What God Would Have Known: How Human Intellectual and Moral Development Undermines Christian Doctrine

by J.L. Schellenberg

Classical Christian ideas loom large in philosophy of religion today. But arguments against Christian doctrine have been neglected. J. L. Schellenberg's new book remedies this neglect. And it does so in a novel way, by linking facts about human intellectual and moral development to what God would have known at the time of Jesus.

The tide of human development, which the early Christians might have expected to corroborate their teaching, has in fact brought many results that run contrary to that teaching. Or at least it will be seen to have done so, says Schellenberg, when we think about the consequences of any God existent then being fully cognizant, when Christian doctrine was first formed, of all that we have laboriously learned since then. Newly discovered facts, not just about such things as evolution and the formation of the New Testament but also about mental illness, violent punishment, the relations between women and men, and the status of same-sex intimacy, suggest detailed new arguments against the content of the Christian revelation--Schellenberg designs and defends twenty--when the prior understanding of the purported revealer is taken into account.

Written with Schellenberg's characteristic combination of verve and careful precision, What God Would Have Known offers a thorough and incisive treatment of its subject that remains respectful and fair-minded throughout. It is not concerned with the overworked question of whether classical Christians believe irrationally, but with what overlooked arguments about human development show in relation to the truth or falsity of Christian claims about reality. Fully conversant with relevant developments in science, the book is particularly generous in its attention to recent developments in social and ethical spheres as it works toward its striking conclusion that the God of the Christians, all good and all wise, would not have believed Christian doctrine.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion

216 pages, Hardcover

Published August 23, 2024

About the author

J. 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.

Reviews

[John Martindale · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have major issues with the patriarchal bias in scripture, the biblical default toward violent and collective retribution, the dualistic apocalyptic worldview, the fact that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, and that Revelation was included in the canon. I have problems with archaic notions of sin, shame, and salvation; It is also obvious that the Spirit did not lead people into all truth, and sadly, there is little good evidence that the Spirit provides Christians the will and strength to live like Christ. Finally, the doctrine of revelation does seem undermined by the problems listed above and by developments in the Israelites' religious beliefs and their concept of YHWH, and by the wild development of doctrines and dogmas in the church that have all-too-human origins, resulting from often bloody, godless, and repugnant power struggles.

So, I feel the force of Schellengberg's argument. I realize that various developments have forced me to deconstruct most classical Christian doctrines. As the years roll on, more and more dogma seems obviously false or highly unlikely. It now seems to me that a maximally great God with perfect foreknowledge of the future, who is all-powerful, and who is deeply engaged, interactive, and loving, and who reveals himself in substantial ways to establish sound doctrines, surely does not exist. It really seems absolutely impossible to reconcile reality (what we now know) with such a being.

In the past I tried to make sense of the problems, by appealing to accommodation and progressive revelation—but as Schellenberg mentions, if God knew how toxic and harmful various doctrines would become, how they would eventually be seen to clash with reality and if we believe God did reveal counter-cultural material in biblical times, it sure seems God would have provided some clear revelation at the time that was in alignment with what we now know to be morally and rationally true. On the topic of slavery, for example, Christians often appeal to accommodation as the reason Jesus, nor any other New Testament author, condemned slavery. But the Essenes and some contemporary Greeks did condemn it. Jesus, while in the flesh, telling people extremes in the Sermon on the Mount, could have said, “You have heard it said, ‘You may purchase foreign slaves, and they will be your property forever,’ but I say to you, ‘You should not own another human being, for we have one Master in Heaven.’” But no. As Amy Jill-Levin points out, in Jesus’ parables, it really seems Jesus has no issue at all with slavery and their brutal treatment.

I think a Christian theology must come to grips with development, especially since becoming educated today is learning about development, and it would be hard for anyone today not to consider some of these developments as good. For example, many people in the West now hold different attitudes toward violence. Books like The Better Angels of Our Nature by Pinker document this shift in sentiment—one that, at least in some sectors, has reduced the ubiquity of violence in the West. I am glad, for example, that torturing cats in public squares is no longer considered acceptable entertainment—let alone burning heretics at the stake. There is clearly progress (as I would consider it) in how women are viewed as well.

