I recently heard Alex O’Connor (host of the Within Reason podcast) offer an interesting perspective on the problem of divine hiddenness, or the idea that if God existed, He would make His existence more obvious to everyone. Yet God’s existence is not obvious, and it may be easy to doubt and disbelieve, which is a problem for theism. O’Connor believes this is one of the most convincing arguments against God’s existence (along with the problem of evil, or why an all-powerful, all-loving god would allow so much suffering in the world).
One issue O’Connor has pointed to is that if God exists and wants us to know of His existence, it seems strange He would expect us to construct philosophical arguments for His existence. Surely, if God existed, His existence would be obvious, and not require various arguments found in natural theology (e.g. ontological, causal, and moral arguments), which require a certain level of education to understand. In addition, these arguments are not considered convincing by everyone who encounters them, and not everyone finds them immediately clear. Some may take issue with certain premises involved, including the precise meaning of the premises.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether these types of arguments are ‘natural’ (in the sense that we are predisposed to come up with them). These arguments arose when humans developed philosophy. For much of human history, we lived animistically, living in a world inhabited by a multitude of spirits. Animism is the earliest form of religion, whereas monotheism came much later, with syllogistic arguments for the existence of God arising much later after this. And today, most people who belong to animistic, polytheistic, or non-theistic religions do not embrace monotheism after discovering arguments for the existence of God.
In a sense, therefore, arguments for the existence of God could be self-defeating. They could all fall under the umbrella problem of divine hiddenness. In other words, the fact that these arguments are not universal, nor universally accepted, might count as evidence against the existence of God. If God were truly all-powerful and all-loving, then we would expect He would make His existence undeniable, rather than let humans develop philosophy and create arguments for His existence, which only some people would be convinced by.
On the other hand, this example of divine hiddenness could only be a problem if we’re arguing for the existence of the omni-God, that is, a deity that is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-loving), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere). If, instead, we propose a ‘limited God hypothesis’ – defended by philosophers like Philip Goff – then the problem of divine hiddenness is less of a problem or not a problem at all. God could be all-loving but be limited in power, in which case He might desire that everyone knows of His existence but He is limited in his powers to make that happen. Consistent with His level of powers, people developing the ability to argue for His existence is the best He could hope for.
Yet perhaps one of the arguments for God’s existence is not an example of divine hiddenness. This would be the argument from religious experience. According to this argument, religious experiences are genuine perceptions of a divine reality. What distinguishes this argument from the others (e.g. ontological arguments and the cosmological argument) is that it refers to a direct encounter with, supposedly, God Himself. These experiences can be considered a rebuttal of the divine hiddenness; in the religious experience, God is not hidden but appears to the person vividly – more real than anything else they’ve ever experienced.
Nevertheless, I think the argument from religious experience also falls prey to the problem of divine hiddenness, for multiple reasons. First, not everyone who has a religious, mystical, or spiritual experience is convinced that the divine entity they encountered exists outside of their minds. These altered states of consciousness (featuring this type of entity) are also not universal. Altered states may be common, but various influences – such as culture, expectations, and prior beliefs – can influence the type of entity encountered (if one is encountered at all).
More generally, religious experiences featuring a divine encounter are rare. Often, they occur through culturally developed techniques (e.g. meditation, prayer, and psychedelic use); spontaneously (but not for everyone); or during life-threatening or existentially challenging situations (again, only for some people). We also have naturalistic explanations, which pinpoint the divine as internally – rather than externally – generated; so it is not obvious that divine encounters refer to an external divine reality. Some may consider the naturalistic explanations more parsimonious. Additionally, some people seem more predisposed to have religious experiences than others. This fact is odd (if we assume God exists), but less so under the assumption that He does not exist.
Finally, this type of experience will not shift people’s convictions unless they’ve had the experience themselves. As William James argues in The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), “Mystical states, when well developed, usually are, and have the right to be, absolutely authoritative over the individuals to whom they come.” But he adds, “No authority emanates from them which should make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to accept their revelations uncritically.” In other words, those who have not had spiritual experiences are justified in being sceptical of claims made by those who have had them.
The reasons above underline that even personal experiences of ‘God’ may not be sufficient to warrant belief in God. Therefore, unless we presuppose the existence of a God of limited ability (but just how limited is that deity?), then it appears that philosophical arguments for the existence of God exemplify the problem of divine hiddenness. This still leaves the non-resistant non-believer – the person who is open to theism but unconvinced by arguments for the position – with the problem of what kind of event or experience would justify belief in God.
This would have to be the kind of event or experience that every reasonable person would have to agree, based on the evidence, has its source in divinity. Perhaps this would be a personal religious experience that is undeniable in what it reveals (but does any experience undeniably reveal the supernatural?) It could be a personal experience most simply explained by God’s existence. Or it might be a global (or at least widespread) experience of the presence of God, perhaps showcasing divine attributes like omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. However, even in an improbable scenario like this, we could always ask whether the event is naturalistic, rather than divine, in nature. The event might, for instance, have an extraterrestrial cause, such as a visitation or intervention from an unimaginably advanced alien lifeform. I think this helps to bring into focus a key problem of divine hiddenness: what, exactly, should count as sufficient evidence for belief in God, and what doesn’t. I’m inclined to believe that individual differences (in personality and cognitive style) can go some way in explaining why divine hiddenness remains a glaring problem for some, whereas, for other people, the fact of God’s existence is – at least to them – plain to see.
