Real Atheology

This video is a response to a recent video by Christopher Cloos at Christian Philosophy Academy. Chris' Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja9dldyWQwE&t=1445s In his video, Cloos presents an objection to Schellenberg's divine hiddenness argument from a recent essay by Daniel Howard-Snyder which argues that, possibly, God may hide from people to attain a 'better start' to a relationship with them even while being perfectly loving. I first trace the dialectic between Daniel Howard-Snyder and J.L. Schellenberg before examining Howard-Snyder's most recent attempt to undermine Schellenberg's argument. I conclude that Howard-Snyder's most recent reply fails to undermine Schellenberg's argument. ⁠Web - https://www.realatheology.com⁠ Twitter - ⁠https://twitter.com/RealAtheology⁠

In this video, Justin Schieber joins Dr. Gavin Ortlund for a friendly conversation on Schellenberg's argument from Divine Hiddenness.

A few weeks ago, Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites released a video exploring the argument from divine hiddenness and giving several objections to it. While I appreciated Gavin's wrestling with the argument, I did not think his objections are successful. This video seeks to respond to those objections by clarifying aspects of Schellenberg's reasoning. Gavin Ortlund's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d-6UhOS0FE&t=2262s

Welcome back to the Hiddenness Series. In the last episode, we looked at Schellenberg's concept of a nonresistant nonbeliever which plays a central role in his argument from Divine Hiddenness. To refresh, somebody is a nonresistant nonbeliever if they (1) fail to believe that God exists and (2) that failure is not the result of their resistance to God. We also looked at the concept of resistance at play here and we saw that it included a desire component in conjunction with actions or omissions driven by that desire. Certain desire/action/omission combinations, if expressed by a person could conceivably cause that person to fail to believe that God exists even though they did believe to begin with. Some form of Self-deception would have to be at play here. Schellenberg calls such persons resistant nonbelievers and, according to the Hiddenness argument, if a perfectly loving God exists, resisters are the only type of nonbeliever that could exist. However, Schellenberg claims resistant nonbelievers are not the only type of nonbelievers that exist. According to him, some nonbelievers are nonresistant. His argument requires this. But is he correct? Lets take a look.

According to Schellenberg’s argument from Divine Hiddenness, a nonresistant nonbeliever is, simply put, somebody who fails to believe in God in such a way that the failure is not itself the result of resistant self-deception. A key premise of the divine hiddenness argument just is the claim that such persons exist and/or have existed in the past. For most people, this premise will appear obvious and this appearance likely the result of their connections and communications with other people. People they know and understand. People they trust and respect. On the other hand, some people claim to be skeptical about this premise. Can we really know that these nonbelievers aren’t resisting? To answer these questions, we’ve got to take a closer look at Schellenberg’s concept of the nonresistant nonbeliever.

In this episode Justin Schieber continues the hiddenness series by presenting J.L. Schellenberg’s Argument from divine hiddenness. Since the 1993 publication of his Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason Schellenberg’s argument has received widespread attention and still generates deep engagement. This is because many atheists find it to be quite powerful and persuasive. Many theists find it challenging and worth responding to. This episode is intended as a presentation of Schellenberg’s argument, not a full-throated defense. https://www.realatheology.com Twitter - https://twitter.com/RealAtheology Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q...

Broadly speaking, Arguments from Hiddenness are philosophical arguments with atheistic conclusions arising from the fact that either the felt presence of, the nature of, or the very existence of God is somewhat less clear than we might expect if God existed. As with the problem of evil, there is no single argument from hiddenness. Rather, there is a whole family of arguments united by these ideas. We begin our new hiddenness series with a broad introduction to that family.

This is our second discussion with philosopher doctor Kenny Pearce. In this episode we pick up the conversation by discussing Pearce's thoughts on the practice of apologetics in contrast to philosophy. This led to a consideration of what arguments for or against God may need to be retired or deemphasized. In particular, Pearce explains why the moral argument isn't the most promising argument in the theist's bag. We end by discussing strategies for making dialogues in the philosophy of religion more productive, especially between theists and atheists.