All this said, I do think one of the weaker aspects of Schellenberg’s presentation of the Christian doctrine of salvation is that it is meant to actually save us from our sin in the here and now. This framing of the doctrine is easily falsified, since Christianity often fails to do so, and non-Christian approaches can bring about this kind of “salvation” as well, sometimes to a greater degree.
There is obviously a diversity of views on the doctrine of salvation in the scriptures and in church history. One interpretation that might be able to handle some of Schellenberg’s challenge is the universalist interpretation of St. Paul. A relationship with God is the ultimate good (it is the target), but we all miss this mark (sin) because various personal, cultural, and spiritual factors hinder us from seeing it. To use his language, we are blinded, in bondage, slaves, captives to the pattern of the world, deceived, and as a consequence, we are bound to die and to never be reconciled with God. It is simply a fact, regardless of culpability, blame, or guilt. In light of this, Jesus came to bring immortality to light; he came on a rescue mission, to redeem and ransom (for the life hereafter). His death and resurrection made it possible that, in the end, every human being will see and be saved—granted immortality and irresistibly drawn to the good.
To sum up, regardless of individual culpability and blameworthiness, many are missing the mark of our ultimate telos, and Jesus could be viewed as making immortality and reconciliation available for all—but this salvation is post-mortem. Yes, this formulation of salvation is unfalsifiable—moving it more into the realm of blind faith. Paul also made the love of God unfalsifiable by making it post-mortem, so literally nothing that could happen to him could count as evidence against the love of God.

Thinking more broadly. I think it would be wise to consider Judaism/Christianity more like a discipline—similar to that of science—than a revelation of timeless truths. We see a human attempt to wrestle with God, to make meaning, to discover what is good, and to make sense of humanity’s relation to divinity. The Hebrews, by faithfully compiling debate, polemics, and development over a span of some thousand years, provided us with a method. By taking part in the discipline, we too wrestle with God, meaning, the good, and our relation to God in light of what we know—in light of developments.
In science, we know much of what the early scientists believed was mistaken, but they gave us a method. It is necessary to maintain, falsify, and test in order to slowly progress. In the realm of theology, Jewish dialectic was similar—it was experiential, but also in relation to the past, and engaged with a shared vocabulary and concepts. The Christians partook of this as well, seeing Jesus as a significant adaptation. Just as early scientists were doing the best they could in light of what was known and the biases of their time, so it was for the Christians. We do not honor the early scientists by making all their pronouncements dogma, and neither do we honor early Christians by making their speculation dogma. The way we honor them is by doing what they were doing—and, interestingly, this book by an atheist, by falsifying several aspects of Christian dogma, is doing just that. In light of development, we must consider what is definitely untrue, what is implausible, what is possible, and what is true.
In light of the time the Jewish followers of Jesus lived, they made huge adjustments, making sense of things in light of Jesus. Remarkably, to be true to the pursuit of truth and reality means that Christians must reject core aspects of Jesus’ apocalypticism and see aspects of his message as deficient. We must realize that numerous things that were absolute certainties for early Christians can only be held agnostically today due to the passage of time and developments.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Schellenberg is interesting as always, arguing that intellectual progress across science, history and morality undercuts Christian doctrine. The book is full of interesting facts, forceful arguments (e.g. against the doctrines of sin and spiritual helplessness), and neglected and broad considerations across academic disciplines. The drawbacks are that the identical argument structure undercuts the independence; not all arguments are equally persuasive (e.g. his arguments against theological determinism and the deity of Christ); the book is overspecific and overconfident in the level of intellectual progress; and it overrates originality in criticising Christian doctrine, a field with substantial publication history. Nonetheless, a worthwhile contribution.