Customer Reviews

The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Moser provides a convincing counterargument to Russell's claim that if God exists, he has given us insufficient evidence. He argues that we are not in a position to demand what kind of evidence God gives us. Furthermore, we should expect the kind of evidence revealed to be in keeping with the character of God.

A loving God would make his evidence available--but rejectable, in keeping with human freedom. His evidence is like a face hiding in the bushes, visible to those who are truly seeking, but "can be readily overlooked, ignored, suppressed, or dismissed by us, because it's intended by God not to coerce a will toward or against God but to be willingly received by humans. In particular, it's designed to woo or to invite us rather than to force or dominate us."

He asserts that God is not obligated to create a spectacle for simply curious or even hostile hearts, describing good reasons for him to hide himself in such cases. For instance, simple belief that God exists will not itself engender a relationship. (Everyone believed in the existence of Pres. Bush during his term but not all were happy about his authority.)

Moser claims that this certainty of God's existence rests on the conviction of the Spirit of the trinitarian God, speaking through the conscience. (At first thought, one might prefer Hanson's Zeus-like figure in the sky, but how convincing is that anyway? Could the blind see it? Could children understand the significance? Would we not wonder if it weren't simply communication from highly intelligent extra-terrestrial beings? What speaks beyond the senses, then, other than the conscience?) Unfortunately, many skeptics will likely misconstrue this as fideism.

I do have one bone to pick with Moser. He utterly eschews natural theology. While I recognize that his emphasis lies in our rethinking how we observe God's existence, he practically dismisses the tangible means through which the Spirit might speak to the conscience. Consider Thomas, whose heart was open, who believed when he touched the wounds of Jesus of Nazareth.

Thinkers and academics today give us access to these wounds, so to speak. N.T. Wright, Craig Blomberg, Alister McGrath, William Lane Craig, etc. offer empirical data that shows the plausibility of Christianity, its historical and even scientific legitimacy. Their work HAS convinced those with willing spirits and has bolstered the faith of believers.

Where in the world is Waldo!? This is probably the question we ask ourselves when we are looking at a Where's Waldo? book created by Martin Handford, a children's writer and illustrator. John Ortberg says in his book God is Closer Than You Think "This guy Waldo is supposed to be on every page. The author assures us that it is so. But you couldn't prove it by me. He is often hidden to the untrained eye. You have to be willing to look for him. "Surely Waldo was in this place, and I knew it not." When you find him, there is a sense of joy and accomplishment. In fact, developing the capacity to track him down is part of the point of the book. If it were too easy-if every page consisted just of a giant picture of Waldo's face-no one would ever buy the book. The difficulty of the task is what increases the power of discernment. The author said he hides Waldo so children can learn to "be aware of what's going on around them. I'd like them to see wonder in places it might not have occurred to them." But sometimes it takes a while to find Waldo. It demands patience. Some people are better at it than others. Some people just give up. Part of what makes it hard to find Waldo is that he is so ordinary-looking. In the initial pages his presence is obvious. Later on, he's hidden but the other occupants of the page are giants and sea monsters, so Waldo still stands out. Then eventually we come to the last and hardest page. By the end he's in a room full of Waldos virtually identical to himself, the only distinction being that one detail is different, such as he's missing a shoe. Handford allows rival Waldos to counterfeit his identity. You can be looking right at him without even knowing it. Where's Waldo? Why doesn't he show himself plainly? Why does he hide his face? He may not be absent, but he is elusive. He is Waldus absconditus-the Waldo who hides himself." (pages 31-32) Philosopher Paul Moser argues (without the Waldo analogy) on a sophisticated level yet still accessible to the average person in his book The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology that the Judeo-Christian God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, is like Waldo; there (as in this God does exist) but hidden or incognito for specific divine loving purposes and intentions. Not only is this God's existence disguised but also evidence for this God's existence. In Moser's words, "this book contends that, despite being concealed at times, the reality of the God of traditional monotheism is knowable firsthand by humans on the basis of salient and conclusive, if elusive, evidence." (page 2) This elusive evidence isn't kept hidden because God is morally bankrupt; the evidence is kept elusive due to the morally loving character of God keeping with loving divine aims. The loving divine aims have to do with bringing selfish and destructive humans into a loving, volitionally surrendered fellowship with an unselfishly loving God. To make this possible, the evidence at hand cannot be given coercively. This evidence cannot coerce a will toward or against God, for that would violate a loving God's loving aims, purposes, and intentions for humans. In Moser's words, "Conclusive firsthand evidence for divine reality is, I'll contend, purposively available to humans, that is, available in a way, and only in a way, that accommodates the distinctive purposes of a perfectly loving God. The latter purposes, we'll see, would aim non coercively but authoritatively to transform human purposes to agree with divine purposes, despite human resistance of various and sundry sorts." (page 2) This evidence is not spectator evidence. As humans, this evidence challenges us to get off the bleachers of our search and onto the field of our search. In other analogical words, the evidence is found on the field of our search and even challenges who we are becoming as persons and how we play the game of life. In Moser's words, "we'll consider purposively available evidence that is both person-involving and life-involving in its identifying and challenging both who we are and how we live as morally accountable personal agents under the authority of a perfectly loving personal God. Such purposively available evidence would seek whole-hearted transformation of humans toward God's character via volitional fellowship with God, where such fellowship between God and a human requires sharing in each other's concerns guided by love. The relevant evidence, then, wouldn't assume that humans are just spectators in need of further information or intellectual enlightenment. It would thus contrast sharply with any kind of spectator evidence that fails to challenge humans to yield their wills to a perfectly authoritative agent." (page 2) All throughout the book, Moser argues that question (a) Do we humans know that God exists? is better answered if we start with question (b) Are we humans known by God in virtue of (among other things) our freely and agreeably being willing (i) to be known by God and thereby (ii) to be transformed toward God's moral character of perfect love as we are willingly led by God in volitional fellowship with God, thereby obediently yielding our wills to God's authoritative will? In Moser's words, "We'll see that question (a) is fruitfully approached via question (b), given that a perfectly authoritative and loving God would be distinctively purposive in relating to humans, cognitively (in terms of evidence and knowledge provided) and otherwise." (page 4) Behind question (b) lurks another important question; question (c) Are we humans known by God in virtue of (among other things) our freely being willing to receive an authoritative call to volitional fellowship from a God of perfect love that is presented to us in order to reveal, at least to us, the adequacy or inadequacy of our moral and cognitive standing before this God? Moser notes that this shift of focus is suggested in some of the apostle Paul's writings found in the Christian writings in the Bible. He goes on to argue that "we are morally responsible for the questions we willingly pursue, just as we are similarly responsible for everything else we intentionally do. The typical focus on question (a) to the exclusion of questions (b) and (c) tends to place the sole responsibility on God for supplying the desired knowledge to humans, as if humans were just spectators who need only to open their eyes to see the relevant evidence. In contrast, this book's focus on questions (b) and (c) as means to answering question (a) directs us to ask whether we humans are well-positioned to receive any purposively available evidence and knowledge of God's reality. Perhaps we aren't thus well-positioned, because our wills have gone awry and thus need attunement to reality, including divine reality." (page 5) Moser argues that this is indeed the dilemma that human beings find themselves in; we aren't well positioned and we are in need of help or a word from a morally loving and perfect God. But what will happen when this elusive word comes? How will human beings respond? Moser argues that there are three main ways humans can respond: conforming (or, obedient) reception, indifferent reception, and negative (or, disobedient) reception. Regarding the most important response (conforming reception), Moser argues that "This book's account of purposively available conclusive evidence and knowledge of divine reality focuses on a distinctive kind of evidence available in experience: evident authoritative divine love expressed via human conscience, including an evident invitation to repentance and volitional fellowship with God." (page 8) The whole of Moser's book focuses on three main questions: (1) If God's existence is concealed, hidden, or incognito, why should we hold that God exists at all? (2) If God exists, why is God's existence hidden at all, particularly if God aims to communicate with people in some way to lead them into better lives? (3) What are the implications of God's concealment for philosophy and religion as they concern talk of God and of knowledge of God? Without falling into some type of fideism, Moser gives due attention to certain skeptical doubts, questions, concerns, and objections all throughout his work. In his words, "careful attention to skeptical qualms will keep us honest in our inquiry, and save us from any uncritical or cognitively arbitrary dogmatism." (pages 8-9) Regarding how this Jewish-Christian epistemology works in other religious conditions and geographical situations, Moser notes that "the true God may indeed be troublesome rather than convenient by our preferred standards, and may need to be thus, given our dire predicament of destructive selfishness. If God seeks to rescue us convincingly from our predicament, God would need to convince us of our need of rescue and of God's reliability in the rescue effort. In addition, God would have to challenge and then noncoercively transform our deadly selfishness. A God of perfect love, as suggested, would aim to elicit not just new beliefs in us, but also new volitional attitudes, including unselfish intentions and desires. That's no small task, of course, and it may succeed rarely if at all. As indicated, however, we shouldn't assume that divine intervention is just in the life of Jesus; it may be wherever God is at work, regardless of geography, even if Jesus is the authoritatively and morally perfect exemplar of divine revelation in a human." (page 14-15) All in all, as one who was an honest and open agnostic (while also seriously entertaining the possibility of atheism), I think Moser's work does indeed offer an enormously effective challenge to skepticism about the reality of the Judeo-Christian God. This book will not only challenge the way you think but also challenge the way you live your life...if you're willing.