In this episode Ben Watkins continues his series on Hume with a look at section IX of Hume's Dialogue's Concerning Natural Religion. Section IX finds Hume's Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes presenting and subjecting to analysis a cosmological argument for the existence of God. Ben and Dr. Joe Campbell discuss the argument as presented and the various criticisms that Hume brings to bear through his three characters. Dr. Joe Campbell's paper on Section IX of the Dialogues. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40026984

In this episode, Justin Schieber sits down with Jeffrey Jay Lowder for a wide-ranging interview. Fans of the show will no doubt be familiar with Jeff's work. From founding Infidels.org and the Secular Outpost to his contributions to The Empty Tomb and his several public debates, Jeff has earned his reputation as a fair-minded and philosophically informed atheist. We discuss the origin of infidels.org, Paul Draper's famous argument from Pain and Pleasure and everything in between. See Jeff's debate with Phil Hernandez See Jeff's debate with Kevin Vandergriff See Jeff's debate with Frank Turek Jeff's youtube channel

In this episode, Ben Watkins sits down with Matthew Adelstein to discuss utilitarianism and theism. Utilitarianism, in its classical forms, claims that what we morally ought to do is act in ways that would maximize happiness and minimize suffering. This simple moral calculus is open to several important objections, but if true, has important consequences for theism as traditionally conceived. If God morally should create a world that maximizes happiness and minimize suffering, as would be the case if hedonistic act utilitarianism were true, then we are clearly not talking about the actual world. There could be much more happiness and much less suffering, therefore, there is no God as traditionally conceived in the actual world. Matthew's blog: https://benthams.substack.com/

This debate was between Christian apologist Eric Hernandez and atheist podcaster Justin Schieber. The event was organized by Capturing Christianity and held on May 6, 2023 at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston, TX. Visit capturingchristianity.com for this and similar events.

As a follow up to the last episode which gave a general overview of Hume's famous essay, Ben Watkins interviews philosopher Dr. Bill Vanderburgh on his 2019 book David Hume on Miracles, Evidence, and Probability. The conversation explores some of the reasons the text is often misinterpreted. The importance of placing Hume in his historical context is emphasized in response to common objections. Get Dr. Vandenburgh's excellent book here: https://www.amazon.com/David-Hume-Miracles-Evidence-Probability-ebook/dp/B07PV79RRL/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UDWN1IY3TMUE&keywords=vanderburgh+hume+miracles&qid=1682108975&sprefix=vanderburgh+hume+miracle%2Caps%2C341&sr=8-1

In this episode, Real Atheology co-host Ben Watkins takes us on a tour through parts one and two of Hume's controversial essay 'Of Miracles'. Ben begins by providing context that serves to undercut some popular but ultimately uncharitable readings of Hume's central thesis. With the infamous argument clarified, other common objections are also explored.

Perhaps the most common response to the problem of evil is an appeal to the goodness of free will. Free will, it is argued, is so good that it justifies God's policy of non-intervention in cases where evil is the result of the free actions of moral agents. in his 2019 article published in The Heythrop Journal titled The Moral Problem with the Free Will Defense Against the Problem of Evil, Dr. Andrew Pavelich argues that there exists a deep disconnect between the theist's appraisal of free will's value and the role it plays in our everyday moral judgements. In Justin's interview with Dr. Pavelich, they discuss the ideas in that paper.

In the second part of Ryan's interview with Dr. Kenny Pearce, they discuss some of the issues surrounding the debate between Protestantism and Catholicism. In the second half the discussion turns to the issue of apologetics and whether there exists a clean distinction between it and philosophy of religion.

In this first part of Ryan Downie’s interview with Dr. Kenny Pearce, strategies for productive dialogue with those who hold opposing views are discussed. The conversation then turns to discussing the value of historical approaches to philosophy. Finally, they discuss Leibniz contributions to philosophy of religion and the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to cosmological arguments.

In this, the second half of Justin's interview with Dr. Dustin Crummett, they discuss an early paper of his in which he expands on an objection to the argument from divine hiddenness. The objection, known as the responsibility objection, claims that one reason God might have to keep belief from non-resistant persons is the good of the responsibility on the part of some in helping others learn truths of and about God. We also touch on his recent work on the argument from psychophysical harmony.

In this episode, Justin Schieber interviews philosopher Dr. Dustin Crummett (dustincrummett.com, https://www.youtube.com/@dustin.crummett, @Dustin_Crummett). Dr. Crummett received his PhD from the University of Notre Dame in 2018, and specializes in social and political philosophy, ethics, and philosophy of religion. In this first of two episodes, we discuss Dr. Crummett's fascinating work relating to the problem of evil.

In this episode, returning host Justin Schieber interviews Dr. Michael Hemmingsen on his 2020 paper titled Soul-Making and Social Progress which was published in the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. John Hick's Soul-Making theodicy, according to which suffering exists to provide opportunities to develop our moral virtue, is a popular response to the problem of evil. In his paper, Dr. Hemmingsen argues that advocates of John Hick's Soul-Making theodicy are thereby committed to opposing social progress.