The Argument from Non-Belief

Rel. Stud. 29, 417-432.
?
Copyright
1993 Cambridge
THEODORE
THE ARGUMENT
Press
University
M. DRANGE
FROM NON-BELIEF
to prove God's non-existence.
Often
this takes the
have been made
Attempts
were
to exist,
ifGod
to the so-called Argument
from Evil:
form of an appeal
as there actually
as much
not permit
in the world
then he would
suffering
for
constitutes
evidence
is. Hence
the fact that there is so much
suffering
God's
a variation
I shall call
In this essay I propose
which
to exist,
Its basic idea is that if God were
from Non-belief.
as
as much
not permit
in
the
world
there
non-belief
actually
non-existence.
'The Argument
then he would
is. Hence
the fact
that
is so much
there
non-belief
constitutes
evidence
for
non-existence.
God's
to this line of reasoning.
not all gods will succumb
Gods who
Obviously
care little about humanity's
to it. The
will be immune
belief or non-belief
to
needs
be directed
argument
against gods who place great value
specifically
In this essay,
it will be directed
love and worship
from humans.
upon
the God of evangelical
Biblical
that form
Christianity,
specifically
against
on
of Christianity
which
is based
the Bible,
the New
strongly
especially
in Jesus
which
the
doctrine
of
salvation
faith
Testament,
by
emphasizes
In what follows,
Christ and which
seeks to help people obtain such salvation.
'
'
to refer specifically
to the God
I shall use the term God
of evangelical
Biblical
The Argument
from Non-belief,
is
then, very roughly,
Christianity.
the argument
that God,
thus construed,
does not exist, for if he were to exist,
as
not permit
then he would
there to be as many
in the world
non-believers
'
'
there actually are. Here
the term non-believers
does not refer just to atheists
but to anyone who
does not believe
in God,
agnostics,
specifically
non
in the given way,
and in his son, Jesus Christ.
conceived
the
Possibly
existence
of other gods, or God
conceived
of in other ways, might
also be
established
and I shall comment
by a similar line of reasoning,
briefly on that
and
matter
at
To
first,
the
formulate
end.
the Argument
these definitions
Set P =
from Non-belief
:
the following
three propositions
exists a being who rules the entire
ruler of the universe
has a son.
(a) There
(b) That
(c) The ruler of the universe
saviour of humanity.
Situation
18
more
S=
precisely,
I put forward,
:
the situation
sent his
universe.
(or her or its) son to be
of all, or almost
all, humans
since
the
the
time of
RES 29
M.
THEODORE
4l8
DRANGE
to believe
Jesus of Nazareth
coming
time of their physical
death.
the above
Using
were
If God
(A)
the argument
definitions,
to exist,
all three propositions
then he would
be formulated
may
possess
of set P by
the
as follows
all of the following
:
four
:
properties
(i) Being
(among others)
able to bring about
situation
S, all things considered.
it
i.e.
S,
among his desires.
having
that conflicts with his desire for situation
anything
situation
(2) Wanting
(3) Mot wanting
as strongly
never
entails that he would
(4) Mot being irrational, which
in accord with his own highest
from acting
purposes.
If a being which
has all four properties
listed above were
(B)
then
(C) But
situation
S would
S does
situation
to exist,
It is not the case
not obtain.
that all, or almost
have come to believe
death.
[from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who
(D) Therefore
all four properties
possesses
refrain
to obtain.
have
since the time of Jesus of Nazareth
all, humans
all three propositions
of set P by the time of their physical
(E) Hence
S
as it.
in premise
listed
(A).
[from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.
I.
SOME
COMMENTS
THE
ON
ARGUMENT
at the outset,
to believe
exception,
that situation
S does not call for every person, without
set P. It allows the possibility
that in some cases special
That
in itself helps make
such
circumstances
belief.
may prevent
qualification
true.
of
the
from
Non-belief
(A)
Argument
premise
Dividing
(A) into four premises, we should inquire of each of them whether
Note,
it receives
claim1
Biblical
that God
support. Premise
(Ai) is supported
by the Bible's repeated
are various ways by which God might
is all-powerful.
There
S. One way would
situation
be direct
of
about
brought
implantation
of
Biblical
belief
the given beliefs into people's minds.
(A possible
example
be
would
be the case of Adam
and Eve.) Another
way would
implantation
have
the performance
of spectacular
For example,
God could speak to
miracles.
a thunderous
or
use
to proclaim
in
the
voice
from
the
sky
skywriting
people
events
In addition,
back in the days of Jesus,
worldwide.
gospel message
Instead
of
could have occurred
differently.
only to his followers,
appearing
the resurrected
Pontius
Pilate
Christ
and
could
thereby have made
have enlightened
billions
1
Gen.
17. i, 35.11;
have
even Emperor
such a definite
Jer.
32.
of people
17, 27; Matt.
appeared
Tiberius
place
to millions
and
others
for himself
coming
19. 26; Mark
of people,
in Rome.
including
He could
in history
that it would
the truth of set P.
later about
10. 27; Luke
1. 37; Rev.
1. 8,
19.6.
THE
Finally, God might
behind-the-scenes
FROM
ARGUMENT
have
about
brought
For example,
as humans,
to preach
actions.
NON-BELIEF
419
situation
S through non-spectacular,
he could have sent out millions
of
to people
in all nations
in such a
to believe
set P. Another
useful action
angels, disguised
manner
as to get them
persuasive
would have been to protect
the Bible itself from defects. The writing,
copying,
and translating
of Scripture
could have been so carefully
guided
(say, by
no vagueness
or
that it would
contain
and no errors of
angels)
ambiguity
a large number
it could have contained
of clear and precise
any sort. Also,
that become
that information
fulfilled, with
prophecies
amazingly
widely
disseminated.
Then
infer
that everything
that had been done,
the way God
things, which
Premise
been much more
likely to
the propositions
of set P. If all
now obtain.
probably
Certainly
he has the power to accomplish
all such
it would
people
reading
in it is true, including
then Situation
S would
is depicted
in the Bible,
have
makes
true.
(Ai) of the argument
premise
were
to
if
that
God
exist
then
he
would
(A2)
that is to be understood
in a kind of minimal
way,
states
S, where
that situation
want
situation
only
meaning
is among God's
desires.
that might
be
So, it is a desire
some
a
overriden
creates
other
which
need
for
When
desire,
by
premise
(A3).
in this weak
sense, it is clear that it, too, is
premise
(A2) is understood
are at least five different
to show
supported
by the Bible. There
arguments
that. Let us label them Arguments
(i)-(s).
c
to believe
Argument (1). The Bible says that God has commanded
people
on the name of his son
that is usually
Jesus Christ'
(I John 3. 23). The way
at
it
calls
for
in
least
belief
truth
the
of
the
of set P.
interpreted,
propositions
It follows
to believe
that God must want people
those propositions,
which
true.
makes
(A2)
premise
S
is another Biblical
to the effect that
commandment
Argument (2). There
love
22.
God
12.
Mark
people
(Matt.
maximally
37?38;
30). But loving God
an
to
extent
not
that
could
be
(i.e.
maximally
possibly
increased)
requires
that one be aware o? all that God has done for
in turn, calls
which,
humanity,
for belief
in the propositions
those propositions,
of set P. Hence,
again, God must want people
to believe
which makes
premise
(A2) true.
A
on the Great
third
for
is
based
Com?
Argument (3).
argument
(A2)
to
which
God
his
to
directed
missionaries
mission,
according
(via
son)
preach
to all nations
the gospel
(Matt. 28. 19-20) and to every creature
(Mark 16.
set P is part of the
Since
he must have wanted
to
15-16).
gospel,
people
the propositions
believe
of set P. Furthermore,
to
the
Book
of
Acts,2
according
so far as to empower
God went
some of the missionaries
to perform miracles
which would help convince
listeners of the truth of their message.
So, getting
to believe
that message must have been a high priority
for him. This
people
is good evidence
that premise
(A2) is true.
Acts
3. 6-18,
5.
12-16,
9. 33-42,
13. 7-12,
14. i?11,
28. 3-6.
18-2
THEODORE
420
M.
DRANGE
'
to the Bible, God
wants
all men to be saved and
Argument (4). According
to come to a knowledge
2. 4, NIV).
of the truth'
The
'truth' here
(I Tim.
to includes
referred
the gospel
the
of set P.
and,
thereby,
propositions
verse
us
in
wants
it
that
the
is
effect
that
God
way,
Interpreting
telling
(among
other
support
for
S. And
situation
things)
is
here
direct.
very
(A2)
that makes
premise
(A2)
true. The
for (A2) is more
controversial.
of
One
(5). The final argument
to
wants
is the claim that, according
the Bible, God
all humans
are indeed verses,
to be saved. There
in Argument
like the one quoted
(4),
Argument
its premises
But in order
above, that either state it directly or else point in that direction.3
in God's
for a person to be saved he/she must believe
God must
son.4 Hence,
want people
to believe
in his son, which
entails believing
the propositions
of
set P.
It follows
are
There
in the Bible
other
indicate
is that
salvation
and
(A2) must
that
two main
some
is that
some verses
to be
saved.5 The
is not
the Bible
clear about
the requirements
for
perfectly
that
charitable
behaviour
be
suffi?
suggest
might
son would
case belief in God's
not be a necessary
condition,
some verses
room
In defence
true.
to this argument.
One
objections
all humans
that God does not want
cient,6 in which
after all. It appears,
leave
be
then, that
for doubt.
of Argument
the premises
of this last argument
(5), it could be
of the relevant verses
conflicting
interpretations
some of them favour Argument
pointed
out
among
Biblical
that
for
there
scholars,
(A2)
are
and
(5). Furthermore,
Christianity
evangelical
It
such
supports
being
regards God as a loving and merciful
interpretations.
sense of having
that as one
who wants
all to be saved, at least in the minimal
of his desires.
In addition,
the doctrine
that
accepts
evangelical
Christianity
son is an absolute
for salvation. Thus,
belief in God's
although
requirement
based on other interpretations
there are other forms of Biblical Christianity
fosters belief
verses, that form which
to
in
the
the
referred
Christianity,
Argument
being
of Argument
then
the premises
accept
(5). That
of the relevant
provide
belief.
Even
suffice
further
Biblical
if Argument
to establish
3
There
for premise
(5) were
premise
(A2) receives
(Ai), premise
it comes
When
different.
support
rejected,
(A2). It might
Biblical
good
to the argument's
verses
are no Biblical
next
that
of evangelical
would
from Non-belief,
allows Argument
(5) to
(A2) of the Argument
the other
be
said,
four
then,
from Non
would
arguments
that, like premise
support.
premise,
support
12. 32; Rom.
18. 12-14; John
5. 18, 11. 32; I Cor.
4
Mark
16. 15-16; John 3. 18, 36, 8. 21-5,
14.
2. 11-12.
12. 40; Rom.
16. 4; John
Prov.
9. 18; II Thess.
understand
and thereby get saved. See Matt.
everyone would
6
10. 25-37,
18. 18-22; John 5.
Matt.
25. 34-40, 46; Luke
Matt.
3. 9.
5
in the God
(A3),
it directly.
the
situation
If (A3)
is
is to
1. 20; I Tim.
2. 4, 6; II Peter
15. 22; Col.
6; Acts 4. 10-12; I John 5. 12.
so that not
Also, Jesus spoke in parables
4. 11-12; Luke 8. 10.
13. 10-15; Mark
2. 24-6.
2. 5-7,
10; James
28-9; Rom.
THE
FROM
ARGUMENT
NON-BELIEF
421
it would
need to be of an indirect
the Bible,
receive any support
nature. One possible
Let us call
for premise
argument
(A3) is the following.
in
in
order for
'.
the
'conflicts'
is
used
The
verb
it 'Argument
way
(A3),
(6)
to
him to
for
would
have
be
it
God to have two conflicting
wants,
impossible
is
But for God,
nothing
impossible.7
satisfy both of them simultaneously.
at all from
he
Therefore,
automatically
One defect
cannot
have
in this argument
wants
conflicting
cannot
have
seems
to be a contradiction.
that
it interprets
Most
wants,
which
makes
premise
(A3)
it paradoxically
claims both that God
is impossible, which
and that for God nothing
in Argument
But the more basic defect
(6) is
is that
in an unrestricted
is impossible'
way.
of religion
that omnipotence
recognize
is logically possible
and to what
is consistent
'for God,
nothing
and philosophers
theologians
to be restricted
needs
conflicting
true.
to what
two desires
God might
have
that
defining
properties.8
to
it
is
for
both
desires
be
conflict.
Since
satisfied,
logically impossible
logically
even a being who
in the appropriate
is omnipotent
be
(defined
way) would
to satisfy both of them. And
in premise
that is how
unable
'conflicts'
(A3)
with
God's
is to be
other
word
could be inserted just before
it. Thus,
'logically'
a
failure.
Argument
(6) is
to be labelled
for premise
Another
argument
(A3),
'Argument
(7)',
to
earlier
the
of
arguments,
force
Arguments
(i)-(3).
appeals
especially
to the Bible, God
back at Argument
Looking
(1), we note that, according
to believe
in his son, which
has commanded people
is quite forceful. Although
taken. The
that may not prove
S is not
it, it does suggest that God's desire for situation
to
overridden
other
desire.
As
for
the
Bible,
by any
Argument
(2), according
as the
that people
God's
love him maximally
commandment
is described
too suggests that
That
greatest of all the commandments
(Matt. 22. 38, NIV).
to be aware of what he has done for them and so to believe
God wants people
set P, and that this is not a matter
overridden
by other considerations.
as
was
out
to the Bible,
in
Finally,
already pointed
Argument
(3), according
God
not only
empowered
their listeners
sent out missionaries
some
to spread the gospel worldwide,
but also
to perform miracles
to help get
the ability
the message.
That suggests that situation S must have
of them with
to accept
as not to be overridden
such a high priority in God's mind
by anything
else. Argument
that premise
(7), then, is the argument
(A3), though not
in the Bible,
is nevertheless
directly
expressed
suggested by several Biblical
been
passages,
particularly
in Uve forceful
way
that premise
(A2)
is Scripturally
supported.
Argument
gestions'
7
8
See
For
inconclusive,
(7) is admittedly
at in certain Biblical
that are hinted
the references
example,
for note i, above.
i. 2 and Heb.
to Titus
according
6.
for
it only appeals
It concedes
verses.
18, it is impossible
for God
to 'sug?
the point
to lie.
M.
THEODORE
422
DRANGE
that premise
On the other
(A3) receives no explicit
support from Scripture.
not
even
this weakness
be
all
of
first
because
hand,
fatal,
may
any support,
of an indirect nature,
is better
than none, and secondly because
is
put
(A3)
forward not just as a claim but also as a challenge.
It says that if God were
to exist,
then he would
not have
logically
situation
conflicts
and
with
a certain
or
also
both
type of desire, one which
even overrides
his desire
for
equals
a
to even conceive
S. It is certainly
of possible
candidates
challenge
for such a specialized
what God might
desire, for it is hard to understand
as much
as their belief
want from humans
their love and
(on which depends
is absolutely
in the Bible to imply that God might
There
worship).
nothing
a
have
such
not to be such a
desire. To deny
its existence,
then, appears
a
as
It
claim.
bold
should
be
taken
terribly
challenge by anyone who wishes
to try to refute premise
from Non-belief
(A3) of the Argument
the
for
candidate
desire
called for. To
plausible
specialized
attack
the argument
itself. This
issue will
(A3) and thereby
further
on
in the essay.
(A4) denies
Premise
not
would
simply
whatever
perform
any other
goal.
do
so would
be
taken
actions
idea
is irrational.
The point here is that God
one of his goals for no reason. Rather,
he would
are called for by a goal that is not overridden
by
in this sense is implied
that God
is not irrational
verses that declare
It is implied by those Biblical
throughout
Scripture.
to have
infinite understanding
created
147. 5) and to have
(Psalm
universe
up
that God
abandon
The
a
to describe
his wisdom
him
the
It is also
and
through
understanding
(Prov. 3. 19).
that he does what he wants
and nothing
implied by verses that say of God
ever prevents
wants
to
from happening
those things that he
(Isa. 46.
happen
1. 11). The Bible is largely the story of a Supreme
is
9-11 ;Eph.
Being who
to
in
and
actions
them
rational
eminently
goals
having
performing
bring
about.
Premise
receives
excellent
Biblical
support.
(A4) therefore
now the other steps of the argument.
Premise
(B) should
not be controversial.
It is based on the idea that if there is no reason whatever
Let
for
us consider
situation
corollary
sometimes
S
to not
obtain
then
S must
an electron may
example,
even when
there is no reason
to be a
This
appears
It might
be objected
that
is no reason for them to fail.
obtain.
of the Principle
of Sufficient
Reason.
even
to
fail
when
there
things
happen
a
a quantum
leap to higher orbit
to not happen.
But in that case there
to not make
is a reason for the electron
the leap :no rational being exists who
as
one of his top priorities
wants
to
and who has
the electron
make
the leap
For
fail to make
for that
the power to bring it about. That may not be a very illuminating
explanation
some
for the electron's
failure to make
the quantum
leap, but it does provide
reason. In the case of situation S, however,
not even be that sort
there would
to exist a being who possesses all four properties
listed
of reason if there were
in premise
(A).
Whoever
doubts
In that
premise
it appears,
is
(B)
probably
case,
situation
S would
not understanding
have to obtain.
it properly.
THE
ARGUMENT
FROM
NON-BELIEF
423
fact about our world. Christianity
may be the
(C) is an empirical
most widespread
but it still claims a minority of the earth's people,
religion,
which
suffices to make
from which
(C) true. Premise
(C) is the proposition
Premise
the Argument
derives
its name.
from Non-belief
from Non-belief
Note
that the Argument
is also an argumentar
non-belief
in that it aims to prove
the non-existence
of God. Thus,
it is both
'from
non-belief
and
the circularity
specified. The
also
'for non-belief,
which
However,
implies circularity.
'
are
when
the two different
types of non-belief
is avoided
in
non-belief
argument
proceeds from the fact of widespread
one
a
as
to
of
its
in
which
non-belief
setP,
God,
expresses
premises,
proposition
as its conclusion.
in the argument.
It follows
from
(D) is the first conclusion
logically
and
modus
The
final
tollens.
conclusion,
premises
(B)
(C) by
step (E), also
follows logically,
from steps (A) and (D), though it is not a direct inference.
Step
Premise
that ifGod exists, then there would
exist
(A) entails the proposition
a being who has all four
And
that
properties
(i)-(4).
proposition,
together
with
entails
the final conclusion,
(D), logically
(E), by modus tollens.
Since
the conclusions
of the Argument
from Non-belief
follow
logically
from
its premises,
premises.
Dividing
to attack
the only way
(A) into four, there
it would
are
be at one or more
a total
of
six premises
of the
to be
considered: (Ai), (A2), (A3), (A4), (B), and (C). Of these, I hope to have
shown
above
as I see them
that only (A2) and (A3) leave
at least, are not controversial.
room for debate.
The
other
four,
of the two premises
about
strikes me as the one that is more
And
some debate,
(A2)
well
the Bible. Nevertheless,
there may
clearly true, being
supported within
to it. There may
still be some opposition
not
be people
convinced
by the
to
Biblical
who
wish
attack
the
wants
idea
that
God
situation
support
alleged
S. I shall begin my defence of the Argument
from Non-belief
by considering
an objection
to its premise
(A2).
which
there may
be
II.
There
THE
FUTURE-KINGDOM
DEFENCE
is a time
reference built into the Argument
from Non-belief
because
to the period from the time of Jesus of Nazareth
S refers explicitly
to the present.
Since
the present
the argument's
time
keeps
changing,
reference keeps changing.
time
the
to
is
it
refers
argument
Every
expressed,
a
new
of
time.
And
humans
longer span
slightly
keep getting born, thereby
we
the set of humans
referred to in situation
S. What
continually
enlarging
a
series of situations,
the
have,
then, is
temporal
Sl5 S2, S3, ..., Sn, where
to each time the argument
S' referred
'situation
is expressed
is a new one
situation
further
in the series. The advocate
of the Argument
from Non-belief
along
this point, but insists that it does not affect the truth of any of the
It may not be exactly
the same situation S from one moment
to the
premises.
concedes
THEODORE
424
M.
DRANGE
is quite minor,
and God
true.
remains
(A2)
next, but the difference
so premise
S anyway,
still wants
the new
situation
to be considered
here is that premise
after all,
objection
(A2) isfalse,
not
in any of the situation S's, whether
because God
is really
interested
past,
a
or
somewhat
like
but
future
situation
S.
It
is a
future,
rather,
present,
The
in which
situation
the propositions
of set P, but most
everyone will believe
in an afterlife rather
of the people will have come to believe
those propositions
as
in situation
than prior to their physical
S. Since it is this
death,
specified
that God wants,
other situation
and not situation S, the argument's
premise
is false.
(A2)
'The
us call
to the Argument
this objection
a
of God's
Defence'.
It is
defence
Let
Future-Kingdom
to the idea of a future
appeals
in which
God,
from Non-belief
existence
which
or his son,
as king
reigns
of set P (or knows them,
society
all three propositions
believes
everyone
as an advocate
who
would
died without
been
put
it). People
having
at the time of the
about the gospel will be resurrected
sufficiently
enlightened
and
in which
'to come to the knowledge
and given another
future kingdom
opportunity
of this, God does not want
situation
relates
of the truth'. Because
S, which
to
to
of
death.
And
the
belief prior
so, premise
(A2)
Argument
only
physical
from Non-belief
is false.
are several
to the Future-Kingdom
Defence.
First of all,
objections
a general
with
the
idea
of
resurrection
of the
there are conceptual
problems
come back to life in new bodies
in which
somehow
and can
dead
people
as the people
is a
nevertheless
be identified
they were prior to death. This
There
large topic
that many
it here. It should
in itself, and we need not pursue
are not convinced
is even
that such an afterlife
just be noted
conceptually
possible.
A second
has no basis in
is that the Future-Kingdom
Defence
objection
even
the
of salvation.
doctrine
conflict
with
it
and
may
regarding
Scripture
claims that some people will not attain salvation by what
The argument
they
in the next
in this life, but rather, by what
do or believe
they do and believe
son and
in God's
that they will come to believe
life. It is only in the afterlife
But the Bible does
for salvation.
that important
thereby meet
requirement
about such a possibility,
and, in fact, some verses seem to
say anything
it. The Bible says, 'Now is the day of salvation'
conflict with
(II Cor. 6. 2)
to die once, and after that comes judgement'
for men
and 'It is appointed
seems
to
This
require that the criteria for salvation be satisfied
(Heb. 9. 27).
not
in this life and
been
resurrected
leaves no room
into
for anyone
the next life.
coming
to satisfy
them after having
to the second one. If the Future
related
is clearly
objection
were
will eventually
then
Defence
correct,
everyone
just about
Kingdom
are
aware
and
resurrected
of
become
who
salvation.
attain
having
People
to by angels and given
for
the opportunity
who are at that time preached
to
are not likely to let such an opportunity
salvation
slip by. Yet, according
The
third
THE
FROM
ARGUMENT
NON-BELIEF
425
the Bible, Jesus himself
said that very few people will
is still another place where
Luke
here
13. 23-4). So,
conflict with Scripture.
be saved
(Matt. 7. 14;
seems to
the argument
to the Future-Kingdom
Defence
is
The fourth objection
it
the Great Commission.
should
be incompatible
with
Why
to
to
to have missionaries
the
forth
God
go
spread
gospel
if people will receive
ginning at the time of Jesus of Nazareth,
at such education
it seems
that
to
to
be important
all nations,
be?
another
chance
learn the truth of
Presumably
they would
for they
the gospel much more readily than under past or present conditions,
an
are
aware
in
which
in
itself
would
that
would presumably
be
afterlife,
they
make an enormous
should missionaries
difference. Why
struggle to convince
people
in the afterlife?
in this life when
of the gospel message
effortlessly
(say by angels)
has no good answer. Until
with
the Great
incompatible
plished
Defence
appears
The fifth
the same job could be accom?
life? The Future-Kingdom
answer
is given,
the argument
in the next
some
Commission.
one. There
is a great mystery
set up the
should God
to the fourth
is similar
objection
the Future-Kingdom
Defence.
Why
is a prior period when people are pretty much
in which God or his son
by a kingdom-period
can become
resur?
if people
of it all, especially
surrounding
in such a way
world
that there
left on
their own, followed
What
is the purpose
reigns?
rected from the one period to the other and have the more
important
portion
of
for
of their existence,
satisfaction
the
criteria
salvation,
including
during
even bother with the earlier period ?The argument
the second period ?Why
leaves
all
this unanswered,
and
is still
that
reason
another
to regard
it
unsatisfactory.
there is excellent
Biblical
support for premise
Finally,
(A2) of the Argu?
as shown above
ment
in Arguments
from Non-belief,
The Future
(i)-(5).
to
Defence
undermine
that support. For that
has done nothing
Kingdom
reason
ment
to be rejected,
it ought
alone,
also render it untenable.
but
the above
to the argu?
objections
to attack
It appears
that the only way
the Argument
is
from Non-belief
a
us
to
two
Let
its
consideration
of
turn, then,
through
objec?
premise
(A3).
tions to the argument
that accept its premise
(A2) but reject its premise
(A3).
III.
According
premise
THE
FREE-WILL
DEFENCE
to this objection,
which may be called
of
the
from Non-belief
(A3)
Argument
that God
something
the free formation
wants
even more
strongly
belief. God
'the Free-Will
is false
than
because
situation
Defence',
there
S and
that
to come
wants
is
is
to
of proper
theistic
people
in his son freely and not as the result of any sort of coercion. He knows
to
that people would
indeed believe
the propositions
of set P if he were
believe
directly
implant
that
belief
in
their minds
or
else
perform
spectacular
M. DRANGE
THEODORE
426
them. But for him to do that would
interfere with
their free
not
want
to
he
does
Since
desire
God's
that
will,
definitely
happen.
humans
retain their free will outweighs
his desire for situation
it
follows
S,
that premise
makes
the Argument
from Non-belief
(A3) is false, which
miracles
before
which
unsound.
There
assuming
clear that
are many
that God
to the Free-Will
Defence.
First and foremost,
objections
to avoid interfering with people's
wants
free will, it is not
that desire actually
S. Why
conflicts with his desire for situation
interfere with their free will? People want to
showing
things to people
the truth. It would
not
seem, then, that to show them things would
to it. Even direct
interfere with
their will, but would
conform
implantation
should
know
into a person's mind need not interfere with his/her
free will. If that
to want true beliefs and not care how the beliefs are obtained,
of belief
were
person
then for God
interfere
to directly
but would
with,
would
implant
rather
true beliefs
with,
into his/her mind would
the person's
free will.
not
An
comply
a large
be God making
direct deposit
into some?
unexpected
account.
the person quite pleased
not
It would make
and would
at all interfere with his/her
as
was
free will. Furthermore,
pre?
explained
are
in
Section
different
there
which
God
I,
many
ways by
viously
might
S. It is not necessary
situation
for him to use either direct
bring about
analogy
one's bank
or
miracles.
spectacular
means.
It would
be
implantation
tively ordinary
be interfered with
beliefs
affected
remains
not
intact.
cause
whenever
every
day
could
it through
rela?
accomplish
to claim that free will has to
is shown anything.
anyone
what
by
they read and hear,
even
Finally,
He
ludicrous
the
of
performance
spectacular
miracles
need
to know
the truth. They want to be
People
is really set up. To perform miracles
shown how the world
for them would
or
to
not interfere
conform
with
that
desire.
