What do you think?
Rate this book
Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason
This book is a splendid, illuminating study of Divine hiddenness and its implications for the question of whether the God of traditional theism actually exists. ― William L. Rowe, Department of Philosophy, Purdue University The first full-length treatment of its topic, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason will be of interest to anyone who has sought to reach a conclusion as to God's existence, and especially to theologians and philosophers of religion. In this clearly written and tightly argued book, J. L. Schellenberg addresses a fundamental yet neglected religious problem. If there is a God, he asks, why is his existence not more obvious? Traditionally, theists have claimed that God is hidden in order to account for the fact that the evidence of his existence is as weak as it is. Schellenberg maintains that, given the understanding of God's moral character to which theists are committed, this claim runs into serious difficulty. There are grounds, the author writes, for thinking that the perfectly loving God of theism would not be hidden, that such a God would put the fact of his existence beyond reasonable nonbelief. Since reasonable nonbelief occurs, Schellenberg argues, it follows that there is here an argument of considerable force for atheism. In developing his claim, Schellenberg carefully examines the relevant views of such theists as Pascal, Butler, Kierkegaard, Hick, and others. He clarifies their suggestions concerning Divine hiddenness and shows how they fall short of providing a rebuttal for the argument he presents. That argument, he concludes, poses a serious challenge to theism, to which contemporary theists must respond. Also Available in Paperback with a New Preface
232 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1993
12 people are currently reading
919 people want to read
About the author
J.L. Schellenberg
13 books21 followersJ. L. Schellenberg (born 1959) is a Canadian philosopher best known for his work in philosophy of religion. He has a DPhil in Philosophy from the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Philosophy at Mount Saint Vincent University and Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Graduate Studies at Dalhousie University, both in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Schellenberg’s early development of an argument from divine hiddenness for atheism has been influential.[2] In a subsequent series of books he has arrived at a form of religion called ‘skeptical religion’ which he regards as being compatible with atheism.[3] In 2013 the Cambridge University Press journal Religious Studies published a special issue devoted to critical discussion of Schellenberg’s philosophy of religion.
Schellenberg’s early development of an argument from divine hiddenness for atheism has been influential.[2] In a subsequent series of books he has arrived at a form of religion called ‘skeptical religion’ which he regards as being compatible with atheism.[3] In 2013 the Cambridge University Press journal Religious Studies published a special issue devoted to critical discussion of Schellenberg’s philosophy of religion.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 3, 2025
This is a powerful argument against the validity of a specific brand of theism that is popular in evangelical circles.
As someone who loves analogies, I will present what, in my mind, captures the force of his argument.
Suppose a child grows up without a father (never receiving a call or a letter). Suppose she feels this void and longs for a connection and a relationship with her dad. While she can believe in the ground of her existence, that some man donated sperm, can she move beyond this and believe that this man truly loves her and wants a relationship with her? Suppose, to make things worse, the single mom who is tight-lipped on the matter is struggling, and often, they don’t have enough to eat. His absence is resulting in suffering. Now, it seems conceivable that she will doubt whether a loving father exists. Possibly, he is dead. Possibly he lives, but doesn’t care about her. Anyhow, no one would blame the child for doubt. Doubt would be justified.
But now, in this context, suppose she has a brother who has also never seen his dad, and he is like, “We should believe that our dad lives and that he loves and cares about us”. In debates between the two siblings, he could say that “He abandoned us for some higher good, he wanted to test us, to give us free will, to see if we would seek him, etc…” and all of these rationalizations would likely seem weak to her.
In the absence of evidence, both are engaging in guesswork. The boy, if he has an active imagination and is higher on the absorption index, can still enjoy a “personal relationship” with his dad, through imagination and the interpretation of events. But still, he can and may experience the dark night of the soul, where the hiddenness is just too great, and everything feels like make-believe, and his belief in the loving father begins to unravel.
Anyhow, I feel this analogy captures the essence of the problem that Schellenberg presents. As I said, it is a major strike against certain brands of theism, though I think the argument fails as an argument against theism in general.
Michael Rae, in his book on the Hiddenness of God, wrote how Schellenberg refuses to give any mind to theology, as he is doing philosophy, and the works of theologians are to be dismissed out of hand since they presuppose the existence of God. The problem, of course, is that Schellenberg’s argument touches and rests on theological territory. Rae points out that what Schellenberg is doing is like a philosopher writing on humans’ relationship with time, but refusing to give any thought to physicists whose work is relevant to the topic, since they are not doing philosophy but science.
