The Possibility of Ideological and Volitional Rejection of a Fully Evidenced God

The question of whether a God whose existence is fully evidenced can still be rejected ideologically and volitionally is central to debates about divine hiddenness and human free will. The traditional argument for God’s hiddenness posits that God remains partially concealed to preserve human freedom, suggesting that clear evidence of His existence might compel belief and thus undermine autonomy. However, this essay argues that even with undeniable evidence of God’s existence, humans retain the capacity to reject Him ideologically (based on conflicting beliefs or values) and volitionally (through deliberate choice). By distinguishing between epistemic rejection, ideological rejection, and volitional rejection, and drawing on biblical, theological, and philosophical perspectives, we demonstrate that free will allows for rejection of God despite clear evidence. This argument challenges the notion that divine hiddenness is necessary for free will and suggests that clear evidence enhances, rather than diminishes, human autonomy.

Defining Key Terms

To address this question, we must first clarify the key terms involved:

• Epistemic Rejection: This refers to denying God’s existence due to insufficient evidence or knowledge. If God’s existence were fully evidenced—through, for example, a global, unmistakable revelation—epistemic rejection would be difficult, as rational denial of overwhelming evidence is unlikely.
• Ideological Rejection: This involves rejecting God based on conflicting beliefs or values. For instance, someone might acknowledge God’s existence but disagree with His moral framework or authority, choosing to adhere to a different worldview.
• Volitional Rejection: This is the deliberate choice to not follow or worship God, despite knowing He exists. It reflects a decision of the will, often driven by personal desires, autonomy, or other priorities.

These distinctions are critical because they separate the act of believing in God’s existence from the act of accepting or committing to Him. Philosophers like L. Jonathan Cohen have explored the difference between belief and acceptance, noting that belief is often involuntary, shaped by evidence, while acceptance can be a voluntary act of commitment (Cohen, 1992). In a religious context, belief that God exists is epistemic, while acceptance—embracing God’s authority or entering a relationship with Him—is volitional and potentially ideological.

Biblical and Theological Evidence

The Bible provides compelling examples of beings who had clear knowledge of God’s existence yet chose to reject Him, illustrating that epistemic certainty does not compel acceptance. One prominent example is Satan, traditionally understood in Christian theology as a fallen angel who rebelled against God despite direct knowledge of His existence and power. Passages such as Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-17 depict Satan’s rebellion as a deliberate choice to oppose God, driven by pride or ambition, not ignorance. Similarly, Jude 6 refers to angels who “did not stay within their own position of authority” but rebelled, further supporting the idea that knowledge of God does not necessitate allegiance (Jude 1:6, NIV).

In the New Testament, human examples abound. The Pharisees, for instance, witnessed Jesus’ miracles—clear signs of His divine authority—yet many rejected Him. In Matthew 12:22-24, after Jesus healed a demon-possessed man, the Pharisees attributed His power to Beelzebul, denying His messiahship despite the evidence (Matthew 12:22-24, NIV). Similarly, John 12:37 states, “Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37, NIV). These cases demonstrate that volitional rejection is possible even when epistemic rejection is not, as individuals can acknowledge God’s existence but choose not to follow Him due to ideological differences or personal will.

Theological perspectives further reinforce this point. The Book of James declares, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19, NIV). This verse explicitly distinguishes between belief in God’s existence and acceptance of His authority, as demons acknowledge God but oppose Him. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, emphasizes that true faith involves not just intellectual assent but trust and commitment, suggesting that volitional rejection remains possible even with full knowledge (Lewis, 1952).

Philosophical Arguments on Free Will

Philosophically, free will is understood as the ability to make choices without being determined by prior causes, particularly in the libertarian sense. Knowledge of options is essential for meaningful choice; thus, clear evidence of God’s existence would enhance, not restrict, free will by providing a clear basis for decision-making. C.S. Lewis argues that free will is necessary for genuine love and moral goodness, as coerced actions lack authenticity. He writes, “If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible” (Lewis, 1952, p. 28). In the context of divine revelation, knowing God exists allows individuals to exercise their free will in choosing whether to accept or reject Him, rather than being constrained by uncertainty.

The concept of akrasia, or weakness of will, further illustrates that individuals can act against their better judgment. For example, someone might know that following God is morally right but choose not to due to personal desires, such as a preference for autonomy or disagreement with divine commands. This aligns with ideological rejection, where one’s worldview—perhaps valuing secular humanism or personal freedom—conflicts with God’s authority. Philosophers like Raimo Tuomela suggest that acceptance is often voluntary, unlike belief, which is shaped by evidence (Tuomela, 2000). Thus, even if evidence compels belief in God’s existence, acceptance remains a choice.

Alvin Plantinga’s concept of sensus divinitatis—an innate sense of the divine—offers a related perspective. Plantinga argues that humans have a natural awareness of God, but sin or other factors can suppress it, leading to nonbelief (Plantinga, 2000). While Plantinga’s focus is on why some do not believe, his argument implies that even clear evidence could be resisted due to such suppression. In a scenario where God’s existence is fully evidenced, this resistance would manifest as ideological or volitional rejection, as individuals might acknowledge God but refuse to align with His values or authority.

Counterarguments and Responses

A common counterargument is that overwhelming evidence of God’s existence, such as a global revelation, might make rejection irrational and thus coercive. This argument conflates epistemic belief with volitional acceptance. While undeniable evidence might compel belief in God’s existence, acceptance—involving trust, worship, or obedience—is a separate act driven by personal values and choices. People often make decisions based on emotions, desires, or ideological commitments, not just rationality. For instance, someone might reject God’s authority to preserve personal autonomy or because they disagree with His moral framework, even if His existence is undeniable.

Historical and contemporary examples support this. The Israelites, who witnessed God’s miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, still rebelled against Him at times, choosing to follow their own desires (Numbers 14:1-4, NIV). Similarly, individuals today reject scientific consensus, such as climate change evidence, for ideological or personal reasons, demonstrating that even clear evidence does not guarantee acceptance.

Another counterargument suggests that God’s overwhelming glory or power might psychologically compel acceptance. However, biblical accounts show that even direct encounters with divine power do not eliminate free will. The Israelites’ rebellion and the Pharisees’ rejection of Jesus indicate that humans can choose to oppose God despite clear evidence. Moreover, free will allows for choices driven by pride, fear, or other motivations, as seen in Satan’s rebellion.

Conclusion

The notion that God’s hiddenness is necessary to preserve free will is flawed. Clear evidence of God’s existence would eliminate epistemic rejection but not ideological or volitional rejection. Biblical examples, such as Satan and the Pharisees, demonstrate that knowledge of God does not compel acceptance. Philosophical arguments, supported by thinkers like C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga, show that free will thrives on informed choice, allowing individuals to reject God based on conflicting beliefs or personal will. Even with undeniable evidence, humans can choose to prioritize autonomy, differing values, or other desires, affirming that a fully evidenced God can indeed be rejected ideologically and volitionally.

Bibliography

• Cohen, L. J. (1992). An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford University Press.
• Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity. Geoffrey Bles.
• Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.
• Tuomela, R. (2000). Belief versus acceptance. Philosophical Explorations, 3(2), 122–137.
• The Holy Bible, New International Version.

The PDF Version — Persistent Free Will to Reject Gods Fully Evidenced

---

---

---

---