Chapter 3--The Hidden God and the Problem of Non-Intervention

Few attributes of God have shaped religious and philosophical thought as profoundly as His hiddenness. For thousands of years, people have asked why a being regarded as the Creator of the universe remains so elusive to His own creation. The answers range from the claim that God refuses to compel belief through unmistakable miracles to the conviction that His purposes are, by their very nature, beyond human understanding.
Yet it is precisely this hiddenness that raises new questions.
A Creator who brought the entire universe into existence would not need to perform spectacular miracles continuously in order to make His existence known. Even occasional, unmistakable acts of intervention would be sufficient to eliminate any reasonable doubt. The unambiguous prevention of a genocide, a timely warning before a natural disaster, or the sudden avoidance of a tragedy that appeared inevitable—events of this kind would fundamentally transform humanity's understanding of reality.
Yet this is precisely what never seems to happen.
Instead, we encounter a universe whose processes follow the known laws of nature with remarkable consistency. Stars are born and die, continents drift, living organisms evolve, diseases spread, and human beings act wisely or foolishly. Everything appears to unfold within a self-contained system of cause and effect.
Even believers differ surprisingly little from non-believers in their daily lives. Both rely on medicine rather than miraculous healing, on engineering rather than divine intervention, and on weather forecasts rather than heavenly signs. Modern civilization functions because it can depend upon the reliability of nature.
Of course, the existence of natural laws does not exclude the possibility of a Creator. On the contrary, their remarkable stability could itself be seen as evidence of an underlying order.
The real question, therefore, is not whether God could have established the laws of nature.
It is this:
Why does He then appear to withdraw almost entirely from their unfolding?
Theologians often answer by appealing to human free will. God does not intervene, they argue, because genuine freedom can exist only if human beings are allowed to bear the consequences of their own choices.
This argument undoubtedly carries considerable weight.
Yet it explains only part of reality.
Natural disasters possess no free will. Viruses make no moral decisions. Genetic defects, cancer, and earthquakes arise regardless of whether their victims are virtuous or criminal. A significant portion of suffering originates from the fundamental conditions of a world that evidently operates according to universal natural laws.
It is here that the explanation based on free will reaches its limits.
There is another consideration as well.
The more powerful a being is believed to be, the greater its responsibility would seem to become. We expect parents to protect their children from avoidable dangers. We expect governments to safeguard their citizens. We expect physicians to help whenever they are able.
Why, then, should we apply lower moral standards to an omnipotent being than we do to fallible human beings?
It is sometimes argued that God pursues purposes beyond the reach of human understanding. Perhaps every instance of suffering serves a higher plan whose meaning escapes our limited perspective.
This possibility can neither be proven nor disproven.
Yet it carries a decisive weakness.
An explanation that is compatible with every conceivable observation ultimately explains nothing. If intervention and non-intervention alike, fortune and misfortune alike, order and chaos alike are all interpreted as expressions of a hidden divine plan, then the very concept of explanation loses its meaning.
This leads to an epistemological problem.
How can we distinguish between a hidden God and a God who does not intervene at all?
The more completely divine action disappears behind the laws of nature, the more difficult this distinction becomes. A universe that develops entirely according to its own internal laws appears, from a human perspective, scarcely different from a universe in which its Creator never visibly intervenes.
Perhaps this is one of the deepest contradictions within the classical concept of God.
The more consistently God remains hidden, the more His activity resembles non-activity.
And the more alike these two possibilities become, the harder it is to justify why the assumption of a constantly intervening, caring God should be regarded as the most plausible interpretation of reality.
God's hiddenness does not prove that He does not exist.
It does, however, change the way we think about Him.
Perhaps the fundamental mistake is not the assumption that a Creator exists.
Perhaps it lies instead in attributing to that Creator qualities that are difficult to reconcile with the observable universe.
It is precisely at this point that another possibility begins to emerge.
Not that of a cosmic ruler who constantly intervenes in the affairs of the universe, but of a God whose relationship to creation may be fundamentally different from what classical theology has assumed for centuries.


 

Diesen Beitrag empfehlen:

Mit eigenem Mail-Programm empfehlen

• Autorensteckbrief (Infos & weitere Beiträge)
• Mail an Harry Schloßmacher senden
• 10 Leserinnen/Leser folgen Harry Schloßmacher

  Harry Schloßmacher als Lieblingsautor markieren

---

Deine Meinung:

Kommentar

Benotung (Note 1: sehr gut, Note 6: schlecht)

ohne Bewertung Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 Note 5 Note 6

E-Mail-Adresse (oder Kennung für Leserkommentare)

Weitere Infos/Registrieren

Passwort

Passwort vergessen?

Absenden

Deine Meinung ist uns und den Autoren wichtig!
Diese sollte jedoch sachlich sein und nicht die Autoren persönlich beleidigen. Wir behalten uns das Recht vor diese Einträge zu löschen!

Dein Kommentar erscheint öffentlich auf der Homepage - Für private Kommentare sende eine Mail an den Autoren!