Divine Hiddenness Argument

1. Introduction

The Divine Hiddenness Argument (also called the argument from divine hiddenness or hiddenness argument) is a family of arguments in the philosophy of religion that take as their central datum the apparent absence or ambiguity of God’s presence to many people. It focuses in particular on individuals who, by their own lights, are open to relating to God if God exists, yet who nonetheless lack belief in God.

In its most influential contemporary form, the argument claims that:

• If there were a perfectly loving God, such a God would be personally available for relationship to every creature capable of it.
• Availability for relationship, on this view, requires at least that such creatures not be non-culpably ignorant of God’s existence.
• The widespread existence of nonresistant nonbelievers—people who lack belief in God without resisting relationship with God—therefore counts strongly against, or is incompatible with, the existence of a perfectly loving God.

Within philosophy of religion, the hiddenness argument is often discussed alongside the evidential problem of evil as a key challenge to traditional monotheism, especially perfect being theism. Whereas the problem of evil emphasizes suffering, the hiddenness argument emphasizes epistemic conditions: belief, knowledge, and awareness of the divine.

The argument has generated extensive debate about the nature of divine love, the value of human freedom, the role of religious experience, and the interpretation of religious diversity. The discussion includes not only atheistic and agnostic uses of the argument, but also theistic attempts to show that various forms of hiddenness may be compatible with, or even required by, divine love.

The sections that follow trace the argument’s origins, its formal structure, key concepts such as nonresistant nonbelief, major variations, and the principal lines of response and ongoing research in contemporary philosophy.

2. Origin and Attribution

The modern Divine Hiddenness Argument is widely attributed to the Canadian philosopher J. L. Schellenberg. His book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (1993) is generally taken as the first systematic, analytic statement of the argument as an evidential challenge to theism grounded specifically in nonresistant nonbelief.

Schellenberg’s Pioneering Formulation

Schellenberg’s contribution is often characterized by three features:

1. Perfect Love Focus: He frames the debate around what a perfectly loving God would do, arguing that such a God would always be open to a personal relationship with any creature capable of reciprocating love.
2. Nonresistant Nonbelief: He introduces and carefully develops the category of nonresistant nonbelief as the key empirical premise.
3. Deductive Structure: He formulates the argument in a relatively strict, premise–conclusion form, inviting debate about soundness rather than mere plausibility.

In later works, such as The Wisdom to Doubt (2007) and The Hiddenness Argument (2015), Schellenberg refines his formulation, defends it against objections, and extends it to broader religious and metaphysical contexts.

Attribution and Earlier Uses

Although many thinkers before Schellenberg spoke of a “hidden God,” most did not present this as a formal evidential argument against God’s existence. For this reason, the specific divine hiddenness argument in its current philosophical sense is usually credited to him, even while earlier authors are acknowledged as precursors rather than originators of the argument.

The literature frequently distinguishes between:

Subsequent philosophers—both critics and sympathizers—have often worked with Schellenberg’s terminology and basic structure, even when offering significantly modified versions of the argument or its conclusions.

3. Historical Context and Precursors

Although the contemporary Divine Hiddenness Argument is a late 20th‑century development, it draws on a long history of reflection on the “hidden God” in Jewish, Christian, and broader philosophical traditions.

Biblical and Classical Theological Motifs

The Hebrew Bible already contains themes of divine concealment:

"

“Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior.”

— Isaiah 45:15

Classical Christian theology sometimes speaks of divine hiddenness in terms of God’s transcendence and incomprehensibility (e.g., Augustine, Pseudo‑Dionysius) or as part of a “darkness of faith” in which believers trust without full vision (e.g., John of the Cross). These discussions, however, typically treat hiddenness as a feature of the believer’s journey rather than as an argument against God’s existence.

Early Modern Reflections

In early modern philosophy, Blaise Pascal is often cited as a key precursor. In the Pensées, he famously writes:

"

“There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.”

— Blaise Pascal, Pensées

Pascal sees a deliberate mixture of divine “light and darkness” as fitting God’s purposes for free, non-coerced commitment. This anticipates later free‑will and non‑coercion responses to hiddenness, even though Pascal does not frame hiddenness as evidence against God.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, deists and some skeptics raised questions about why a benevolent God would not reveal himself more clearly or universally, especially in light of religious diversity. These concerns foreshadow later appeals to global nonbelief and religious pluralism.

Existential and 20th‑Century Themes

Søren Kierkegaard emphasizes God’s “incognito” in Christ and the “offense” that faith must overcome, suggesting that God’s presence is veiled to preserve human freedom and authentic commitment. In the 20th century, Protestant theologians such as Martin Luther (earlier) and later Karl Barth discuss a “hidden God” in the context of revelation and judgment rather than skepticism.

Mid‑20th‑century anglophone philosophy of religion debated divine silence and religious doubt, particularly in relation to the problem of evil. These discussions created the conceptual backdrop in which Schellenberg later formulated hiddenness as a distinct, rigorous argument.

These precursors supplied themes and questions that the contemporary argument reshapes into a focused evidential challenge.

4. Formulating the Divine Hiddenness Argument

Within contemporary analytic philosophy, the Divine Hiddenness Argument is usually formulated in clear premise–conclusion form. Schellenberg’s version serves as a common reference point, though variants differ in emphasis and strength.

Basic Schematic Form

A typical formulation involves three main ideas:

1. A conceptual claim about what a perfectly loving God would do with respect to relationship.
2. A modal or conditional claim linking divine love with the absence of nonresistant nonbelief.
3. An empirical claim that such nonresistant nonbelief actually occurs.

These can be shaped into a deductive argument:

1. If there is a God, God is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no capable person would be nonresistantly ignorant of God’s existence.
3. Some capable persons are nonresistantly ignorant of God’s existence.
4. Therefore, no perfectly loving God exists (and so, insofar as God would necessarily be perfectly loving, God does not exist).

Relationship-Focused Formulations

Some presentations foreground the idea of personal relationship:

• A perfectly loving God would always be open to personal relationship with any creature capable of such relationship.
• Openness to relationship requires that the creature be in a position to believe that God exists (or at least to recognize God’s reality in some way).
• The existence of individuals who are open to relationship but lack such belief thus seems incompatible with, or improbable given, a perfectly loving God.

This form shifts attention from mere belief to the relational goals of God, but retains belief (or awareness) as a necessary condition of relationship.

Deductive vs. Probabilistic Formulations

While Schellenberg often presents his argument as deductive—aiming for a logical incompatibility between perfect divine love and nonresistant nonbelief—other philosophers recast it in evidential or probabilistic terms:

• On such views, the existence and distribution of nonresistant nonbelief do not outright refute theism, but are claimed to make traditional theism less probable relative to various naturalistic or non-theistic hypotheses.
• This evidential approach allows for the possibility that hiddenness is logically compatible with theism, while still claiming it is improbable given theism.

Formulations thus range from strong incompatibility claims to more modest claims about comparative likelihoods.

5. Logical Structure and Core Premises

The hiddenness argument’s logical structure is generally regarded as valid in standard deductive presentations, so philosophical debate concentrates on the truth and interpretation of its core premises.

Typical Logical Structure

A simplified formalization, inspired by Schellenberg, can be expressed as:

1. P1 (Perfect Love): If God exists, then God is perfectly loving.
2. P2 (Openness): If a perfectly loving God exists, then for every finite person S and time t, if S is at t capable of relationship with God and is not resisting it, God is then open to such a relationship with S.
3. P3 (Awareness Condition): If God is open to a personal relationship with S at t, then God ensures that S is not non-culpably ignorant of God’s existence at t.
4. P4 (No Nonresistant Nonbelief): Therefore, if a perfectly loving God exists, there are no cases of nonresistant nonbelief.
5. P5 (Existence of Nonresistant Nonbelief): There are cases of nonresistant nonbelief.
6. C (No Perfectly Loving God): Therefore, no perfectly loving God exists (and hence no God, if God must be perfectly loving).

The argument is typically seen as a straightforward application of modus ponens and modus tollens.

Core Premises and Points of Contest

Philosophical discussion has clustered around specific premises:

• Some theists question P1 or reinterpret divine love in more complex or non-personal ways.
• Others accept P1 but challenge P2 or P3, suggesting that perfect love might sometimes involve not making God’s existence obvious (e.g., to preserve freedom or promote moral growth).
• Still others target P5, arguing that what appears to be nonresistant nonbelief may in fact involve subtle forms of resistance or culpable ignorance.

