Dmitry Chernikov’s Blog

A perfectly loving God, says J.L. Schellenberg, would ensure that a personal relationship exists between Him and every other person who did not refuse an offer of that relationship. But in order for a relationship to have a chance to develop, a person must first believe in the existence of God. But there is such a thing as inculpable or reasonable non-belief. That God exists is not self-evident, and a person may without violating any epistemic duties hold that God does not, in fact, exist or at least that His existence is improbable. (The Improbability of God, 390-426) But God would have overriding reasons not to permit inculpable nonbelief. Hence God does not exist, etc.

Now it seems to me that if knowledge of God constitutes wisdom, then a non-believer in God does not have wisdom. But neither does he have folly, because the failure to hold the true belief of God’s existence is reasonable; it is excused. So, that person is innocent. This innocence may be due to the fact (1) that he has never entertained the idea of God, or (2) that religion is uninteresting to him (e.g., because of mental retardation), or (3) that he has reflected on the concept of God and concluded that He does not exist. But not, of course, innocent as a child whose humility and trust in his parents which stand for God Jesus said we must imitate. (Mt 18:1-4; Lk 18:15-17) Nor innocent as a dove which complements the wisdom of the serpent. (Mt 10:16) What, then?

Now we might somewhat crudely say that God rewards the good, the wise, the righteous, etc. and punishes the wicked, the foolish, and the corrupt. What God does with the innocent is unclear, though the prospects are not good: Rev 3:16. So, God may have something prepared for the innocent, such as infants or, indeed, “reasonable unbelievers” which is different both from the glory of the good and the shame of the evil. Therefore, there is no contradiction between God’s justice and reflective adult innocence. It may be asked why God allows innocence in the first place rather than infallibly converting it into theism and finally, Christian faith. But this, then, would no longer be a problem of non-belief but a problem of evil restated in these particular terms, about which we have said quite a bit in earlier posts.

At any rate, what evidence does our author adduce for the proposition that there exist honest seekers who are disappointed in their search for God? There isn’t even anecdotal evidence or case studies. It is highly ironic that Schellenberg mentions atheist philosophers who “have long since concluded that God does not exist and think the world is better off that way.” (419, italics added) They are supposed to be inculpable? It seems that their guilt is greater than that of a run-of-the-mill unbeliever. Pascal is quoted to the effect that “I look around in every direction and all I see is darkness,” but he was a devout Christian, at least after his night of fire, and it was precisely Pascal who said that “There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable,” apparently denying that confident non-belief can in principle be reasonable.

On one episode of “Family Guy” Stewie tells God to stay out of his way. And I think that that’s the ultimate reason God is hidden: He doesn’t want to impose. God will draw to you when you find yourself dissatisfied with mere nature, be it natural happiness or natural suffering.