The Problem of Divine Hiddenness: Examining the Argument That the Lack of Clear Evidence for God’s Existence Undermines Belief.

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness: Where’s Waldo God? 🕵️‍♂️

(A Lecture Exploring the Argument That the Lack of Clear Evidence for God’s Existence Undermines Belief)

Good morning, everyone! Welcome, welcome! Grab a seat, maybe a metaphorical coffee ☕, because today we’re diving headfirst into a philosophical rabbit hole so deep, it makes Wonderland look like a shallow puddle. We’re tackling the Problem of Divine Hiddenness.

Now, before you run screaming for the hills shouting "Philosophy! AAAAAAH!", let me assure you, this isn’t some dusty, academic exercise. This is about real questions. Questions we all grapple with, consciously or unconsciously. Questions like:

If God exists, and is all-loving, why isn’t He/She/It a bit more… obvious? 🤔
Why is there so much suffering if a benevolent God is in charge? 😭
Why do so many people, despite sincere searching, fail to find God? 🤷‍♀️

Think of it like this: if you’re trying to find Waldo in a "Where’s Waldo?" book, and you spend hours scouring every page, using a magnifying glass, even enlisting the help of your eagle-eyed Aunt Mildred, and you still can’t find him… wouldn’t you start to wonder if Waldo was even there in the first place? That, in a nutshell, is the Problem of Divine Hiddenness.

I. Setting the Stage: The Argument Laid Bare 🎭

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness isn’t just a feeling of vague unease. It’s a structured argument, usually presented something like this:

Premise 1 (The Basic Claim): If a perfectly loving God exists, He/She/It would ensure that all humans are able to believe in Him/Her/It.

Premise 2 (The Empirical Observation): There are many humans who are not able to believe in God, even after sincerely trying.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is unlikely that a perfectly loving God exists.

Let’s break this down further, because like a good onion, it has layers. 🧅

Premise	Explanation	Potential Objections
Premise 1	This premise rests on the assumption that a perfectly loving God would want everyone to believe. Why? Because belief in God is often seen as essential for salvation, eternal life, or simply living a morally good life. A loving God wouldn’t want anyone to miss out on these benefits.	Does God have to make belief easy? Maybe He/She/It values free will more than guaranteed salvation. Perhaps faith, by its very nature, requires a certain level of uncertainty. Could God have good reasons, unknown to us, for not making His/Her/Its presence obvious?
Premise 2	This is based on the observable fact that atheists, agnostics, and those with doubts exist. Not everyone believes in God, and many people have sincerely searched for evidence but haven’t found it compelling. This isn’t about laziness or lack of effort; it’s about a genuine absence of convincing evidence.	Are these people really trying? Maybe they’re intellectually dishonest or blinded by their own biases. Could their understanding of God be flawed, causing them to reject a caricature rather than the real deal? Perhaps they have not met the necessary preconditions for belief.
Conclusion	If both premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. The existence of widespread non-belief, despite sincere searching, provides evidence against the existence of a perfectly loving God. This doesn’t necessarily disprove God’s existence entirely, but it weakens the argument for a God who is both all-loving and all-powerful.	The strength of the conclusion depends entirely on the strength of the premises. If either premise is weakened or refuted, the conclusion loses its force. It also assumes that our understanding of "perfect love" is accurate and applicable to a divine being.

II. Diving Deeper: Unpacking the Key Concepts 🤿

To truly understand the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, we need to unpack some key concepts:

Divine Love: What does it mean for God to be "perfectly loving"? Does this mean He/She/It must cater to our every whim and make belief as easy as possible? Or could divine love be something more complex, something that prioritizes free will, moral development, or a deeper, more meaningful relationship that requires effort and vulnerability?
Sincere Seeking: What constitutes "sincere seeking"? Is it just attending church once a week? Is it reading philosophical texts? Or does it require a deeper transformation of the heart and mind? How do we even measure sincerity? This is a tricky one.
Evidence for God: What counts as evidence for God? Is it scientific proof? Miracles? Personal experiences? The beauty of nature? Moral intuitions? The problem is that much of this "evidence" is open to interpretation and alternative explanations.
Belief vs. Knowledge: Is belief the same as knowledge? Can we know God exists, or is it always a matter of faith? The distinction is crucial. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness focuses on the difficulty of believing in God, not necessarily knowing God.

III. Why Does Divine Hiddenness Matter? 😥

Beyond the purely intellectual exercise, the Problem of Divine Hiddenness carries significant weight for several reasons:

It’s a Source of Doubt: It can shake the faith of believers who struggle to reconcile their belief in a loving God with the apparent absence of clear evidence.
It’s an Obstacle to Faith: It can prevent non-believers from taking religious claims seriously. If God is so important, why is He/She/It playing hide-and-seek?
It Raises Ethical Questions: If God requires belief for salvation, is it fair that some people seem unable to believe, through no fault of their own?
It Promotes Intellectual Honesty: The Problem of Divine Hiddenness forces us to confront uncomfortable questions and to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) for religious claims with intellectual rigor.

IV. The Counter-Arguments: Waldo is Really Good at Hiding! 🙈

Theists (those who believe in God) have offered a variety of responses to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. These responses can be broadly categorized as follows:

A. The Free Will Defense:

Core Idea: God values free will so much that He/She/It allows humans to choose whether or not to believe. Forcing belief would violate our autonomy and undermine our ability to form genuine relationships with God.
Analogy: Think of a parent who wants their child to love them freely, rather than feeling obligated to do so.
Criticisms: Does free will really require such a high degree of ambiguity? Couldn’t God provide clearer evidence without completely overriding our free will? Also, it doesn’t explain the suffering of those who want to believe but can’t.