Because the inference from P1–P5 to C is relatively uncontroversial, the soundness of the argument hinges on these substantive theological and empirical assumptions.

6. Nonresistant Nonbelief and Key Concepts

A central feature of the Divine Hiddenness Argument is the notion of nonresistant nonbelief, introduced and elaborated by Schellenberg. Clarifying this and related concepts is crucial for understanding both the argument’s empirical premise and many responses.

Nonresistant Nonbelief

Nonresistant nonbelief refers to a person’s lacking belief in God under conditions where:

• The person is capable of a personal relationship with God (e.g., has sufficient cognitive and emotional maturity).
• The person is not resisting such a relationship—there is no willful rejection, avoidance, or culpable negligence toward God.
• The nonbelief is thus non-culpable: it results from circumstances beyond the person’s control (e.g., upbringing, evidence available, psychological limitations).

Proponents often point to people raised in non-theistic cultures, longtime seekers who report unanswered prayers for guidance, or those who once believed but lost belief sincerely and reluctantly.

Related Key Concepts

Several further notions structure the argument and its discussion:

• Perfect Divine Love: Typically defined as God’s constant and unconditional desire for a reciprocal, conscious, personal relationship with every creature capable of it. Disputes often center on whether this definition is adequate or too anthropomorphic.
• Personal Relationship with God: An I–Thou‑style relationship involving mutual awareness, communication (in some form), trust, and responsiveness. On Schellenberg’s view, such a relationship minimally requires that the finite person believe that God exists.
• Culpable vs. Non-Culpable Ignorance: Ignorance is culpable when it results from negligence, willful avoidance, or morally blameworthy dispositions; it is non-culpable when it is beyond the agent’s reasonable control. The argument concerns those whose ignorance of God, if any, would be of the latter kind.
• Epistemic Access: The availability of evidence, experiences, or other means sufficient to make belief in God rationally and psychologically accessible to a person. Schellenberg’s argument turns on whether perfect love would guarantee such access for all nonresistant individuals.

Debates about the argument frequently involve disagreements about how these concepts should be defined and applied in real-world cases.

7. Variations and Extensions of the Argument

Beyond Schellenberg’s canonical formulation, philosophers have developed a variety of modified, extended, or parallel hiddenness arguments. These versions often adjust the target concept of God, the form of relationship at issue, or the kind of hiddenness being emphasized.

Evidential and Bayesian Versions

Some authors recast the argument in explicitly probabilistic terms:

• Hiddenness is treated as data to be inserted into a Bayesian framework comparing the probability of theism versus naturalism or other hypotheses.
• On this approach, the existence and distribution of nonresistant nonbelief are argued to be more expected under naturalism than under traditional theism, thereby lowering the posterior probability of theism without claiming strict inconsistency.

Modal and “At Least One” Variants

There are also weaker, modal variants that claim not that a loving God would eliminate all nonresistant nonbelief, but that at least some nonresistant nonbelievers in the actual world are inexplicable on theism. Here the focus falls on apparently particularly striking cases (e.g., lifelong seekers, or entire populations with minimal exposure to monotheism).

Hiddenness Beyond Belief

Some philosophers extend the scope of “hiddenness” to include:

• Divine silence in the face of suffering or moral inquiry.
• Apparent absence of guidance or answers to prayer.
• Lack of transformative experiences that might reasonably be expected if God sought relationship.

In such versions, the argument may appeal not only to nonresistant nonbelief, but to nonresistant non‑relationship or lack of experiential contact, even among many who already believe in God.

Religious Pluralism and Unequal Distribution

Others build hiddenness arguments around the global distribution of religious belief:

• The fact that large segments of humanity have historically lacked access to monotheistic traditions, or interpret their religious experiences in non-theistic ways, is taken to be a kind of selective or uneven divine self‑disclosure.
• Some argue that this pattern is surprising given a God who supposedly desires relationship with all, and thus furnishes an extended, pluralism-based hiddenness argument.

Broadening the Target: Generic and Ultimistic Arguments

Schellenberg himself has developed a more general “ultimism” framework in which hiddenness is cast as evidence not only against traditional theism but also against any person-like ultimate reality that would aim at relationship with finite beings. This extends the hiddenness worry to a wider range of religious metaphysical views.

These variations maintain the core intuition that a loving or relationally oriented ultimate reality would not remain as epistemically elusive as our world appears to present it, while differing on strength, scope, and target.

