Dr Duncan Schellenberg Patched -

The term “patched” in connection with Schellenberg appears in informal online philosophical discussions (e.g., on Reddit’s r/askphilosophy, r/DebateReligion, or academic blogs) to refer to attempts to “patch” or repair Schellenberg’s hiddenness argument against objections.

Common “patches” proposed by defenders of his argument include: dr duncan schellenberg patched

Critics, however, argue these patches weaken the original argument or fail to address deeper issues (e.g., the ambiguity of “resistance,” or the possibility of goods requiring hiddenness). Critics, however, argue these patches weaken the original

If you’re studying or debating this topic, here’s what to keep in mind: If you’re studying or debating this topic, here’s

| Aspect | Summary | |--------|---------| | Strength of the original argument | Schellenberg’s hiddenness argument is one of the most influential recent atheological arguments; it shifts focus from evil to non-belief. | | Common patches | Defenders adjust concepts of “resistance” and “relationship with God” to block objections (e.g., free will, soul-making, or cognitive limitations). | | Main objections patches try to fix | – Some non-belief might be due to non-culpable ignorance.
– God might have reasons to remain hidden even from sincere seekers (e.g., to preserve moral autonomy).
– The argument assumes a specific model of loving relationships. | | Unpatched vulnerabilities | Even patched versions struggle with:
– Empirical ambiguity of who is “non-resistant.”
– Theological alternatives (e.g., open theism, universalism).
– The possibility of goods that necessarily involve hiddenness (e.g., risk, faith, character development). | | Overall assessment | Schellenberg’s argument is philosophically serious and forces theists to refine their views, but “patched” versions are debated; no consensus exists that any patch successfully restores the argument’s original force. |

Clinicians applying Schellenberg’s principles will find themselves doing more "oral motor" or tactile-kinetic work than they might with standard phonological clients. This involves: