I was came across an Atheist YouTuber and one of his arguments against the existence of G-d is Schellenberg's non-resistant divine hiddenness argument and its three premises.
How would you address this argument and the premises of this argument from a Christian perspective?
The three premises are...
I was came across an Atheist YouTuber and one of his arguments against the existence of G-d is Schellenberg's non-resistant divine hiddenness argument and its three premises.
How would you address this argument and the premises of this argument from a Christian perspective?
The three premises are...
I notice that this Philosophy question remained up... but the other one was taken down. This is where my previous comment about how I wished it was clearly stated why the one was closed.
@Wyrsa Here's one way that I use to cope. This is a subjective observation, so take FWIW. I notice a strain of allergy to philosophy among certain groups of Christians, esp. among those who subscribe to Tertullian's camp and those who think Natural Theology has nothing to contribute. But in 21st century Christians need philosophy more than ever, esp. considering those who are in the process of deconstructing their faith.
I consider it my Christian duty to enlighten my fellow Tertullian Christians but also those among Justin Martyr's followers who relegate philosophy's sphere to mere clarity / logical slaves. Christian mind needs to be restored to serve as an instrument for God's glory, so rather than retreating to seminaries who don't engage with philosophy, psychology, and anthropology department, they need to be at the forefront like Augustine and Aquinas in their days.
So I try to locate and join the efforts of 21st Christian philosophers today to understand their atheistic or spiritual-non-Christian counterparts so I can do proper dialogue with them so when one day I come across someone in danger of losing his/her Christian faith, I have ready-made response that those non-Christians respect. Fr. Thomas J. White said how an Aquinas scholars today can hold their head high, because of its recognized relevance in today's philosophy.
The original reformers are often called "Scholastic Protestant" because their thinking pattern was not yet divorced from Catholic philosophers. I think it's good to go back to their 1500-1600 days. I think today's evangelicals but most certainly the fundamentalists (even among Catholics!) are still smarting from the deep betrayal they felt from liberal and modernist theologians. But Wheaton college and Regent college graduates (as well as Harvard/Princeton graduates) are more constructive.
In conclusion, I now see participating in C.SE more as a ministry to heal my fellow Christians of their aversion to philosophy. Or maybe I'll focus more on doing this in Philosophy.SE first.
To contrast a little bit... Byzantine Christians consider that "no one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian. So while western theology like the latin catholic theology is more based on "rational thought" instead of "spiritual insights of saints" like in the Byzantine theology.
I like to post the Eastern Orthodox answers for questions, because it is something the majority of people will not be exposed to
@Wyrsa yup. and broaden their horizon. There have been just two camps here (Protestants and Catholics) after earlier active EO contributors left (you can easily find who they are).
What really is bothering me is when people post an answer... but they do not say what denomination they are
and honestly, we do have LDS contributors.
I have no issue with that, just make it clear in your answer. Don't make me read your answer, and then punch in... "what is the heresy where ... X ... Y... and Z?" to figure it out.
@Wyrsa I prefer Catholic way of processing things because they have a place for both relegating to the mystics who follow the path of union with God, but also has such strong trust on reason that they are staunch harmonizer of faith and reason. When rationalistic excesses are trimmed, I think they do this rightly.
To be fair, I find the catholic need to "explain everything rationally" a major issue. They have no idea when the eucharist becomes Christs body and blood.
They just made an answer...
for all I know it is when the spoon touches my tongue, like the ember in the mouth of that one prophet.
or perhaps it was while it was on the alter... or being held above the alter... when the priest turned around... who can say.
I certainly am not privy to the moment of when God performs His part of the sacraments. xD
giggles
But yeah... I know my answers are not going to get all the upvotes.
@Wyrsa Yes, the drive to explain rationally is a direct consequence to what I just said. But proper appreciation of their rational theology (of the Eucharist, for example) is rooted not on idolizing reason, but for the whole mind to be tuned to God in all cylinders. As I see it, the defense of transubstantiation is as a means to emphasize the presence of the body of Christ and the spiritual efficacy to taking communion in faith.