8. Comparison with the Problem of Evil

The Divine Hiddenness Argument is frequently compared to the problem of evil, particularly its evidential form. Both are seen as major challenges to traditional theism, yet they focus on different aspects of the world.

Similarities

• Structure: Both arguments typically proceed from an alleged mismatch between what we would expect if an all‑good, all‑powerful God existed and what we in fact observe.
• Evidential Character: Many presentations treat evil and hiddenness as probabilistic evidence against theism, rather than as strictly logical contradictions.
• Appeal to Unknown Reasons: Skeptical theism and related responses are applied to both, arguing that humans may be unable to discern God’s reasons for permitting either evil or hiddenness.

Differences

Despite these parallels, several important differences are highlighted in the literature:

Proponents of the hiddenness argument sometimes claim that it is distinctive in tying the challenge directly to divine love and relationship, rather than to the more general goodness of God. They argue that, even if all suffering could somehow be justified for the sake of greater goods, it would still be difficult to explain why a loving God would allow nonresistant nonbelievers to remain unaware of God’s reality.

Conversely, some philosophers suggest that hiddenness is best viewed as a special case of the problem of evil, specifically an “epistemic evil” or a kind of spiritual harm. On this view, standard theodicies (e.g., soul‑making, free‑will) may, in principle, address both phenomena under a unified treatment of divine permission.

Debate continues over whether hiddenness adds a substantively new problem, or primarily amplifies the evidential force of the problem of evil by highlighting God’s apparent absence precisely where relationship seems most fitting.

9. Free-Will and Relationship-Based Responses

One prominent family of responses to the Divine Hiddenness Argument appeals to the value of human freedom and the nature of authentic personal relationship. These responses typically accept that God seeks relationship but argue that certain forms of hiddenness are necessary or fitting for that goal.

Non-Coercion and Epistemic Distance

Drawing on themes found in thinkers like Richard Swinburne, defenders argue that if God’s existence were overwhelmingly obvious—akin to the presence of an inescapable, overwhelmingly powerful authority—then human freedom to accept or reject relationship would be compromised:

• Clear, irresistible evidence might create a form of pragmatic coercion: people would align with God primarily to avoid negative consequences or gain benefits, not out of love or trust.
• A degree of epistemic distance (uncertainty, ambiguity) therefore helps preserve a context in which individuals can make genuinely free, morally significant choices regarding God.

On this view, what appears as hiddenness is partly a feature of a morally valuable environment for responsive love.

Relationship as Vulnerable Trust

Some theistic philosophers maintain that the deepest kind of relationship involves trust in the face of risk. If God were constantly and unmistakably manifest, there would be little room for the development of virtues such as:

• trust,
• faithfulness,
• perseverance.

They suggest that ambiguity about God’s presence can foster these relational virtues, much as relationships between human persons often deepen through periods of distance or uncertainty.

Implications for Nonresistant Nonbelief

Applied to nonresistant nonbelief, proponents argue that:

• Some individuals who appear nonresistant might, in God’s eyes, still be in a developmental stage where fuller manifestation would undermine rather than enhance their freedom or growth.
• In some cases, a person’s future free response or relational maturity could be better served by a current degree of hiddenness.

Critics of the argument from hiddenness thus contend that perfect love and partial hiddenness can be compatible once the requirements of non‑coercion and relational freedom are taken into account. Detractors of these responses, in turn, question whether belief in God’s existence is truly the kind of factor that would negate freedom, or whether there are ways for God to be clearly known without being coercive.

10. Soul-Making, Autonomy, and Skeptical Theist Objections

Beyond free‑will and relationship‑based responses, philosophers have developed other influential strategies for reconciling divine love with hiddenness. Three prominent strands focus on soul‑making, respect for autonomy and mercy, and skeptical theism.

Soul-Making and Spiritual Development

Building on the soul-making tradition associated with John Hick, some theists argue that epistemic challenges, including divine hiddenness, can play a constructive role in moral and spiritual formation:

• Experiences of doubt, searching, and apparent absence of God may cultivate virtues like humility, perseverance, and honesty.
• For some individuals, a period of nonbelief or partial belief might be an important stage toward a deeper, more mature relationship with God.