I read this book for a class on Philosophic Theology. I was warned by the Professor that this would be a difficult book to read to terms of depth of thought. After reading this book I was impressed with the level of thought and breadth of argument developed by Moser. Moser provided a perspective on Epistemology that I had not encountered in my studies of epistemology.

I would suggest this book for anyone interested in in-depth books on epistemology. I think this books serves as a good way to push back on notions of how we as humans "know" things. If you read this book expect to have your opinions challenged.

This is one pricey book. You can save some money by reading the quick summary below. But let me first say that this is a disappointing read. Moser starts with a very fancy promise, namely, that he'll show us how we can acquire "conclusive" knowledge of God. Don't take the bait. What he actually delivers is little more than the usual stuff about how we need to be open to God's call and once we are we'll somehow see it all Moser's way. As for those who continue to doubt God's existence, they are all acting in bad faith. If they would only open their eyes and hearts they'd sign right up. Sigh . . .

SUMMARY OF THE BOOK
We need a Copernican Revolution in religious epistemology. Stop asking God to provide the kind of evidence that we want. Such a demand for "Spectator Knowledge" and "divine fireworks" trivializes God by requiring him to jump through cognitive hoops of our making. Instead, we should ask what kind of evidence we can expect a perfect God to make available to us. (p.40). (There's the Copernican move.) Because God is a personal, loving being, we should expect a call to fellowship, obedience and transformation, not a bunch of miracles that blow our minds but leave our hearts untouched. (God's elusiveness is justified after all!) If we open our hearts we will become aware of "conclusive" evidence of divine reality.(p.82). What will/does this "evidence" look like? Hmmmm . . . not clear. Something about "conscience" (p.55, 93) and the "Spirit" (p.151) and Jesus' "love toward others" (p.215), and something we supposedly get by our acquaintance with folks who are in "volitional fellowship" with God. (p.151.) But whatever the evidence is, it's "conclusive." And if you don't find it conclusive, it's because you're acting in bad faith, selfish, rebellious. . . There is no such thing as honest doubt about Moser's God. (p.72,76,77,79,106, etc etc etc.)

SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS

Here are a few.

1) SPECIFICS PLEASE! I sure would like to know what it looks like for "God's reality to emerge" (p.142.) But Moser's lack of specifics about this does not surprise me. (It's not his fault. He doesn't have any specifics because there are none to be had. I'd not pick on him if he'd just come on out and tell us that.) But in light of his hot and sexy (and repeated) promises (starting at page 2) that he's going to show us "conclusive evidence" of divine reality, some readers might feel really sad when they reach the end of the book, or think their minds must have wandered during the conclusive evidence part.

2) ELITIST TO THE CORE? This book could only have come from someone deep within the hallowed bowels of academia, someone with plenty of time to contemplate profound things and meditate on how God's elusiveness challenges "Me!" to greater knowledge of and fellowship blah blah blah . . . Cool! But what about the Chinese peasant fed a constant diet of atheism and who then dies in a Sichuan earthquake at age 12? Or the second century Tibetan who never got The Gospel Memo? What does God's elusiveness strategy, which evidently helps Moser grow so, do for these folks? Moser doesn't say.

3) PSYCHOLOGICAL NAIVETE. Moser's claim that there are no defeaters for his proposition that "I have been offered. . . the transformative gift" (premise 2 in the syllogism at p.135) strikes me as psychologically naïve and perhaps even a little dishonest. He says in essence "Maybe there could be defeaters (such as hallucination) but, since I don't actually have any, I'm justified in believing that my experience is from God." (p. 139). Well, how far did he look? I bet I could suggest loads of alternative explanations for any "evidentiary" religious experience Moser would care to share. (Faber offers a bunch in his "The Psychological Roots of Religious Belief").Moser's position here seems to be that if you successfully hide from potential defeaters you don't need to be troubled by them. He really should ask himself the tough question, "How far SHOULD one look before one is epistemically entitled to say that there are no defeaters for one's position?" I don't think there's an answer to this. If I'm right, we should chalk one up for skepticism, or at least for a humble fallibilism, about the divine source of one's "religious" experience.