A core element of Schellenberg’s argument, which I think is most underdeveloped, is the nature of God’s love and the divine obligation towards individuals. A lot of assumptions are packed in and are not explored. Good theologians are going to explore what divine love would entail and what humans have the right to expect. If I arbitrarily say that if a loving God exists, then I’d have a nice shiny red car, but I don’t have a shiny red car, so God does not exist, that would be silly. But Schellenberg seems to say that, broadly speaking, a theist God would necessarily be obligated to do X. However, as he did not do X, he does not exist.
Because of the transcendence and otherness of God (supposing a God exists), we must think about God’s love by way of analogy. What would it mean for a king to love subjects, a judge for his plaintiff and defendant, a husband for his wife, a master of his slaves, a father for his children, a military officer for his soldiers, a friend to a friend, a human for a stranger? Each analogy will entail unique obligations and expectations. Also, within each of these relationships, dilemmas will arise, and there will be complex tradeoffs. Any action that is in the interest of one group may not be in the interest of another group. It would also be very different if it were personal and direct, or general and indirect. A king can love his subjects in general (attempting to create just laws and a smooth government), while some individuals starve. However, a father who fails to provide food for his daughter (when he is able) would be culpable.
I do think divine hiddenness is strong evidence against the Deity that some evangelical Christians present. Expectations are raised through the roof—we are told if God had a wallet, a picture of us would be in it, that he thinks about us all throughout the day, delights in us, that he cares, watches, speaks, protects, guides, empowers, etc… and longs for an intimate relationship. The reality of the hiddenness of God is powerful evidence that Christians are dead wrong about God. Theism may be true, but God’s love for us is not like that of a good father, mother, lover, or friend. If we believe in Jesus, then while with us in the flesh, he would heal. But now he is gone, most likely, prayers for healing will go unanswered. While with us in person, he may respond to a question (often with another question), but now God is away, and there is silence.
I think Christians need to further develop a theology that acknowledges God’s absence. Some biblical authors got this. Interestingly, a theme in Jesus’ parables is that the master, homeowner, bridegroom, and nobleman (soon to become king) are ABSENT. His whole point is that God will be away, and while away, people will do what they want.
Suppose a God who is personal and the ground of all being (but has no absolute foreknowledge of the future) decides to create a world that is wholly free to develop and evolve, in which humans are free to do their own thing. It will be a world in which a personal God does not seem to exist. A world in which he does nothing and is absent, where a relationship with Him is simply make-believe and culturally constructed. If God chose, as a whole, a complete handoff approach for a dispensation, but in a future dispensation, he will make a new heaven and new earth, and His Divine Presence will be felt and enjoyed by all humanity, would that be permissible for a loving God? Suppose a theistic God decided certain goods (generally) that would only come forth from an epoch of absence. These goods are general—many will not benefit from the goods. While God would like for people to believe in him, it is not expected—there is not enough evidence—so he would not hold people culpable. But suppose, in the age to come—the age of His presence- EVERYONE experiences the relationship and closeness, and there is plenty of evidence that leads to good for all.
Using evolution as an analogy would work, too. Suppose God got it all rolling with the information in the original cell and then took a step back, knowing in the context and stressors of Earth, that natural selection would favor beneficial adaptations and result in complexity, diversity, and beauty. Could we stomach a God who decided to select a process that would bring forth general goods? It definitely wouldn’t work to think of God directly and personally loving the billions of losers in the struggle for life and the species that went extinct. Remember the love of a military general for his soldiers; he can make choices that are for the good of the war, but will result in individuals dying. I am seeing a similar type of “love” here. There is no way on earth that we can, in the present age, consider God having a passionate and particular love and active love for each individual. If we have a theistic God, his love must be broad, like that of a king for his subjects. The only way God is like a father is that we can believe he took the risk of bringing free agents into the world. But these people may or may not have direct contact with the king. And the king's choice will benefit some and be the ruin of others. But even that said, it is like the king is away, and has delegated authority wholly to other agents. The main way he could be considered a king is that he made the choice to go into hiding and allow coregents (those in the image of God) to have their time for better and worse.