@Wyrsa We all believe that, but Thomist way of doing theology want to push the forefront of what reason can now WHILE being orthodox theologically. That's the spirit of doing science well too.
@Wyrsa There are many Orthodox bloggers who used to be Protestants. Maybe you have come across Robert Arakaki's blog and Joel Anderson's blog? They are coming out of the shadows :-).
@Wyrsa Catholics believe that too about God. But they want to make sure that the church doctrines are rational and point believers to the mystical when their spiritual path goes beyond reason.
@Wyrsa That would be great. Maybe even host it somewhere and link it from your profile.
@Wyrsa Yes, we definitely don't require them to make it explicit (some do that anyway, which is okay), but that the answer should clearly address the perspective asked.
@Wyrsa To me, combatting some irrational Charismatic spiritualities (some are better labelled superstitions such as praying EVERY TIME before you start driving), reason is needed again to curb the excesses. I think Christianity should promote itself as having rational faith.
@Wyrsa But what I notice is that they will then say things like: "Oh, I avoided a close call on the freeway, I was saved because I pray first". So it's prayer based on fear. That's an example of what I call "superstition".
@Wyrsa I haven't studied it in depth, but I'm aware of the spiritual practice. At the moment, I lump them together with Catholic mysticism, though they are separate types for sure. I only recently realize that the type is strongly linked to different spiritual theologies; i.e. the way one do spiritual theology will DRIVE the expectations of their practice.
@Wyrsa Exactly. So I found that the practice itself cannot be divorced from HOW you understand it to "function", but that's spiritual theology.
My issue with a lot of non-Charismatic Protestants is how they use the Bible for some kind of spirituality; the attitude that we don't need psychology, just read the Bible in a devotion for all your psychological problems and ask God to heal you. That if you read the Bible something special is happening as opposed to reading Christian philosophy, Christian theology, or Christianity informed psychology books.
You can find answers, but... you know that story of the guy drowning in the ocean, who refuses help multiple times from like a diver, a ship, etc? And then gets to heaven and asks God why he didn't save them? And God is like "What do you mean? I sent you so many different things to save you"
@Wyrsa Not when they don't want to go there in the first place. I'm sure you know those Protestants (not all of them) that fervently quote Jesus saying "call no one Father".
@Wyrsa My personal definition (from my observation). Charismatic = Protestants who emphasize Holy Spirit gifting as mandatory to be seek (asking God, going to seminars, reading books), so that God can work in your lives in a manner that you don't understand. They tend to do confirmation bias, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc. Nothing spiritually important is amenable to reason, not even in the explanation!
@Wyrsa yup. Because their theologizing of their spirituality is not amenable to empirical observations. They are also the kind who don't go to doctors.
@Wyrsa The question is the "how". Personally, I feel a lot closer to God through reading Christian philosophy and through classical music. And I find myself having to justify to my charismatic friends that my approach is valid even though I don't speak in tongues and even though I don't seek the gift of prophecy (they believe Act 2's invoking Joel as a fulfillment that EVERY ONE can be a prophet).
@Wyrsa I do think that's more valid than the charismatic way (per my definition above). I also feel closer going to Catholic mass, even though I really LOVE the sermons from the C&MA church I'm attending.
@Wyrsa The sermon series this year have been very practical. Without saying it they do good integration between psychology and Bible-based spirituality.
@Wyrsa Yes, like the Catholic too. From the Catholic homilies, I like how they tie 3 verses together (according to their liturgical calendar): one passage from OT, one from non-gospel NT, one from the gospel.
I'll have to try out EO first. But my gut instinct is to remain Protestant simply to keep my freedom of having to obey any ecclesiastical institution although in building my theology I rely a lot on EO and RC.