It
therefore
would
only
comply
such
want
have
their
People
and their free will
interference.
their free will. Hence,
the Free-Will
Defence
fails to attack premise
(A3)
to
of the Argument
from Non-belief
because
it fails
present a desire on God's
the Free
S. That failure makes
part that conflicts with his desire for situation
with
to premise
irrelevant
actually
(A3).
to the Free-Will Defence
is another objection
that also aims to show
are
extent
its irrelevance.
is a
Let us ask: how
beliefs formed and to what
Will
Defence
There
in that process? Philosophers
have argued, plausibly,
person's will involved
it
that people do not have direct control over their own beliefs.9 However,
is usually
belief
verify
those
conceded
that
the will
does
play
an indirect
in the process of
to try to
propositions
role
which
We make
choices
regarding
are to be pursued. And
or falsify, and how strenuously
such attempts
we
affect
what
beliefs
end
that
choices
up with. This view,
indirectly
formation.
9
H. H. Price,
'Belief and Will',
Proceedings of theAristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 28 (1954), pp.
Problems of the Self chap 9 (Cambridge University
Press, 1973) ;Louis Pojman,
1-26; Bernard Williams,
'Belief and Will',
'Will, Belief and Knowledge',
Dialogue
Religious Studies xiv (1978), 1-14; H. G. Classen,
xviii
(1979), 64-72.
THE
the will
called
ARGUMENT
FROM
NON-BELIEF
427
a direct, but an indirect role in belief formation,
plays, not
or not it is correct
Whether
'weak doxastic
voluntarism'.
may be
is a large
to propose
that
in itself, which
I shall not pursue here. But I do want
own
in willfully
one's
inherent
is a kind of irrationality
controlling '
Beliefs are like a road map
that is done only indirectly.
beliefs, even when
the
the more closely the map matches
of life', where
the pathways
through
actual roads, the better. To interject will into the process of belief formation,
topic
there
even
to that function
of belief, for it would
go counter
to
the belief
and thereby prevent
additional
experience
interject something
It would be like capriciously
from representing
reality exactly as experienced.
more
to its
a
seems
to relegate
the will
reasonable
It
road
map.
altering
indirectly,
would
and keep it as far away as possible
of actions,
proper role, the performance
own will when
from the process of belief formation.
People who interject their
to some extent
irrational
and 'losing touch with
beliefs are being
forming
were
to
I
I
this
If
would
issue,
argue that normal people
fully explore
reality'.
to show things to normal
and
if God were
that. Thus,
people,
not
cause
to
he
be
with
then
could
them
beliefs,
interfering
thereby
acquire
are not
their free will for the simple reason that the wills of normal people
most
in the
of
the
of
non-believers
in
formation.
But
billions
involved
belief
are normal
not irrational. Hence,
is a
the Free-Will
Defence
world
people,
to them. God
could certainly
show them things
great failure with
regard
do not
do
their free will.
interfering with
were
if
free will would
be interfered
irrational
Even
there
people whose
seem that such people would
be
them things, it would
with by God showing
are.
to
the
Free-Will
Defence
know
how
So,
benefitted by coming
things really
without
if there are any, for it has not made
for such people,
them things of which
clear why God should refrain from showing
they ought
seems to be just what
to be aware. Such
such
'interference
with free will'
does not even work
well
out'.
people need to get 'straightened
is a further objection
God's motivation.
The Free-Will
There
concerning
seems
to
wants
to
believe
the
claim
that
of
God
Defence
people
propositions
an
set P in
he want
But why would
irrational way, without
good evidence.
a rational being create people
in his
would
irrational?
it
is not
that
become
Furthermore,
they
hope
are supposed
to arrive at the propositions
of set P in
of
evidence.
Is picking
the right religion just a matter
that?Why
salvation
a kind
of cosmic
such an operation?
Sometimes
the claim
lottery? Why
would
God
own
image and then
clear just how people
of good
the absence
lucky guesswork?
want
to be involved
Is
in
to the Bible, God really does
that, according
want people
to believe
evidence. Usually
cited for this are the
things without
'
: because you
words of the resurrected
Thomas
Christ to no-longer-doubting
have seen me, you have believed
; blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have
believed'
ismade
(John
20.
29). Also,
Peter
praises
those who
believe
in
M.
THEODORE
428
DRANGE
here may not
Jesus without
seeing him (I Peter
1.8). But the message
to believe
God wants people
without
evidence
whatever.
any
things
are
than
that
there
other
forms
of
evidence
be, rather,
seeing, such
the
of
is
friends.
God
example,
testimony
Perhaps
simply indicating
of belief
approves
resurrected
Christ
be that
It may
as, for
that he
on
the testimony
of others. Note
the
that, earlier,
some
not
of
his
for
the
upbraided
disciples
trusting
to Thomas
may have
(Mark 16. 14). His words
disciples
based
had
of other
testimony
been just a continuation
ofthat
theme. Thus,
nor
irrational
belief on the part of humans,
if
indeed
he
does.
that,
it is not
clear
that God
is it clear why he
desires
should
want
even if it were
true that
Defence,
seems
to have
not
their
free
that
will,
showing people
things
to the Bible, he did
been a very important
consideration
for God. According
to
in order to cause observers
many
things, some of them quite spectacular,
to explain why
have certain beliefs.10 An advocate
of the argument
needs
As
another
to the Free-Will
objection
interferes
God
them
was willing
to do
in the present.
such
with
things
in the past
but
is no
longer willing
to do
with human
the claim that God has non-interference
free will as
Finally,
a very high
not
to
in
is
well
the Bible,
Scripture. According
priority
supported
of people.11
that
interfered
with
their
free will,
God killed millions
Surely
to die. Furthermore,
the Bible suggests
that they did not want
considering
that God knows the future and predestines
fates.12 That,
too, may
people's
to free
In addition,
there are many
obstacles
interfere with human
free will.
will in our present world
retardation,
grave diseases, prema?