Applied to nonresistant nonbelief, this approach holds that God may permissibly allow certain persons to remain nonbelievers for a time because doing so contributes to their overall spiritual good, possibly in ways not readily visible from a human perspective.

Autonomy, Mercy, and Non-Intrusiveness

Another line of response emphasizes divine respect for autonomy and sometimes mercy:

• Autonomy-based views suggest that God refrains from overwhelming or intrusive manifestations that might unduly shape individuals’ life projects or commitments, allowing them more space to develop their identities and values independently.
• Mercy-based accounts propose that explicit awareness of God might increase a person’s culpability for wrongdoing (since they would sin in full knowledge), or impose an unbearable psychological burden on those not ready for it. Hiddenness, in such cases, is portrayed as a form of divine mercy.

Philosophers like Eleonore Stump and Michael Rea explore versions of these themes, often within rich narrative or theological frameworks.

Skeptical Theist Objections

Skeptical theism offers a more general epistemic response, paralleling its role in discussions of the problem of evil:

• Skeptical theists argue that humans are not well‑positioned to assess whether God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing any particular instance of hiddenness.
• They challenge the inference from “we cannot see a good reason for God’s hiddenness in cases of nonresistant nonbelief” to “there is no such good reason,” labeling it a “noseeum inference”.

On this view, the hiddenness argument overestimates human access to the divine moral landscape and thus fails to justify its crucial step from unexplained hiddenness to evidence against a perfectly loving God.

Critics of these objections contend that they may undercut not only the hiddenness argument but also our ability to make many positive claims about God’s goodness and love, raising questions about the broader costs of skeptical theism and related strategies.

11. Religious Experience, Pluralism, and Data about Belief

Debates about divine hiddenness hinge not only on conceptual claims but also on empirical data about religious belief, nonbelief, and religious experience across cultures and history. Different interpretations of this data fuel both the argument and its critiques.

Religious Experience as Counterevidence to Hiddenness

Some theists point to the widespread testimony of religious experience—reports of divine presence, guidance, or transformation—as evidence that God is not as hidden as the argument suggests:

• Mystical experiences, answers to prayer, and perceived guidance are taken to indicate that many people do, in fact, enjoy some form of personal relationship with God.
• On this view, hiddenness is partial or selective, not global; God may be manifest in ways that are not easily captured by abstract arguments.

Critics reply that such experiences are often ambiguous, vary widely in content, and are found across many religious traditions, which complicates their interpretation as evidence for a specific theistic God.

Religious Pluralism and Unequal Distribution of Belief

The global distribution of religious belief is a central datum for extended hiddenness arguments:

• Large populations have historically had little or no exposure to monotheistic theism, or instead adhere to non-theistic or polytheistic religions.
• Even within monotheistic contexts, sincere, reflective individuals frequently adopt diverse and sometimes conflicting conceptions of the divine.

Some philosophers interpret this religious pluralism as evidence of a non-uniform, ambiguous pattern of divine self‑disclosure, claimed to be surprising if a perfectly loving God aims at relationship with all.

Theists respond in various ways: some propose that God works through many religions, so that explicit theistic belief is not the sole avenue to relationship; others invoke historical and cultural factors to explain the diversity as compatible with a broader divine plan.

Measuring Nonresistant Nonbelief

The empirical premise of the hiddenness argument depends on the existence and extent of nonresistant nonbelief:

• Proponents cite autobiographical reports of former believers, lifelong seekers, and individuals from non-theistic cultures who describe themselves as open to God yet unconvinced.
• Critics question whether such self‑reports reliably track nonresistance, suggesting that deep‑seated motivational factors or subtle forms of avoidance may be present.

Empirical psychology and sociology of religion are sometimes invoked to illuminate the motivational complexity behind religious belief and disbelief, though philosophical debate continues over how such findings bear on the classification of individuals as “nonresistant.”

These empirical and interpretive disputes play a crucial role in assessing the force of the hiddenness argument’s factual premises.

12. Assessing Validity, Soundness, and Evidential Force

Philosophical evaluation of the Divine Hiddenness Argument distinguishes between its logical validity, premise plausibility (soundness), and overall evidential impact on the rationality of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

Logical Validity

Most commentators agree that standard formulations of the argument are formally valid:

• When cast as a deductive argument (e.g., P1–P5 leading to C), the conclusion follows from the premises by standard inferential rules.
• Disputes about logic tend to concern modal nuances (e.g., whether “would ensure” should be read as strict necessity or as a strong probability) rather than the basic inferential pattern.