4) CHRISTIAN CHAUVINISM. Christian apologists routinely operate on the chauvinist assumption that seekers of religious truth should treat their religion as a "live option" (and they really mean as the only [or at least the first] live option to be examined.) Sure, there are loads of competitor religions, but Christianity really is worth the seeker's time. (p.73.) But, I wonder, why should seekers open their hearts to Moser's God and not equally (preferably?) to the myriad other options available to sincere seekers of spiritual truths? Why should Moser (or God) expect seekers to put Christianity on the short list of candidates for whatever it is we may be seeking? Moser can't really say "OK, you can also check out those religions, but definitely find some time to give Christianity a look" because, as folks like Huston Smith well know, we don't have time for that. It takes years (decades? lifetimes?) to sincerely look at a religion. So Moser needs to explain why his religion of choice should get to the front of the contender's line. He doesn't. He just assumes that since it's the only live option for him and his culture so should it be for everyone else.

5) GOOD FOR THE SKEPTIC, GOOD FOR MOSER? Moser says that skeptics have no right to be skeptical unless and until they have sincerely opened themselves to the Christian God's "purposively available evidence." Their unwillingness to be so open renders them unqualified to be skeptical about Moser's God (p.72-77). I wonder, is Moser making a general claim that we cannot be skeptical about a religion's claims unless we have reached a state of volitional submission to its call? Or does this apply only to skeptics about Christianity? If the latter, see section 4 above. If the former, does Moser really know what might happen if he did unto other religions as he asks skeptics to do unto his? Maybe he'd see the evil of his dualistic ways and retreat to a Zen monastery. Is he, by his own standards, in a position to be skeptical about this possibility?

Moser decries fideism and mysticism, but his claim to have "conclusive" evidence of God's reality coupled with his failure to share any of it with us suggest that he's one or the other, or both. His self-lauded "Copernican Revolution" seems little more than a repackaging of the old saw that "believing is seeing," that once we sign on for the program we'll see how groovy it really is. Until then, we're not serious seekers.

Hey, that's what the Moonies say!

Alright, so I want to leave a good review without making this too long and drawn out. I want to primarily provide a response to a previous reviewer's (Steve Baughman) "major problems".

(Objection 1) The conclusive evidence for the evidence of Gods existence that God, if he exists, would seek to facilitate is a filial knowledge. He (God) would provide conclusive evidence, primarily, in the cognitive domain. The reviewer argues that Moser never specifies what that would look like. Well, thats because it doesnt look like anything, its something that occurs internally. This is specifically why right at the beginning of chapter 1 Moser addresses the skeptics objection of evidence needing to be reproducible (he refutes that really quickly, and with ease; however, I am not going to get into every detail of what Moser says and how he addresses objections. If you want to know what he says, read it.) Something that occurs internally would, for obvious reasons, not be reproducible, and even if something like the moment of conversion were reproducible, it is a an event that only authenticates it self to the person in question. So this doesnt seem to be a major problem. Moving on.

(Objection 2) Basically the reviewer claims that God's elusiveness serves no purpose for the person who doesnt have the "Good news", or the gospel of Christ. First, Moser states that he doesnt have all the answers as to why God would remain elusive in EVERY circumstance; however, he does state five reasons why God might be elusive (I forgot what page, I think its in chapter 3, and Im too lazy to go grab my book right now lol sorry). Anyway, I could think of one reason why God would remain elusive in such a circumstance, and I think Moser might agree. Perhaps the reason why God would remain elusive in such a circumstance is out of an act of grace, so as not to cause the individual to "decisively" choose against God (remember these individuals dont have the gospel message which, given christianity, is the means by which the Spirit convicts, leads a person to repentance and ultimately conversion. "How can they call on the one they have not heard" (Romans 10:14). Given Christianity, why would God bestow optimal grace on an individual who has no access to the gospel, and risk the chance of the person choosing decisively against him?) However, I am sure Moser would argue that, given Gods goodness, no one will ever be condemned unless they have received sufficient, or optimal grace, as well as, a sound psychological state, unhindered by any false dispositions, that may have formed, through no fault of their own concerning God. This would include the second century tibetan who never got the gospel memo (This would also require some notion of purgatory since people obviously die without ever hearing the gospel message in this life. However, I dont see this as a problem since Moser is a Jesuit). In essence, no one is ever at a disadvantage, and anyone who is eternally condemned, has chosen to be. (For a thorough explanation concerning the topic of Gods goodness and damnation, which Im amost 100% Moser holds to, see Jerry Walls - Hell: The Logic of Damnation. He basically argues for a molinistic understanding of foreknowledge and free will, with the added modification of purgatory)