(famine, mental
ture death,
to prevent
is not
them. This
etc.) and God does little or nothing
as
a
not
human
free
that
will
conclusive
God
does
have
high priority,
proof
for the Free-Will
but it does count against
it. It is at least another difficulty
seems not to work
these many objections,
the argument
Considering
a
us
turn
to
sort
well.
So
let
different
of
defence
the Argument
very
against
from Non-belief.
Defence.
THE
IV.
The
Free-Will
desire
Defence
for situation
not prove
to what might
does
UNKNOWN-PURPOSE
failed
S and also
DEFENCE
a purpose
God's
that both outweighs
failure
with
it.
And
that
conflicts
yet,
logically
sort does not exist. This
leads
of the requisite
to identify
that a purpose
be called
'the Unknown-Purpose
Defence'.
It simply
and
10
16. 12; I Ki.
18. 1-39; John 20.
Exod. 6. 6-7, 7. 5, 17, 8. 10, 22, 9. 14, 29, 10. 1-2, 14. 4, 17-18,
in note 2, above.
24-8. See also the references
11
12. 29, 14. 28; Num.
16. 31-5; Isa. 37. 36. There are also dozens of other
Gen. 7. 23, 19. 24-5; Exod.
verses that could be cited here.
12
1.
8. 28-30; Eph.
Prov.
16. 9, 20. 24; Isa. 46. 9-11 ;Jer. 10. 23; John 6. 64-5; Acts
15. 18; Rom.
11 ; II Thess.
2. 13; Rev.
if our hearts are ever hardened,
then it isGod who has
13. 8, 17. 8. Also,
4-5,
11. 20;
2. 30; Josh.
them. See Exod. 4. 21, 7. 3, 9. 12, 10. 1, 20, 27, 11. 10, 14. 8, 17; Deut.
hardened
Isa. 63.
17; John
12. 40; Rom.
9.
18.
THE
boldly
desire
states
NON-BELIEF
FROM
ARGUMENT
429
some purpose which
conflicts with his
logically
even
more
wants
than
he
fulfilled
S and which
strongly
that God
for situation
has
(A3) of the Argument
it, and that makes premise
the additional
asked what
from Non-belief
false. When
of the
be,
purpose might
overriding
as
not
that
has
it
declares,
yet
disappointingly,
Unknown-Purpose
to humanity.
unlike
the Free-Will
This argument,
been revealed
Defence,
than a bare
(A3), being, in effect, not much more
clearly does attack premise
the advocate
Defence
denial
of it. The
issue becomes
that of which
or the Unknown-Purpose
Non-belief
Both arguments
carry a burden
claims
from Non-belief
to establish
from
the Argument
argument,
one.
if
is the sound
Defence,
either,
of proof. The advocate
of the Argument
so he has a definite
God's non-existence,
of the Unknown
the advocate
hand,
a
on
certain purpose
the part of God,
claims the existence of
Purpose
to show that that purpose
does exist.
and so he, too, has a burden of proof:
of
the
of
for
It might
be claimed
because
that,
support
premise
(A3)
paucity
has fulfilled his burden
of the Argument
from Non-belief,
neither
advocate
'
creates a kind of Mexican
of proof, which
standoff'
between
them on this
score. However,
for
there is some Biblical
support
(A3), as presented
premise
I
in Argument
above.
the
is only indirect,
of
Section
support
(7)
Although
burden
there. On
of proof
Defence
the other
to that premise.
In contrast,
the only support for the
specifically
of
intimations
of unknown
Defence
consists
very general
Unknown-Purpose
on
at
the
of
God.
For
Isa.
God
says, 'as the
55. 9,
purposes
part
example,
so
are
are
heavens
than the earth,
than your ways,
my ways higher
higher
it does apply
to specifically
than your thoughts'.
This
is too general
thoughts
on
For
the
attack
this
reason, although
support
(A3).
argument's
premise
neither
side can be said to have proven
its case, they are not on a par here.
The Argument
from Non-belief
side has the stronger position.
to people
The question
be
raised
his
might
why God has not revealed
set
to
in
in
for
non-belief
It
his
P.
be
would
interest
reveal
purpose
permitting
and my
to people's
that, for doing so would
immediately
destroy one main obstacle
in
belief
him and his son, namely,
the Argument
itself. Thus,
from Non-belief
secret is clearly counter-productive.
for God to keep his purpose
Presumably,
to the Unknown-Purpose
God has some further purpose
Defence,
according
for all the secrecy, but that further purpose
is also kept secret. All that secrecy
is clearly
between
a barrier
them
between
that
God
and mankind.
It undercuts
is the main
the relationship
Some find
Christianity.
theme of evangelical
to
both
and Islam because
it depicts God as
Christianity
preferable
Judaism
less remote from humanity
and more
concerned
with
its problems.
But the
remote
counts against
Defence
makes God
again, which
Unknown-purpose
it from a religious perspective.
It is probably
for this reason that Christians
appeal
The
to the
'unknown-purpose'
Defence
Unknown-Purpose
some other
proof
of God's
idea only as a last resort.
cannot be conclusively
refuted.
non-existence,
obviously
it is possible
Barring
that he exists
THEODORE
430
DRANGE
the sort of unknown
and has
The
M.
that the argument
to him.
attributes
purpose
for
of
the
from
support
Non-belief,
(A3)
Argument
premise
is in the end inconclusive.
there are
Nevertheless,
mentioning,
Biblical
though worth
at least two additional
reasons for preferring
the Argument
from Non-belief
to the Unknown-Purpose
us with
Defence.
Each of the arguments
presents
a kind of worldview.