As a result, critical discussion focuses more on soundness than on validity.

Soundness: Evaluating the Premises

Assessing soundness requires examining both conceptual and empirical premises.

• Conceptual Premises (e.g., about perfect love and relationship conditions) are debated in terms of:
  • whether Schellenberg’s conception of perfect divine love is theologically or philosophically appropriate,
  • whether openness to relationship entails preventing all nonresistant nonbelief,
  • whether personal relationship requires conscious belief that God exists.
• Empirical Premise (the existence of nonresistant nonbelief) raises questions about:
  • how to identify and classify nonresistant nonbelievers,
  • the reliability of self‑reports,
  • cross‑cultural and historical evidence about belief and disbelief.

Different philosophers weigh these considerations differently, leading to divergent verdicts on the argument’s soundness.

Evidential Force and Rational Response

Even when soundness is contested, the hiddenness argument is often treated as offering probabilistic evidence against traditional theism:

• Some argue that hiddenness, when combined with other data (such as the problem of evil or religious diversity), significantly lowers the overall probability of theism, though perhaps not decisively.
• Others hold that plausible theistic explanations of hiddenness—via free‑will, soul‑making, autonomy, or unknown divine reasons—sufficiently reduce its evidential impact.

A further issue concerns the cumulative case:

• For some, hiddenness is an important independent line of evidence that, even if not decisive alone, adds weight when combined with other considerations.
• For others, hiddenness can be offset or outweighed by positive arguments for theism, such as cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments, or by personal religious experiences.

Because assessments depend on broader views about evidence, theology, and rational belief, the evidential force of the hiddenness argument remains a subject of ongoing, unresolved debate.

13. Implications for Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism

The Divine Hiddenness Argument has been used to support a range of positions regarding the rational status of belief in God. Its implications differ depending on how strongly one interprets the argument and how one integrates it into a wider evidential landscape.

Implications for Theism

For traditional perfect being theism, especially views that emphasize God’s desire for universal, explicit relationship, hiddenness poses a challenge:

• Some theists respond by modifying certain divine attributes (e.g., by refining what “perfect love” entails, or by emphasizing divine transcendence and mystery).
• Others aim to accommodate hiddenness within existing doctrines—through free‑will, soul‑making, autonomy, or eschatological considerations—while maintaining that belief in God remains rational or even well‑supported.

The argument thus motivates both defensive theistic strategies and more revisionary theological proposals.

Implications for Atheism

Atheistic philosophers sometimes take the hiddenness argument to bolster positive atheism:

• On a stronger reading, if the premises are judged sound, the argument is said to entail that a perfectly loving God does not exist, which for many traditions is equivalent to the non-existence of God.
• Even on more modest readings, hiddenness is regarded as evidence favoring atheism over theism, especially when combined with other arguments (e.g., from evil).

Some suggest that hiddenness helps address the concern that atheism is based only on the absence of evidence, by framing that very absence of relationship-enabling evidence as a kind of evidence in its own right.

Implications for Agnosticism

Hiddenness also plays a role in supporting various forms of agnosticism:

• Some philosophers interpret the debate as revealing deep underdetermination: given plausible theistic explanations of hiddenness and plausible hiddenness-based critiques, the overall evidential picture may leave theism and atheism roughly balanced.
• Others propose “skeptical agnosticism”, maintaining that human cognitive limitations regarding God’s reasons for hiddenness make confident judgments unwarranted.
• Schellenberg himself has developed a form of “ultimistic” agnosticism, suggesting that while traditional theism may be undermined, it remains rational to be open to some ultimate, perhaps unknown, reality.

Across these positions, the hiddenness argument functions less as a decisive proof and more as a central datum that any comprehensive view about God is expected to address.

14. Contemporary Debates and Ongoing Research

Since the 1990s, discussion of divine hiddenness has developed into a substantial subfield in the philosophy of religion, marked by ongoing debates over conceptual, empirical, and methodological issues.

Refining Core Concepts

Current work continues to refine key notions:

• Perfect love: whether it should be understood analogically, in more impersonal terms, or in ways not centered on explicit, conscious relationship.
• Nonresistant nonbelief: how to operationalize this category, including criteria for resistance, the role of subconscious motives, and the boundaries between culpable and non-culpable ignorance.
• Relationship: whether a person can stand in a non-doxastic or implicit relationship with God (e.g., through moral conscience, aesthetic experience) without explicit belief.

