What is J.L. Schellenberg's argument from divine hiddenness, and how does it differ from the classical problem of evil?

J.L. Schellenberg is among the most prominent contemporary philosophers of religion, and his "Divine Hiddenness" argument, developed since 1993, is considered one of the strongest contemporary challenges to belief in a personal, loving God. This argument differs fundamentally from the problem of evil, although both challenge traditional faith.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some believers:

"God hides Himself to test us so we prove our faith." This misses the core of Schellenberg's argument. The argument doesn't concern believers being tested, but people ready to believe who don't find sufficient evidence. If God were perfectly loving, He wouldn't hide Himself from those who sincerely seek Him.

"Evidence exists for those who search with sincerity." This ignores the existence of sincere seekers (nonresistant nonbelievers) who have studied religions deeply without being convinced. Assuming that every non-believer is "resistant" or "insincere" is a claim requiring proof, not mere assertion.

"Faith requires freedom, and clear appearance would eliminate freedom." A weak response. Knowing God exists doesn't eliminate freedom of relationship with Him, just as knowing a loving person exists doesn't eliminate our freedom to accept or reject their love.

From some critics:

"Schellenberg has definitively proven God's non-existence." An exaggeration. Schellenberg himself presents his argument as a strong challenge requiring response, not as decisive proof. Contemporary philosophy recognizes that arguments about divinity are rarely definitively conclusive.

"Hiddenness is just a new formulation of the problem of evil." A conceptual error. Despite superficial similarity, the two arguments differ in structure and assumptions. Understanding this difference is necessary for accurately evaluating each argument.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They fail to understand the logical precision of Schellenberg's argument and its specificity. The argument is built on precise conceptual analysis of perfect love, not merely casual observation about the absence of evidence.

Structure of the Divine Hiddenness Argument

Schellenberg constructs his argument in "Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason" (1993) and "The Hiddenness Argument" (2015) as follows:

First Premise: Perfect love entails openness to relationship.
A perfectly loving God would always be open to personal relationship with any human capable of it. This isn't merely "kindness," but a conceptual necessity of perfect love.

Second Premise: Relationship requires belief in existence.
You cannot have a personal relationship with a being whose existence you don't believe in. This is clear: I cannot love or trust someone whose existence I doubt.

Third Premise: The existence of "nonresistant nonbelievers."
There exist people who are (1) capable of relationship with God, (2) do not resist this relationship, (3) but do not believe in God's existence. These aren't "stubborn atheists," but sincere seekers who haven't found convincing evidence.

Conclusion: No perfectly loving God exists.
If a perfectly loving God existed, there would be no nonresistant nonbelievers. Since these exist, no perfectly loving God exists.

Logical Strength of the Argument

The argument is logically sound. If the three premises are accepted, the conclusion follows necessarily. The challenge for believers: which premise do they reject and why?

Schellenberg strengthens his argument with important observations:

- The argument doesn't assume God must "prove" His existence overwhelmingly
- Evidence sufficient to make belief reasonable for sincere seekers would suffice
- The argument concerns the possibility of relationship, not imposing it

Fundamental Difference from the Problem of Evil

Classical problem of evil:
- Challenges the attributes of omnipotence and benevolence
- Asks: Why would an omnipotent, benevolent God permit evil?
- Focuses on pain and suffering in the world
- Can be addressed through free will or soul-making theodicies

Hiddenness argument:
- Specifically challenges the attribute of perfect love
- Asks: Why would a loving God hide from those who seek Him?
- Focuses on the absence of sufficient evidence for belief
- Traditional responses (free will, soul-making) are weaker here

Difference in Logical Structure

The problem of evil is usually formulated as a probabilistic argument: evil's existence makes God's existence less probable. Schellenberg's argument is formulated as a logical argument: hiddenness logically contradicts perfect love.

Contemporary Responses to Schellenberg

"Value of Seeking" Response (Moser, Evans):
Perhaps partial hiddenness serves a purpose: it drives humans to serious seeking, which deepens the ultimate relationship. Faith resulting from deeper seeking is more valuable than faith from clear appearance.

Schellenberg's critique: This doesn't justify complete hiddenness from sincere seekers. God could provide sufficient evidence for belief while leaving room for growth.

"Lack of Readiness" Response (Howard-Snyder, Rea):
Perhaps some non-believers aren't psychologically or spiritually ready for relationship with God, even if they're not consciously "resistant."

Schellenberg's critique: An omnipotent God could prepare people for relationship. Perfect love includes helping with readiness.

"Broader Conception of Relationship" Response (Cuneo, Stump):
Perhaps relationship with God is possible in ways that don't require explicit belief (mystical experiences, implicit faith).

Schellenberg's critique: This expands the concept of "relationship" suspiciously. Genuine personal relationships require awareness of the other party.

Recent Developments

Schellenberg developed his argument in "Progressive Atheism" (2019), adding:

- Deeper analysis of the concept of "nonresistance"
- Responses to accumulated criticism
- Connecting the argument to a broader project about religion's future

Contemporary Islamic responses (Abdurrazzaq, 2015; Azadegan, 2014) attempt to:
- Distinguish between temporary and permanent hiddenness
- Connect hiddenness to divine wisdom in the system of trial
- Offer alternative understanding of divine love

Critical Assessment

Schellenberg's argument is strong and rigorous, deserving serious consideration. Its strengths:

- Conceptual clarity and logical precision
- Focus on love (a central attribute in Abrahamic religions)
- Grounding in realistic observation (existence of sincere non-believing seekers)

However, there are critical considerations:

- Schellenberg's concept of "perfect love" may be narrow
- The assumption that relationship always requires explicit belief is debatable
- Difficulty in verifying genuine "nonresistance"

Where We Stand in This Discussion Today

The hiddenness argument has become central in contemporary philosophy of religion. Academic consensus:

- The argument represents a serious challenge requiring sophisticated response
- Simple traditional responses are inadequate
- The discussion remains open, with ongoing developments from both sides

For the contemporary believer, engaging with Schellenberg requires:
- Deeper understanding of divine love's nature
- Explanation for the diversity of religious experiences
- Respect for the sincerity of non-believing seekers

For Advanced Reading

- Advanced level: Contemporary Islamic responses to Schellenberg and the possibility of developing an Islamic "theology of hiddenness"
- J.L. Schellenberg, The Hiddenness Argument (Oxford UP, 2015)
- J.L. Schellenberg, Progressive Atheism (Bloomsbury, 2019)
- Howard-Snyder & Moser (eds.), Divine Hiddenness: New Essays (Cambridge UP, 2002)
- Imran Aijaz, "The Hiddenness Argument and Muslim Philosophers" (IJPR, 2018)
- "Contemporary Challenges: Divine Hiddenness" page on the website