There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument. Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists. Only christians could “reject” God, but I don’t think that they would not do that, since it would make no sense.
Of course the non-christians DO reject the arguments for God’s existence, they DO reject the concept of God. But to say that rejecting the “concept” is the same as rejecting the “alleged referent” of that concept is yet another logical error.
I understand your argument completely. You are saying that you cannot
truly reject something whose existence you were not aware of. Just so, I cannot be said to have refused to let someone in, if I never heard them knocking or didn’t know they were out there. To say that I refused to let them in would be misleading.
As I understand it, Catholics tend to say that – on some level – most non-believers
do know that God exists, and know the difference between right and wrong. However, out of pride, stubbornness, hardness of heart, or hatred and spite, they
refuse to accept God and the doing of what is right.
They are, frankly,
moralizing your non-belief, whereas most non-believers say – and I believe them – that they simply are not convinced, or don’t find the argument compelling.
Ironically, Catholics can understand this argument
perfectly well, as regards a religion such as Mormonism. If some Mormon were say, “you
know Joseph Smith was right, but out of pride, stubbornness, hardness of heart, or sheer spite, you reject his message,” a Catholic might say, “I have goodwill for Mormon beliefs, and there is no malice in my not accepting it. Frankly, I just don’t see it; I’m sorry. I know that upsets you.”
Catholics do have the doctrine of invincible ignorance, which is more akin to what you are saying – that, indeed, you cannot truly reject that which you are
truly unaware of. However, they tend to apply it very conservatively, as I understand it, since it applies only to those who have never heard of the Church or of the Gospels. For those who have heard of the Church, or the Gospels – let alone have been former Catholics themselves – the invincible argument generally cannot be invoked. In that case, non-acceptance of Catholicism becomes not a matter of intellectual error, or of mere ignorance, but a moral transgression and a grave sin, a rejecting of what you
know is true. You are simply denying that you know it.
Again,
if it turned out that Mormonism or Islam were the true religion, a Catholic would (I think) tend to understand your argument completely, that it is not fair to chalk up honest disbelief (on the grounds of being unconvinced by the arguments put forth by other human beings) to a moral transgression, or to a denial of something you
know is true, but chose to reject. Thus, they would tend to believe that their lack of belief in that particular religion was, indeed, innocent.
