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

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

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

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

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

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.