MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964024495 · doi:10.22054/wph.2023.70736.2121

Evaluating the Assent Principles of the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”, in Schellenberg's Thought

2023· article· en· W6964024495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)PresuppositionPerspective (graphical)NormativeTheismOntological argument

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction"Divine Hiddenness Argument" is one of the arguments against the existence of God, which has attracted the attention of some religious philosophers in the contemporary era. The introducers of this argument, by referring to some important attributes of the God of monotheistic religions, and the requirements and consequences of accepting these attributes in human life, especially His complete and absolute love for His creatures, try to convince that the real world is devoid of the existence of God, or at least make the possibility of His non-existence appear weaker than the possibility of His existence.John L. Schellenberg, the Canadian philosopher, has tried to present this matter in the form of various logical arguments in his works, and in his opinion, has tried to make it appear as complete proof against the existence of God. On the other hand, a range of theistic thinkers and philosophers have tried to criticize this argument and show its inadequacy in proving the non-existence of God. This argument is based on the concept and assent principles, whose discussion and analysis will be helpful in the correct understanding of the argument, and the continuation of its criticism.Although in the works that criticized Schellenberg's “Divine Hiddenness Argument”, useful information about the principles and presuppositions of Schellenberg's argument has been stated, and we have also taken advantage of this information, none of them have discussed this argument from the perspective of assent principles and they have not examined and corrected. In this paper, we are going to investigate Schellenberg's “Divine Hiddenness Argument”.Principles are the contents and materials on which the problems of science are based, and they can be divided into two parts: concepts and assents. Assent principles refer to propositions that come as an introduction to the arguments and analogies used in a science, and to prove the problems and rules of that science. These propositions are also of two categories: some of them are self-evident, and therefore, do not need proof; while some others are theoretical and need proof, and of course this is done in another science other than assent principles.The type of assent principles are confirmation and they are propositional and indicate the assent of existence, the truth and reality of propositions, and the issues and subjects of science; in other words, assent principles are issues and reasons that lead to the acceptance of the existence predicables of science problems. In this research, by examining Schellenberg's works, we have tried to extract the assent principles of his interpretations of the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”. Literature ReviewAccording to the search of valid and indexed scientific documents in scientific sites, so far eight scientific-research articles and two books have been written about the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”. In all of them, the authors have either taken steps in the direction of presenting the “Divine Hiddenness Argument”, or they have mentioned the presuppositions of Schellenberg's argument, but as we will indicate in our research, the assent principles of this argument have not been mentioned by those authors; it is why referring to these principles is considered as the originality of this research, although some researchers have indirectly referred to these principles in their works. MethodologyThis paper using a descriptive-analytical method, refers to the assent principles of Schellenberg's argument and analyzes them. In the analysis, data is collected from Western and Islamic sources, and rational and descriptive-analytical analysis is used (If necessary). ResultsBy examining Schellenberg's works, one can find four assent principles for his argument: 1. the involuntary nature of the belief formation process in humans; 2. God's finality, His incomparability, unsurpassable, and inaccessibility; 3. Ultimism theory; 4. Human free will. The explanation of these matters, along with considerations based on them, will be presented in this research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.542
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.028 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207