Anyhow, back to the evolution imagery. There is such a complex mix of good and bad that has resulted from evolution. Now, in our world, due to the brains we have, human psychology, and cultural forces, a complex mix of good and bad has resulted. If God were directly involved and personal, and on an individual level, causing evil that some good may result, then that is horrible to me. However, a God who is like, I am taking a risk, I am going to step back and let humanity do what it will, and I won’t step in if they eff it all up, because I think, on the whole, some goods will come forth from my leaving humanity alone, then I think I can accept this decision, and thus still consider some sort of theistic God a possibility.
As someone who loves analogies, I will present what, in my mind, captures the force of his argument.
Suppose a child grows up without a father (never receiving a call or a letter). Suppose she feels this void and longs for a connection and a relationship with her dad. While she can believe in the ground of her existence, that some man donated sperm, can she move beyond this and believe that this man truly loves her and wants a relationship with her? Suppose, to make things worse, the single mom who is tight-lipped on the matter is struggling, and often, they don’t have enough to eat. His absence is resulting in suffering. Now, it seems conceivable that she will doubt whether a loving father exists. Possibly, he is dead. Possibly he lives, but doesn’t care about her. Anyhow, no one would blame the child for doubt. Doubt would be justified.
But now, in this context, suppose she has a brother who has also never seen his dad, and he is like, “We should believe that our dad lives and that he loves and cares about us”. In debates between the two siblings, he could say that “He abandoned us for some higher good, he wanted to test us, to give us free will, to see if we would seek him, etc…” and all of these rationalizations would likely seem weak to her.
In the absence of evidence, both are engaging in guesswork. The boy, if he has an active imagination and is higher on the absorption index, can still enjoy a “personal relationship” with his dad, through imagination and the interpretation of events. But still, he can and may experience the dark night of the soul, where the hiddenness is just too great, and everything feels like make-believe, and his belief in the loving father begins to unravel.
Anyhow, I feel this analogy captures the essence of the problem that Schellenberg presents. As I said, it is a major strike against certain brands of theism, though I think the argument fails as an argument against theism in general.
Michael Rae, in his book on the Hiddenness of God, wrote how Schellenberg refuses to give any mind to theology, as he is doing philosophy, and the works of theologians are to be dismissed out of hand since they presuppose the existence of God. The problem, of course, is that Schellenberg’s argument touches and rests on theological territory. Rae points out that what Schellenberg is doing is like a philosopher writing on humans’ relationship with time, but refusing to give any thought to physicists whose work is relevant to the topic, since they are not doing philosophy but science.
A core element of Schellenberg’s argument, which I think is most underdeveloped, is the nature of God’s love and the divine obligation towards individuals. A lot of assumptions are packed in and are not explored. Good theologians are going to explore what divine love would entail and what humans have the right to expect. If I arbitrarily say that if a loving God exists, then I’d have a nice shiny red car, but I don’t have a shiny red car, so God does not exist, that would be silly. But Schellenberg seems to say that, broadly speaking, a theist God would necessarily be obligated to do X. However, as he did not do X, he does not exist.
Because of the transcendence and otherness of God (supposing a God exists), we must think about God’s love by way of analogy. What would it mean for a king to love subjects, a judge for his plaintiff and defendant, a husband for his wife, a master of his slaves, a father for his children, a military officer for his soldiers, a friend to a friend, a human for a stranger? Each analogy will entail unique obligations and expectations. Also, within each of these relationships, dilemmas will arise, and there will be complex tradeoffs. Any action that is in the interest of one group may not be in the interest of another group. It would also be very different if it were personal and direct, or general and indirect. A king can love his subjects in general (attempting to create just laws and a smooth government), while some individuals starve. However, a father who fails to provide food for his daughter (when he is able) would be culpable.
I do think divine hiddenness is strong evidence against the Deity that some evangelical Christians present. Expectations are raised through the roof—we are told if God had a wallet, a picture of us would be in it, that he thinks about us all throughout the day, delights in us, that he cares, watches, speaks, protects, guides, empowers, etc… and longs for an intimate relationship. The reality of the hiddenness of God is powerful evidence that Christians are dead wrong about God. Theism may be true, but God’s love for us is not like that of a good father, mother, lover, or friend. If we believe in Jesus, then while with us in the flesh, he would heal. But now he is gone, most likely, prayers for healing will go unanswered. While with us in person, he may respond to a question (often with another question), but now God is away, and there is silence.
I think Christians need to further develop a theology that acknowledges God’s absence. Some biblical authors got this. Interestingly, a theme in Jesus’ parables is that the master, homeowner, bridegroom, and nobleman (soon to become king) are ABSENT. His whole point is that God will be away, and while away, people will do what they want.