(Objection 3) The reviewer apparently has a problem with Mosers claim that there are no defeaters for his argument. However, it doesnt seem like he would have to look too far within his own camp to find the same claims being made (J.L. Schellenberg makes the same claim at the end of "Divine Hiddeness and Human Reason" which by the way, is a phenomenal book as well. For those of you that didnt know, "The Elusive God" is a response to Schellenbergs book). Anyway, the reviewer quotes Moser: "Maybe there could be defeaters (such as hallucination) but, since I don't actually have any, I'm justified in believing that my experience is from God." (p. 139). The reviewer then states "I bet I could suggest loads of alternative explanations for any "evidentiary" religious experience Moser would care to share. (Faber offers a bunch in his "The Psychological Roots of Religious Belief")". However, Moser states this, only after he argues that because he has no reason to believe that "the voice inside his head" is his own, then he is justified. In other words, because he is not naturally inclined to think in pattern "x" he has no reason to think the pattern of thought "x" is coming from himself, specially when pattern of thought "x" is causing such a conflict of will. I was a skeptic myself prior to conversion, and this was exactly the conflict I was facing; I was trying to convince myself for some time it was my own voice in my head, however, the evidence became "conclusive" when I finally decided to just give in. What I experienced upon my decision to "give it a try" was an internal self authentication of Gods existence through "volitional fellowship". I'm not just saying this to strengthen Moser's point, indeed most people who have experienced such an event did not convert primarily because of the evidence, but because of willing submission to volitional fellowship. There is something given in that experience that authenticates, with conclusive evidence, the existence of God (For more on this topic, see Alvin Plantinga on Reformed Epistemology). However, abandoning all bias and upon examining the naturalists explanations of what may of triggered that experience, I will say that it is not without merit, therefore, I will, to some degree, agree with the reviewer in saying "we should chalk one up for skepticism, or at least for a humble fallibilism, about the divine source of one's "religious" experience."

(Objection 4) Basically the reviewer argues against Moser in the form of a question - How do we know which is the correct religion? Who should we believe? Why should Christianity be given any priority? Well, an exhaustive answer would take much too long, and I want to finish this post so I can finish watching UFC in peace. However, Ill give a short account. Lets start with world views. If any worldview has a self contained contradiction, then it should be rejected. For example, Buddhist who deny western logic. There is no reason to accept a religion or world view that states we can both exist, and dont exist, at the same time and in the same way. That would violate one of the laws of thought - The law of noncontradiction. Anyway, this would help significantly lower the number of religions that now need to be examined. Anyway, as far as Christianity is concerned, it is the only religion that states God dwelled with humanity (in Christ obviously). Therefore, because the resurrection is at the heart of the Christian message, indeed, it is Christianity, then it would seem that the truth of Christianity hinges on whether or not Jesus indeed resurrect (I just wrote a 12 page paper on the topic for my theology class - if anyone is interested in reading a quick non-exhaustive summary on the topic, just leave a message and I will be more than happy to email it to you). All that to say, in my opinion, the evidence for the Christian faith is overwhelming compared to that of other religions. There is an empty tomb that needs to be explained, the question is - who is doing a better job of accounting for, and explaining the historical evidence?

(Objection 5) The reviewer basically asks: What if Moser did unto other religions as he has asked for skeptics to do unto his? Basically placing the burden of proof back on Moser. Out of all the objections set forth, this is by far the most formidable one. To this I have no response. Good job Steve. Well, I have one response; however, even I will admit that I am not 100% satisfied with it (at least when viewed from a non-bias position). I forgot what philosopher it was (maybe Hume, or Kant) that stated that we all, as individuals, have a responsibility to acquiring truth. I believe that if every religious individual should take up this task seriously, they will inevitably come to some form of christendom. Of course this is just a personal conviction; however, this conviction stems from the fact that I believe the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. Either way, I still hold, that no one, even those in other religions will finally be condemned unless (1) optimal grace is provided, (2) a psyche unhindered by dispositions acquired through no fault of the individual is undone (this would include religious folk in other countries who have never heard the gospel), and (3) a clear understanding of the Christian message is provided (this might fall under "1"). I know that this is, for the most part, irrelevant to the objection at hand. However, it is not entirely divorced from the objection which is why I bring it up.

So much for not long and drawn out lol. Anyway, I hope the review helped much. I did not intend to attack steve; I just felt that he left a good comment with formidable objections that needed addressing. Thanks Steve.

I was unsure whether or not to buy this book until I read the negative reviews of it posted on this site. This book obviously touches a dogmatic unbeliever's raw nerve by suggesting that his or her demands for "neutral" evidence are the product of bias and self-deception (at best motivated by a refusal to face the unpleasant facts about the human condition) rather than the demand of reason. That alone makes this book worth reading. I'm going to.