Belief, No-Fault Unbelief and Medieval Christian Thought

Traditionally, Christians have viewed unbelief as resulting from moral and/or cognitive shortcomings. In this Element, the author draws on important insights from medieval Christian thought to argue that both believers and non-believers should stop blaming each other based on mere evidence.

Traditionally, Christians have viewed unbelief as resulting from moral and/or cognitive shortcomings. However, a recent proposal such as John Schellenberg's 'divine hiddenness argument' for atheism has supported the idea that there is no-fault unbelief. In this Element, the author draws on important insights from medieval Christian thought to argue that both believers and non-believers should stop blaming each other based on mere evidence. Believers may recognise that no-fault unbelief can, in a sense, apply to them, too. They may find it perplexing that they neither believe nor achieve communion with God as much as they would like. Proponents of no-fault unbelief might focus on achieving communion with God rather than solely worrying about absolving themselves of blame. Ultimately, believers and non-believers alike might promote spiritual progress by setting aside the primacy of evidence and committing themselves to God and the good.