B. The Soul-Making Theodicy:

Core Idea: Suffering and hardship are necessary for moral and spiritual growth. A world without challenges would be a world without opportunities for compassion, courage, and self-sacrifice. God allows suffering to shape us into better people.
Analogy: Think of a sculptor who uses a chisel and hammer to shape a piece of stone. The process is painful, but the end result is a beautiful work of art.
Criticisms: Does all suffering truly lead to moral growth? What about the suffering of innocent children? And is it really necessary for God to allow so much suffering?

C. The Evidentialist Theodicy:

Core Idea: God does provide evidence for His/Her/Its existence, but it’s not always obvious or easily interpreted. We need to cultivate our spiritual senses and be open to different forms of evidence, such as personal experiences, the beauty of nature, and the wisdom of religious traditions.
Analogy: Think of a hidden message that requires careful decoding. The message is there, but you need the right tools and knowledge to understand it.
Criticisms: This can feel like shifting the goalposts. If the evidence is so subtle and requires such specialized interpretation, it becomes difficult to distinguish from wishful thinking or subjective biases. Also, why would God make the evidence so obscure?

D. The "God Knows Best" Response (Skeptical Theism):

Core Idea: We are finite beings with limited understanding. We cannot possibly comprehend God’s reasons for allowing suffering or for remaining hidden. We must trust that God has good reasons, even if we can’t understand them.
Analogy: Think of a child who doesn’t understand why their parents make certain decisions. The child may not agree with those decisions, but they trust that their parents have their best interests at heart.
Criticisms: This can feel like an easy cop-out. It avoids addressing the problem directly and can be used to justify any amount of suffering or injustice. It also raises the question of whether we can meaningfully talk about God’s attributes (like love and justice) if we can’t understand them.

E. The "Limited Theology" Approach:

Core Idea: Perhaps the attributes we ascribe to God are not exactly correct. Maybe God is not all-powerful, or not completely aware of everything happening in the universe. Or perhaps God’s love manifests in ways that are beyond our comprehension. It doesn’t negate the possibility of God’s existence, just that we have a complete or perfect understanding of God.
Analogy: If you only saw the back of a complex machine, you would not be able to comprehend its true purpose.
Criticisms: This approach will feel insufficient to many believers as it seems to compromise on important characteristics of God.

Here’s a handy table summarizing these responses:

Response	Core Idea	Analogy	Strengths	Weaknesses
Free Will Defense	God values free will and allows us to choose whether or not to believe.	A parent who wants their child to love them freely.	Protects human autonomy and explains why belief is not forced.	Doesn’t explain why evidence is so obscure; Doesn’t address the suffering of those who want to believe.
Soul-Making Theodicy	Suffering is necessary for moral and spiritual growth.	A sculptor who uses a chisel to shape a piece of stone.	Explains the existence of suffering and its potential benefits.	Doesn’t justify all suffering; Raises questions about the suffering of innocents; Is there an upper limit on suffering for soul making?
Evidentialist Theodicy	God provides evidence, but it’s subtle and requires interpretation.	A hidden message that requires careful decoding.	Allows for the possibility of evidence while acknowledging the difficulty of finding it.	Can feel like shifting the goalposts; The evidence can be hard to distinguish from subjective bias.
"God Knows Best" (Skeptical Theism)	We cannot comprehend God’s reasons and must trust that He/She/It has good ones.	A child who doesn’t understand their parents’ decisions.	Offers a humble approach to the problem and acknowledges the limits of human understanding.	Can feel like an easy cop-out; Justifies any amount of suffering or injustice; How can we claim to understand God’s attributes?
"Limited Theology"	Our understanding of God is incomplete. Perhaps some of God’s characteristics are not exactly as we believe.	Only seeing the back of a complex machine and not understanding its purpose.	Doesn’t deny God’s existence, but allows for a more nuanced understanding.	Will be insufficient for believers who are attached to certain beliefs about God’s attributes.

V. Where Does This Leave Us? 🤔

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness is a complex and challenging argument that has no easy answers. There is no "knock-down" argument that definitively proves or disproves the existence of God.

However, engaging with this problem can be incredibly valuable. It forces us to:

Clarify our beliefs: What do we really believe about God? What are we willing to give up?
Strengthen our arguments: How can we defend our beliefs in the face of challenging questions?
Develop empathy: How can we understand and respect the perspectives of those who don’t share our beliefs?
Embrace intellectual humility: Are we willing to admit that we don’t have all the answers?

Ultimately, the Problem of Divine Hiddenness is a reminder that faith is not always easy. It requires wrestling with doubt, grappling with difficult questions, and embracing the mystery of the unknown.

VI. Conclusion: The Search Continues… 🔎

So, have we found Waldo God? Well, that depends on you. Some will find compelling reasons to believe in God despite the apparent hiddenness. Others will remain unconvinced. And still others will continue searching, hoping to find that elusive red and white striped figure amidst the chaos.

The important thing is to keep searching, keep questioning, and keep engaging with the arguments in a thoughtful and honest way. After all, the journey is just as important as the destination.

Thank you! Now, who wants to debate? 😉