I think belief in God wobbles because patriarchy has sought God as a male because it gives them a feeling of control and power over others. But the masculine element is only part of the pie and all by itself is meaningless and it makes little rational sense. Most of us have grown past a masculine God in our childhoods. It’s like believing in consciousness without mind. And intuitively we all experience mind directly even if we try to tell ourselves mind is just a chemical process that ends with bodily death, but everything recycles including consciousness of our mind.
Where as Goddesses existence is obvious, I seek a deity as it gives me a intimate meaningful way to communicate, and She contains both the mother pregnant with a male child, and her divinity is clear in that She is evolving. There is no force in nature that evolves. Matter is animated by mind experiencing love, and it’s this love that causes animation/desire and evolution in the process. The universal mind is Goddess and the fact that we evolve for the betterment of all is proof that She loves us. We love us. She is love in love with itself, like a proton and electron dancing in love for each other, they could not desire without mind (cellular consciousness) making it all possible.
So many stale outdated religions try to tell us that consciousness ( male) can exist without mind (feminine interconnection), but it’s impossible… thus God is dying out as the feminine returns to us and we bring our compassion back for the whole and realize we are all in this together. And in the nick of time! 🙏🏽🌈✌🏽
Plato understood very well that the existence of forms is sufficient evidence for the existence of God. Forms imply the conscious application of planning behind the forms that points to a higher intelligence or divine mind orchestrating the order and structure of the universe. This aligns with Plato’s theory of Forms, where every form in the physical world is a reflection of a perfect, eternal idea in a higher realm, suggesting a purposeful and intelligent design behind all existence. Intelligent design is less than half of the story. God is obsessed with beauty and the universe is a form of creative expression, an art form, and a supremely rigorous one at that. I subscribe to Abdul Kader al-Jilani’s expression that God said to him,”I was lonely. So I created the universe so I would not be lonely.” We can extend this idea of creation as creativity: the universe as a serenade which beckons its inhabitants to sing praises to God. In fact, the universe is a piece of art, and an extremely rigorous one at that because it is underpinned by a single number – 1/137 – the fine structure constant. The fine structure constant points to the universe as a form of fine art. Science and the rigorous mathematics behind it supports the idea that the universe is art.
Author
Thanks for offering this Platonic perspective. I was wondering how this fits in with the problem of divine hiddenness. If the Platonic Forms are not intuitive but have to be learnt (e.g. from Plato’s arguments), is this what God (as the designer and creator) had in mind? Did God want us to know of their existence through Plato’s Theory of Forms? I think I would be more persuaded by the notion you share of the universe appearing, intuitively, to be a work of design (art). But still, not everyone finds this view convincing. Most scientists reject it. They could be mistaken, of course, but what they observe, and their scientific understanding of it, does not impress them with the obvious fact of God’s existence. So I think the problem of divine hiddenness remains.
The interesting thing is though, the Bible tell us that God is a hidden God for various reasons.
In Isaiah 45:15 it tells us “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior.”
It is paramount to understand that God’s nature is not that of an overpowering, obvious force, like some sort of cosmic muscle. Instead, He came as a humble human, living among the marginalized, even experiencing homelessness. He did not arrive with the grandeur people might expect from a divine being.
But I like how you’ve mentioned that God’s nature is often clouded with things that are difficult to understand, often requiring a lot of education. This is something I reflect on frequently, and I sometimes think, “Why not do it this way instead?” But then again, if God is perfect, He must have done it in a better way, so we ought to seek out what that way is rather than leaning on our own understanding.
But if we go directly to Scripture, we’ll see fairly easy concepts to grasp, like the parables God gave to help us understand His nature. It’s actually quite interesting when you think about it.
So, one of the parables I am thinking of is ”The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.”
The yeast represents something smol and seemingly insignificant, but once it is mixed into the dough, it affects the entire batch, causing it to rise and transform. Likewise, the Kingdom of God often works in hidden, subtle ways, gradually transforming lives and the world from within. And so the parable emphasizes that God’s work is not always immediate or visible.
Hence our perception of how God ought to appear is quite misguided.
Although I enjoy watching Alex and appreciate your blog, I find it frustrating that a lot of important aspects seem to be missing—especially key components of God’s nature, such as the ones highlighted in parables like the one mentioned above. Most importantly, at least in Christianity, everything is tied to its central concept: sin. Sin separates us from God, and that’s a crucial aspect of the hiddenness of God.
Isaiah 59:2
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.”
The fact that there’s no mention of sin in this blog as a factor contributing to why God might be hidden—a significant doctrin in theological discussion, where sin is considered the primary cause of separation between humanity and God—suggests to me that you might not be fully engaging with one of the key reasons for God’s hiddenness.
Author
Hi Dylan, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I find this a very interesting Biblical reason for God’s hiddenness (I’d love for Alex to address it). From my own point of view, my initial thought is that non-resistant non-believers can lead (from a Christian perspective) virtuous lives, except that they are not convinced (yet) of God’s existence and Jesus’s divine nature. If not believing in Jesus is the greatest sin, then the explanation of divine hiddenness through sin becomes circular: one needs to believe the divine reality of Jesus, so as not to sin, in order to see that divine reality. In the case of the morally good non-resistant non-believer, would not a divine revelation be precisely what they need?
I’m not convinced that living a sin-free life is what is needed for God to show Himself. In fact, I come across many personal accounts of people who said they found God when they were, from their point of view, acting the most sinful. I think divine hiddenness runs deeper than this.