The worldview
from
by the Argument
presented
'
it
is
Non-belief
that
the
of
God
Biblical
(call
W-N')
evangelical
Christianity
does not exist, which
leaves open many
alternatives.
them are the
Among
four: (1) there is no god at all; (2) there are many
following
gods;
(3) there
one
to bring about situation
is
S ; and (4) there is
god but it lacks the power
one god but it does not want
situation
S. In contrast,
the worldview
pre?
supposed
by
the Unknown-Purpose
the God
of evangelical
Defence
Biblical
specifically,
close relationship
with humanity
and who
of
from
the
Non-belief,
(A4)
Argument
his motivations,
very mysterious
concerning
of that.
character
productive
(call
Christianity,
possesses
and
it
among
despite
'W-U')
who
is
wants
that,
a
properties
(Ai),
(A2),
others, does exist but is
counter?
the apparently
reason
toW-U
for preferring W-N
is that W-U
is a relatively
definite
to
exact
state
what
the
of
affairs
outlook,
is,
trying
specify
whereas W-N
different
alternatives,
any one of which
puts forward many
to us, the a priori
might be true. We could infer that, given the data available
W-N
than
of
An
is
that
W-U.
of
be the
greater
analogy would
probability
One
and
narrow
often
which
is in one of the
1-10, and a marble
boxes, numbered
example
is not in box 8, whereas
boxes. One hypothesis
simply states that the marble
states that it is in box 8. Without
another hypothesis
any further information
on the matter,
the first hypothesis
is more
likely true than the second In a
of the 'open'
because
of W-N
character
and the 'closed'
way,
more
to
it is
of W-U,
character
reasonable
accept the former than the latter.
It might be objected
that the marble
fails because we do not know
analogy
similar
the initial
God's
existence
probabilities
regarding
some boxes may be too small to hold
the case where
assume
that
the initial
for each
probability
and properties.
It is like
so we cannot
the marble,
even
of them is 1/10. However,
to
for each box is not 1/10, there is nothing
given that the initial probability
true
than
favour box 8. Thus,
the 'not box 8' hypothesis
is still more
likely
for we have no data to suggest otherwise.
The mere
the 'box 8' hypothesis,
structure
further
of the hypotheses
is more
data, W-N
entails
In a similar way,
than W-U,
just in virtue
that result.
probable
without
any
of its 'open'
character.
Another
point in favour
as does W-U.
unexplained,
leaves unexplained
situation
humanity.
not
ofW-N
W-U
is that it does not
conceives
he
has
of God
leave
matters
as being mysterious
and
from bringing
about
on this matter
secret from
refrained
only why
also why he keeps his motivation
As pointed
out, that seems counter-productive.
S but
important
Why
should God,
THE ARGUMENT
FROM NON-BELIEF
431
a start towards
the Great
it with
no
in
it?
W-N
contains
the
end
Commission,
forgo
:
not
not
obtain
it
is
S
does
situation
but easily explains why
such mysteries
would
that
emerge in the natural course of events, nor is there any
something
a worldview,
In choosing
wants
it
and
is able to bring it about.
who
being
reason
not
alone
for
and
that
seek
illumination,
mystery,
they should
people
who
wants
clearly
situation
decide
to back
S and made
off and
toW-U.
prefer W-N
Premise
as a
was put forward
from Non-belief
(A3) of the Argument
a
on
not
he
has
that
would
God's
find
purpose
part
challenge:
explain why
not
met
has
that
Defence
about situation S. The Unknown-Purpose
brought
and that the challenge
It only claims that there is such a purpose
challenge.
or even tell us when
the challenge
could be met, but it does not actually meet
as
remains
it is reasonable
As
the
that might
unmet,
challenge
long
happen.
as
to accept
God's
from Non-belief
the Argument
good grounds for denying
existence.
V.
It might
be possible
to God
it applicable
and (c) from
to modify
in general,
OTHER
GODS
the Argument
for example,
so as to make
from Non-belief
by dropping
propositions
be applied
the argument
to, say,
might
perhaps
or
even
or
of
Orthodox
the
God
Judaism,
Christianity
set P. Or
God
of liberal
God
of Islam.
for example,
the God of Orthodox
Consider,
Judaism.
were
sitions (b) and (c) of set P
replaced by the following
the new set 'P"):
Suppose
propositions
(b)
the
the
propo?
(call
has a 'chosen people',
the
namely
(by The ruler of the universe
Bible.
of the Hebrew
Israelites
he wants
them to follow,
(c)f He gave them a set of laws which
namely
And
suppose
Situation
Israelites
the Torah.
situation
S were
since
the following:
of the
of all, or almost all, descendants
the time of Moses
all
the
of set P'.
believing
propositions
corresponding
change would
term 'God' would
be understood
unchanged.
Would
by
S' : the situation
A
the God
to be replaced
of Orthodox
Judaism.
in the new premise
the
(C). And
to refer, not to any Christian
to
but
God,
rest of the argument
The
would
remain
be made
the new Argument
from Non-belief
be sound? There would
be
with
its premises
of the arguments
great problems
(A2) and (A3). None
formulated
I to support the original premises
above in Section
(A2) and (A3)
to Judaism.
would
be relevant
And
it is unclear whether
any analogous
for the new
from the Hebrew
support
(A2) and
(A3) could be gathered
432
THEODORE
M.
DRANGE
as much
as does
evangelization
the
from
Non
Christianity,
original Argument
so
as
a
seems
case
it
that
could be
tailor-made,
strong
unlikely
other
Scriptures.
No
evangelical
belief seems
Biblical
religion
emphasizes
for which
in the context of any other religion.
for the Argument
from Non-belief
seem
not
in the right
it
does
constructed
Nevertheless,
Perhaps,
impossible.
a
to
in God
the
from
Non-belief
threat
belief
may
pose
way,
Argument
made
in general
Exploration
or
to religions
other
than evangelical
for the future.
of this issue is a project
Department
of Philosophy,
West Virginia University,
WV 26506
Morgantown,
Biblical
Christianity.