[definition] Divine hiddenness is an attribute of God whereby some or most people have not been made aware of the true nature of God (e.g., God’s existence).

[challenge/Atheistic position] Divine hiddenness poses a theological problem if nonresistant nonbelievers exist (i.e., God cannot justify remaining hidden to those that are receptive to the possibility).

[Theistic response] Receptiveness is not the sole criterion for a relationship with God. One must work (i.e., have faith) to uncover the mystery and remove the hiddenness of the Divine. If nonresistant nonbelievers exist, it’s because they have not prepared themselves adequately for a relationship with God.

In defense of the argument an analogy is made between the relationship of a non-cognitive infant towards her parents and the relationship between nonresistant nonbelievers and God. There is an interesting tangential discussion about the meaningfulness of the baby/parent relationship. From the infant’s perspective, the relationship is trivial (i.e., meaningless). I take that to mean that the baby has a dependency on the parents for basic needs, but beyond the satisfaction of those needs, the relationship itself has no value. Since the baby has not developed sufficient cognitive capacity, the baby cannot reflect on the relationship and decide that, absent the pragmatic value (i.e., food, shelter and safety), the relationship has meaning.

Like all/most analogies, this one falls short. The problem I have with the analogy is the reliance on the non-cognitive claim. The analogy only works if it’s conceded that babies are non-cognitive. This concession is made by way of a false dichotomy: babies are either cognitive or non-cognitive. Babies probably aren’t cognitive, so, the analogy reasons, they must be non-cognitive. I see no reason to call them non-cognitive. Babies are in a cognitively developmental state (i.e., they are pre-cognitive). Babies are developing the neural pathways and mental processes that produce cognition and consciousness. A fundamental aspect of that development is familial, or otherwise human relationships. A myriad of studies have shown that specific interactions produce incredible physiological responses in newborn babies (e.g., putting twins together in a single bed improves medical prognoses and "kangaroo care"). While these are not demonstrative of full meaningfulness in relationships, they hint that babies have the cognitive framework for meaningful relationships from birth (or even pre-birth).

Another analogy that might be useful for the Divine hiddenness argument is the relationship between a pet and a human. The relationship has, no doubt, many benefits for a human and a human values the relationship in a meaningful way, but the pet may not have a meaningful relationship. It might be a one-way meaningful relationship. However, this analogy falls short as well, because the animals we keep as pets and often feel a kinship with display some cognitive capacities. While it is likely true that pet owners exaggerate the cognitive content and anthropomorphize animal behaviour, nonetheless, we simply do not know the cognitive capacity of other animals. A meaningful relationship in this case can be saved, or at least minimally assumed, by virtue of the quasi-cognitive state of the pet.

To get a true relationship with one-way value, we have to be very careful not to pick an organism with some of the developmental precursors or tendencies attributed with cognition. Here I’m even reluctant to say plants cannot have meaningful relationships (plant cognition and consciousness is an emerging idea). We may be limited to non-living objects. It doesn’t serve the theistic position to suggest that the relationship between a nonresistant nonbeliever and God is analogous to a relationship between a human and a rock. Nonresistant nonbelievers are certainly not as spiritually bereft as a rock is cognitively bereft.

Underlying all of this, is a value theory of relationships. If the baby has a relationship of dependency on the parent, it’s not clear in what way the relationship fails to be meaningful to the baby. It might be argued that the source of the need fulfillment is arbitrary, and, a wet nurse for instance, can occupy that role. If the relationship is based on an arbitrary role, then the relationship to the person fulfilling that role is meaningless. This prima facie suggests, that meaningful relationships have to be meaningful intrinsically (i.e., it has to be directed at the person rather than the role). This is where my romance dies. I don’t think we value specific relationships intrinsically.

We get betrayed by our naïve psychology regarding the value of relationships. Humans have a hardwired and basic need for relationships (i.e., Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) and we interpret the intrinsic value of relationships in general as intrinsic value for specific relationships. Meaningful relationships are judged according to the satisfaction of needs. Basic meaningful relationships (e.g., newborn/parent) are ones that fulfill fundamental needs (i.e., food, shelter and safety) and robustness of meaning is gained as we move up the hierarchy of needs. A relationship that satisfies more or greater needs is judged as more meaningful than one that satisfies fewer or lesser needs. The value we place on specific needs is personal and subjective, for instance, one person might forego safety in a relationship (i.e., abuse) for the satisfaction of religious affiliation, while another may not.

Divine hiddenness on the grounds that a nonresistant nonbeliever cannot have a meaningful relationship with God suggests that God satisfies no needs for the nonresistant nonbeliever.