#753 A New Atheist Cop-Out?
October 10, 2021Dr. Craig,
Over the years, I have found that when theists ask "What will it take to convince you that God exists" to atheists, they typically provide very unsatisfactory answers. They usually come up with some aggrandized, elaborate miracle that reflects the seriously flawed epistemology and lack of open-mindedness toward the question. But a certain response to this question has been gaining steam in the atheistic/internet infidel community and I would like to hear your thoughts on it. "I don't know what it would take to convince me that God exists. But if God does exist, then He would know what it takes to convince me of His existence (and He should also be capable of accomplishing this task). And the fact that He has failed to do so at this time means only one of two things: He truly does not exist, or He doesn't want me to know that He exists (or He simply doesn't care)."
I view this answer as a cheap, rhetorical cop-out that desperately avoids shouldering any burden of proof when discussing philosophy of religion, but that's just my opinion. I would love to hear what you have to say!
Very Respectfully,
Christian
United States
Dr. craig’s response
A
I agree with you, Christian, that the response you describe is a cop-out, indeed, the ultimate buck-passing. “I’m not to blame for my unbelief! It’s God’s fault!” No sincere seeker after God could blame God in this way, for it shuts one off to finding God. This excuse-making is just a fashionable, new version of the old question of the culpability of unbelief, which I have addressed elsewhere (QoW #191; #735). Contrary to the claims of the buck-passer, I think that a person is culpable for his unbelief.
The new version you describe is, however, interesting because of its self-defeating nature. Notice that the objector assumes that God has middle knowledge: "if God does exist, then He would know what it takes to convince me of His existence.” But then the objection is undone by such knowledge: for in that case God may have known that no matter what evidence He provided, the hardened heart of the excuse-maker would have resisted it and failed to come to love and serve God. Recall that God isn’t interested in merely convincing people to add another item (God) to their ontological inventory. Rather He wants each person to come into a love relationship of worshiping and knowing God. Even if He supplied coercive evidence of His existence, that is no guarantee that the excuse-maker would freely come to love and worship the being whose existence he has been forced to acknowledge. Hence, God is under no obligation to provide greater evidence that He has, since He knew that it wouldn’t do any good.
The conclusion of the objection “The fact that He has failed to do so at this time means only one of two things: He truly does not exist, or He doesn't want me to know that He exists (or He simply doesn't care)” is a non-sequitur. For another explanation is that God knew that providing more evidence wouldn’t do any good. Yet another explanation, however, is that God will provide such evidence to our buck-passing friend in the future once his heart has softened and is more open to God’s overtures. Either way the blame, for now, falls on the unbeliever himself, not on God.
- William Lane Craig