These refinements often lead to modified versions of the argument and reshaped theistic responses.

Interdisciplinary Engagement

Researchers increasingly draw on:

• Psychology and cognitive science of religion, examining natural explanations for belief and nonbelief, and their bearing on claims about resistance or openness.
• Sociology and anthropology, exploring how cultural factors influence religious exposure and interpretation.
• Comparative theology and religious studies, considering how hiddenness appears in non‑Christian theistic traditions and non‑theistic religions.

Such interdisciplinary work informs the empirical premises and helps situate the argument within a broader understanding of human religiosity.

New Theistic and Atheistic Proposals

On the theistic side, ongoing research includes:

• Narrative and liturgical approaches (e.g., Michael Rea), emphasizing that God’s self‑disclosure may be embedded in communal practices rather than primarily in individual cognition.
• Christological and Trinitarian frameworks, where hiddenness is related to themes of incarnation, kenosis, and the Spirit’s work in history.
• Eschatological models, stressing that present hiddenness may be temporary relative to an ultimate, post‑mortem disclosure.

On the atheistic or skeptical side, philosophers explore:

• Cumulative-case arguments that integrate hiddenness with evil, religious disagreement, and divine silence.
• Extensions to broader ultimates (following Schellenberg’s ultimism), applying hiddenness-style reasoning beyond classical theism.

Meta-Philosophical Questions

Finally, there is increasing attention to meta-philosophical issues:

• What counts as appropriate evidence for or against God?
• How should personal experience, testimony, and phenomenology factor into rigorous argumentation?
• To what extent should philosophers rely on common-sense moral intuitions about love and relationship when reasoning about God?

These questions indicate that research on divine hiddenness is not only refining one argument but also contributing to broader methodological discussions in philosophy of religion and epistemology.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

The Divine Hiddenness Argument has had a notable impact on contemporary philosophy of religion, reshaping discussions about God’s nature, the epistemology of religious belief, and the relationship between faith and evidence.

Position Within Philosophy of Religion

Since the publication of Schellenberg’s Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason in 1993, hiddenness has joined the problem of evil as one of the most frequently discussed challenges to theism in anglophone analytic philosophy. Anthologies such as Howard‑Snyder and Moser’s Divine Hiddenness: New Essays (2002) helped establish the topic as a recognized research area, with specialized conferences, journal symposia, and monographs.

Hiddenness has also influenced:

• Epistemology of religion, by foregrounding questions about the rationality of belief and nonbelief, the role of evidence, and the significance of divine silence.
• Moral psychology of religion, by inviting reflection on the motives behind belief, doubt, and unbelief, and on how these interact with responsibility and culpability.

Theological and Interreligious Impact

Within theology, the argument has prompted renewed examination of:

• the doctrine of divine love, including debates about whether love must be universally relationship-seeking in the way Schellenberg suggests,
• the nature of revelation and faith, especially the role of hiddenness in spiritual life,
• the interpretation of religious diversity, as traditions grapple with the evident fact of large-scale nonbelief and alternative forms of belief.

In interreligious contexts, hiddenness has served as a lens through which various traditions reconsider their understandings of divine presence, absence, and revelation.

Influence on Atheism and Agnosticism

For non-theistic philosophy, the hiddenness argument has provided:

• a structured, morally infused challenge to theism that complements more metaphysical or scientific arguments,
• a way to conceptualize the absence of convincing evidence not merely as a neutral background fact but as a phenomenon potentially requiring explanation.

This has contributed to more nuanced discussions of atheism, skepticism, and agnosticism, where personal experience of divine absence or silence is integrated into formal argumentation.

Ongoing Significance

The argument’s legacy lies not only in the positions it supports but also in the framework it introduces:

• It centers divine love and relationship as core lenses for evaluating claims about God.
• It sharpens the distinction between culpable and non‑culpable unbelief.
• It highlights the importance of global patterns of belief and nonbelief for the philosophy of religion.

As debates continue, the Divine Hiddenness Argument remains a focal point around which broader questions about God, evidence, and human yearning for meaning are organized, ensuring its continued historical and philosophical significance.