
While these arguments can in principle help bolster theism’s
plausibility, they cannot prove theism to someone with a coherent worldview of
their own.
Here is the argument in a deductive form.
1.)
If God exists, he remains hidden.
a)
One could assert that we all know God exists
deep down, but this seems like too hard a line to take. And if we all know, why
the apparent hiddenness?
2.)
God hides because he does not want us to be
forced to accept his existence on pain of irrationality, in order to preserve
human freewill and moral autonomy.
a)
There may be other ways of explaining God’s
hiddenness, but if God’s intention is to remain hidden, the cogency of
apologetic arguments may be doubted.
3.)
Given that God is omniscient and omnipotent;
there can be no argument which forces a nonbeliever to accept God’s existence
on pain of irrationality.
a)
Presumably, when God created the world, he knew
the kinds of arguments that would be available to humans, such as the Kalam,
ontological argument, etc. If he wanted to remain hidden, which he apparently
does, he would create the universe in such a way that one could rationally
reject the premises of theistic arguments.
4.)
Therefore it follows that there can be no
conclusive proof for the existence of God.
a)
This does not make theism incoherent, or false.
But it means that the so called proofs cannot have sufficient cogency to change
the mind of a reasonable non-believer. Apologetics can at best, make theism one
of multiple rational choices.
Arguments like the Kalam Cosmological
argument try to show that God’s existence is logically obvious. ‘Out of
nothing, nothing comes’ is superficially at least, simple and obvious. All the
apologist has to do is repeatedly ask ‘what caused this?’ Eventually, barring
an infinite series, there must be an ultimate first cause. William Lane Craig
complains that answers offered by atheists to this argument are awful.
But if this proof is so simple and obvious,
why is god hiding in the first place? If god did cause the universe to begin to
exist, with the intention of creating intelligent life, then he created it in
the knowledge that those creatures would discover through philosophy and
science that time has a beginning, and figure out that only god could have
created the universe, as the Kalam proposes. Why then, does god not just reveal
himself and save us all the trouble?
If the answer is freewill, then this
undermines any apologetic that seeks to argue people into belief. Since god is
omniscient, if he wanted to remain hidden, he would not create a world in which
a philosophical or scientific proof of his existence would be available. And if
he was really keen on human freedom, he would not allow a proof to arise which
would have to be accepted on pain of irrationality.
It also seems implausible that god’s
primary purpose for humanity is to spend their lives retroactively
extrapolating ancient texts and arguing philosophically for his existence.
Surely there a better alternative to a cosmic game of hide and seek?
It seems the best move of the apologist is
to hedge their bets, and call their philosophical arguments ‘inferences to the
best explanation.’ This is all well and good, but the point remains, atheists
are free to reject any proof of god’s existence, as long as theists explain
god’s hiddenness with an appeal to human freewill. And thus offensive
apologetics is in essence, defensive.
Either, the theist has outwitted god, who
apparently wishes to remain hidden, or the proofs are in some way
fallacious.
More Objections
More Objections
1)
Theistic arguments were never intended to be
accepted on pain of irrationality. This argument is based on a straw man.
This is not the sense one gets listening to the likes of William Lane
Craig.
I
think that this principle, that whatever begins to exist has a cause, is so
obvious, that it is virtually undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth.
For something to begin to exist without any cause of any sort would be to come
into being from nothing. And that is surely impossible…Nobody here this morning
here is worried that while you’re listening to this lecture, a horse may have
popped into being uncaused, back in your living room right now, and is there
defiling the carpet as we speak…We now have good evidence that the universe is
not eternal in the past, but had an absolute beginning, and therefore the
atheist is backed into the corner, of having to affirm that for no reason
whatsoever, the universe just popped into being uncaused, out of absolutely
nothing, which is absurd…This is simply the faith of an atheist, in fact I
think it takes a greater leap of faith to believe this, than to believe in the
existence of God, for it is I repeat, literally worse than magic. If this is
the alternative to belief in god, then unbeliever can never denounce believers,
as irrational, for what could be more irrational than this? Jews, Christians,
Muslims and all who believe in the biblical doctrine of creation, have solid
grounds indeed philosophically and scientifically for believing that God
creating the universe a finite time ago, out of nothing.
Craig seems to believe that the Kalam argument is not only successful,
but cogent enough that it should change the mind of a rational nonbeliever. And
as explained, it seems that this is a stronger stance than Craig’s worldview
allows.
1.1) Well Craig is overstating his case here. But
the cosmological, teleological, ontological and/or axiological arguments do
have merit.
Answer: This argument does not seek to show that theistic arguments are
entirely without merit. It only seeks to show that they cannot be cogent enough
to change the mind of a rational non-believer.
1.2) Theism isn’t logically proven, but it is the
best explanation of the existence and fine-tuning of the universe.
Answer: An inference to the best explanation is still too much. If theism
really is the best explanation of the universe, this would require all rational
agents engaging in philosophy and science to lean towards theism. Anyone who is
able to follow the chain of reasoning that is science and philosophy should
find theism at least likely. This is a deflated way of saying theism is
rationally required.
God would have known the epistemology humans would arrive at, and if he
was really serious about preserving human freewill, he would not allow even a
deflated proof in the form of an inference to the best explanation, because,
this would take away the freewill of any nonbeliever engaging in good
philosophy and science.
He would not allow this because god is the author of the human mind. He
knows what the human mind can do. Since god fine-tuned the capabilities of
humanity, he would be able to foresee whether they would be able to find him,
or correctly reason that he exists.
1.3) It’s ambiguous. You can choose your beliefs.
Answer: This is probably false, but it is acceptable for the purposes of
my argument. If people can choose their beliefs, then they can choose to reject
God even with physical evidence.
2)
There are ways to explain god’s hiddenness
without referring to human freewill.
Answer: The only other workable option appears to be the unknown reason
defence. But if you don’t know why god hides, why try to reveal him?
3)
There isn’t direct and unambiguous proof because
god only wants to be revealed to those who are looking for him. Seek and ye
shall find.
Answer: Well then you immediately lose the right to call your proof
scientific. Science works by refutation – not by confirmations.
4)
The argument’s conclusion is trivial.
This is probably correct. But there are many theists who hold that
atheism is not rationally tenable, due to issues of a first cause, or the
obviousness of objective morality. Perhaps it is an interesting puzzle for
these fanatics.
Conclusion
This is not an argument against God’s existence. Rather it seeks to show
that God’s hiddenness is in tension with the possibility of a successful
argument for God’s existence, which should change the mind of a rational,
disinterested agent. In short, there is no evidence for God’s existence, and we
should not be rationally compelled to believe God provided us with abstract
arguments when he could have given us physical evidence. Divine hiddenness
makes atheism rationally tenable.
Neither does this argument show how particular theistic arguments, like
the ontological or cosmological arguments, are faulty. It does not say if there
can be an infinite series, or if existence is a predicate, or anything of that
sort. Although my argument could be elaborated, as I briefly did with the
kalam, to bring out the various absurdities of a god who hides from us, but
hopes we will find him through ontological and teleological proofs.
Perhaps many theists consider the target – believers who assert that
theistic arguments are significantly rationally compelling – to be a straw-man.
But perhaps this argument has something to say to the fanatics who insist that
the Kalam is undeniable proof of Jesus.
For
any theists made it this far, perhaps you think that this argument is trivial,
or unsound, because it reasons from untestable premises, or because it is
overly ambitious, you may want to consider that this is how religious
apologetics looks to non-believers.
Note: This can be found in video form, which distracting music and visuals, here.
