Divine love and nonbelief › Freedom and the possibility of disclosure

A familiar response says that unmistakable divine presence would threaten freedom. Schellenberg answers that belief in someone's existence does not compel love for that person. Providing a condition of a free relationship need not remove the freedom to decline it. He also does not require theatrical revelation, or the same evidence for everyone. He discusses more personally appropriate forms of evidence. “What Divine Hiddenness Reveals,” section III.

The objection can be made stronger than the claim that awareness mechanically forces love. Awareness of a powerful creator could affect motives: a person might respond from fear or self-interest. The issue would then be whether a loving God could disclose enough to make relationship available while leaving room for a suitable response. Schellenberg's emphasis on divine resourcefulness puts pressure on a defense that assumes every effective disclosure must overwhelm the recipient.

Jeffrey Jordan offers a related but distinct challenge. He distinguishes belief from acceptance, a voluntary decision to use a proposition in deliberation and act on it. Perhaps God could value a freely undertaken process of acceptance and the cultivation of belief, rather than providing belief at the outset. That challenges the claim that love must ensure immediate belief, rather than simply asserting that every nonbeliever is resistant. Jordan, “The Sounds of Silence,” objections 1 and 3.

Schellenberg replies that acceptance alone does not provide the mutual recognition involved in the relationship he is discussing. He also asks why a loving God would make someone undertake a process that takes time before belief becomes available. The disagreement therefore returns to the kind of relationship love requires and when it must be possible. Calling one attitude faith does not, by itself, settle whether it meets that requirement. “The Sounds of Silence Stilled,” sections 2–3.