Suppose a God who is personal and the ground of all being (but has no absolute foreknowledge of the future) decides to create a world that is wholly free to develop and evolve, in which humans are free to do their own thing. It will be a world in which a personal God does not seem to exist. A world in which he does nothing and is absent, where a relationship with Him is simply make-believe and culturally constructed. If God chose, as a whole, a complete handoff approach for a dispensation, but in a future dispensation, he will make a new heaven and new earth, and His Divine Presence will be felt and enjoyed by all humanity, would that be permissible for a loving God? Suppose a theistic God decided certain goods (generally) that would only come forth from an epoch of absence. These goods are general—many will not benefit from the goods. While God would like for people to believe in him, it is not expected—there is not enough evidence—so he would not hold people culpable. But suppose, in the age to come—the age of His presence- EVERYONE experiences the relationship and closeness, and there is plenty of evidence that leads to good for all.
Using evolution as an analogy would work, too. Suppose God got it all rolling with the information in the original cell and then took a step back, knowing in the context and stressors of Earth, that natural selection would favor beneficial adaptations and result in complexity, diversity, and beauty. Could we stomach a God who decided to select a process that would bring forth general goods? It definitely wouldn’t work to think of God directly and personally loving the billions of losers in the struggle for life and the species that went extinct. Remember the love of a military general for his soldiers; he can make choices that are for the good of the war, but will result in individuals dying. I am seeing a similar type of “love” here. There is no way on earth that we can, in the present age, consider God having a passionate and particular love and active love for each individual. If we have a theistic God, his love must be broad, like that of a king for his subjects. The only way God is like a father is that we can believe he took the risk of bringing free agents into the world. But these people may or may not have direct contact with the king. And the king's choice will benefit some and be the ruin of others. But even that said, it is like the king is away, and has delegated authority wholly to other agents. The main way he could be considered a king is that he made the choice to go into hiding and allow coregents (those in the image of God) to have their time for better and worse.
Anyhow, back to the evolution imagery. There is such a complex mix of good and bad that has resulted from evolution. Now, in our world, due to the brains we have, human psychology, and cultural forces, a complex mix of good and bad has resulted. If God were directly involved and personal, and on an individual level, causing evil that some good may result, then that is horrible to me. However, a God who is like, I am taking a risk, I am going to step back and let humanity do what it will, and I won’t step in if they eff it all up, because I think, on the whole, some goods will come forth from my leaving humanity alone, then I think I can accept this decision, and thus still consider some sort of theistic God a possibility.
November 10, 2013
This book is the top of its kind in presenting a valid argument on the problem of divine hiddenness. However, I disagree with the basic premise of his argument in that reasonable (inculpable) nonbelief exists. While he presents compelling evidence in support of this premise, William Lane Craig's argument for the absurdity of life without God provides good evidence to prove this premise as false thereby proving Schellenberg's conclusion false. Nonetheless, fascinating read!
March 20, 2022
Very detailed thought processing in regards to amplifying the idea of Divine Hiddenness. It's definitely not perfect, and many arguments might seem rather weird or non-evident, but, in any case, quite interesting deconstruction happens through the entire book. Not a light read, but a very rewarding one nonetheless. I feel intrinsically different from when I started and for a book to change and/or challenge one's world view, it's commendable. Recommended!
July 31, 2016
A fascinating argument against the Christian God's existence. This book is a challenging philosophical read but worth every minute. It's a detailed, rigorous argument. The author has an excellent understanding of the various Christian arguments and counter-arguments. In fact, in order to ensure he has considered every possible opposing arguments he even comes up with new ones that haven't been developed before - and then responds to them. This is a must-read for Christian and atheist apologists alike. Should generate a long and interesting conversation!
April 11, 2020
Scellenburg provides a strong argument for atheism, but he assumes a whole lot in order to get his argument off the ground.
June 20, 2025
Everyone seeing this I just want to clarify I am not a Reddit atheist I am just acknowledging it is a good argument. However doesn’t disprove Kierkegaard’s and I still love that with my dear heart
April 2, 2018
(Swedish)
Har skrivit ett inlägg om boken här: https://dedocta.wordpress.com/2016/12...
Har skrivit ett inlägg om boken här: https://dedocta.wordpress.com/2016/12...
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews