We recently did a video with Philip Muller and Alistair Ware discussing the hiddenness argument.
What is Divine Hiddenness?
Divine hiddenness refers to the (alleged) hiddenness of God, as in, the fact he is absent, hidden, silent which is quite a contrast to the way the character is portrayed in ancient texts such as the Torah, Bible, Qur’an etc.
One could say that God seems so hidden that there doesn’t seem to be any difference between a hidden God and one that doesn’t exist at all.
However, the hiddenness argument in contemporary philosophy, especially since the publication of J.L. Schellenberg’s ‘Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason’ (1993) relates to a more specific argument about how people can fail to believe in an all-powerful god that wants a personal relationship to them.
This article is not about the hiddenness argument so you can find out more about it here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
In this video, we discuss their article, some of the good and bad counters, and addressed a conversation & video by someone I had yet to interact with, Daniel Ray.
The bulk of the video didn’t actually focus on Mr. Ray, just addressing a few of his bad takes, explaining why they were bad, and touched on his reaction to being corrected, even by his fellow Christians.
Post the video, he did fume on Twitter about a video being made “about him” and it seemed he felt he should be able to have opinions that went unquestioned.
I felt this a little bit odd, considering he was posting his thoughts publicly. If someone posts their opinions publicly, surely they are open to feedback? Otherwise, you’d keep them to yourself, or at the very least to your in-group where everyone already agrees with you.
Also, if you’re a truth seeker, you want to be correct, no? I mean, you seek the truth, and surely that doesn’t just apply to true conclusions but the truth about your reasoning/justifications, no?
Well, I kept getting comments/DMs about him being unhappy with the video from others, and he apparently blocked Philip, Alistair, and Real Atheology for refusing to have a 1 on 1 conversation with him on zoom. I have seen him portraying the story as if he had done all the leg work. The short of it was, he wanted 1 on 1, and Real Atheology wanted a group discussion. Philip hadn’t even responded because he was watching the conversation unfold and didn’t want to make the negotiation messy with an additional voice.
It makes sense that they wanted a group conversation, considering they had collaborated on the article and the conversations on Twitter had involved all of them, that they would want this but I also understand Daniel may have felt a bit pressured by a 3 on 1 conversation.
However, with the behaviours he seemed to demonstrate and how he constantly refused to understand why his justification was question-begging, I couldn’t imagine a conversation being particularly productive with him and if he was going to waste their time, it may as well have been done in one hit. Equally, it didn’t stop Daniel from also bringing 2 friends along for a 3 vs 3 conversation, but it seemed Daniel was very focused on having it his way or no way.
In short, they both groups wanted things a certain way and neither compromised. They both refused, and this is fine. No one should have to do something they don’t want to.