Summary of Evil and Atheism This essay is a summary of William L. Rowe's paper 'The Problem of Evil and Some Varaties of Atheism.'

Having examined the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of the God of the Bible, as they relate to the atheist’s argument against God’s existence, it is also important to note other

The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case of chance. In “Philosophy of Religion” by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a “brute fact.” According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a whole argument and concurrently, “this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its parts.” Where McCloskey’s ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said “This means that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist.” What he is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God?

Just as western religions accept that G-d exists, we know that evil and suffering exists. Western religions know G-d as omnipotent, omniscient, and morally good. With these three fundamental characteristics in mind, G-d would have the power to destroy evil, the knowledge to know what evil is, and the will and desire to destroy it. Thus, the western conception of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good G-d gives rise to a new Problem of G-d. To answer this problem, many scholars have searched for a theodicy, a rational explanation for evil in the world. When analyzing Judaism, the necessity for theodicy is most prevalent, and possibly most difficult, when trying to come to terms with the Holocaust. Using Elie Wiesel as my starting point, I will address the three conclusions scholars have reached: theodicy is possible, there is a human inability to construct a convincing theodicy, and a completely rejection of any possibility for theodicy. After presenting these options, I will offer criticisms as well as explain my own rationale for supporting Wiesel’s claim that G-d deserves to be questioned because He bears responsibility for evil in the world.

Because of the controversial nature of premise one, this helps prove Rowe’s point that God does not exist. Again, premise one states, a wholly good being could prevent evil. Then, again, premise two says that not a wholly being would prevent evil. Then, if he could and he would prevent evil, and there is evil, he must not exist. Put simply, Rowe argues that the existence of evil proves that God is not real. Now, let’s focus on only premise one.

Out of all the different choices human’s have to make not all of them are made using freewill, for example someone’s choice may me chosen by something or someone else and thus any evil that is caused from that choice was not chosen via freewill. If evil is created this way then it is not supporting the existence of god. There are many examples of this like how suffering (evil) may be created from a natural disaster, which was not an option someone had chosen via freewill, this creates a problem for the free will defence. Not all evil is due to choices human’s have made. In response to this problem for the free will defence, if god was all good, powerful and knowing then he would have been able to prevent and stop natural disasters as the evil they create is not due to freewill. However, this is evidently not true as natural disasters have

The argument against the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.

Last, “what position should the informed atheist take concerning the rationality of religious beliefs?” After giving a response to theist’s argument against atheist, both are to believe that the other is believing a false belief. There are many types of atheist with different thoughts on religious beliefs. There are three different types of atheism discussed in Rowe’s theory. Unfriendly atheism, there is no such thing as a god(s). Indifferent atheism, has no concern in believing that a theist god(s) exists. And friendly atheism is certain that there is a reason theist to have faith in god. Defending his argument about friendly atheism,

The problem of evil cripples reasonable belief in the God of theism and although successful theodicies have been made to subvert the problem of evil, they cannot get rid of the doubt and for some the proof that God does not exist.

Religion is one of the touchiest subjects in America. It is something that is rarely on the forefront of many people’s minds but as soon as someone brings it up, everyone has an opinion. Similarly, the idea of no religion, of atheism, is equally opinionated. While Americans of “faith” often have conflicting opinions with each other, they often stand united on the stance of atheism. For them, atheism is bad and atheists are bad. However, what really is an atheist? At its most basic, an atheist is merely an individual who rejects the idea of god and religion. It is nothing more, nothing less. Nevertheless, many people of faith attach secondary implications to this definition. They unify atheists under a series of assumptions concerning

Since, this was not properly address this is the current best objection to Rowe’s argument. The question remain unanswered by his argument: If we do have free will, is that the reason that God cannot stop evil ? However, this is not an adepuate response to Rowe’s argument, the best response is simply that God is evil. Rowe dives into himself in his second condition:”…or some evil equally bad or worse..” . The best counterargument: Since there is suffering in this world that an which a perfect being could have stopped, and it was not stopped, therefore this perfect godly being is

The notion of “rational justification” needs to be clarified in order to understand the theism-atheism debate and the categories of friendly and unfriendly theist, atheist and agnostic. For something to be rationally justified, as in a belief, simply means, according to Rowe, “to have good reasons supporting the belief”, and that “it is possible to rationally justify a belief that is false.” Based on this theory, even though a theist and atheist have opposite beliefs, they can agree upon the possibility of the false belief to be justified.

The English philosopher Stephen Law’s “The evil-god challenge” is a retort against the arguments raised in favour of the theistic belief that the world was created and is governed by an all knowing, supremely benevolent being. In order to refute the existence of the notion of a “good-god” as constructed in the arguments of theists, law has constructed his own hypothetical entity the “evil-god”. Law’s challenge stems from the logical and evidentiary problems that the concept of evil presents to the conception that there exists a supremely benevolent god. These problems are justifying the supreme goodness propagated as being part of the classical monotheistic understanding of god in a world where evil undeniably exists. Supporters of classical monotheism have created theodicies that justify why a wholly benevolent being would allow evil and suffering in a world fully under his control. In response Law suggests that the duty of, “those who believe in the god of classical monotheism, then, is to explain why, if belief in an evil god is highly unreasonable, should we consider belief in a good god significantly more reasonable?” (Law 360). Even if evil and good can coexist in the world, is not the former evidence against an all-encompassing god only interested in the ensuring of the latter?

Everyday it is possible to read a newspaper, or turn on TV or radio news and learn about evil going on in our world. Banks are robbed, cars are stolen, violent murders and rapes are committed. Somewhere in the world the aftershock of an earthquake is being felt. Cancer is killing millions of people each year, while other debilitating conditions continue to affect many with no cure to end their suffering. President Bush said that our country is fighting a war against evil. We all agree that evil is real and cannot be ignored; the problem comes when we try and rationalize the concept of God and evil coexisting.

The passage is about the author not knowing if he/she believes in God. The author proves this by saying "Many times hath Satan troubled me concerning the verity of the scriptures, many times by Atheism, how I could know whether there was a God." The author's purpose for writing this passage might be to convince himself that there is an Eternal Being who created everything we see today, the author shows this by writing about how the seasons of the year, night and day, and Heaven and Earth make him believe that there is an Eternal Being. The intended audience of this passage is to the author's children, this is stated in the acknowledgment section of the passage. The tone of this passage begins as confused, but overall it is very passionate.

He replaced the problem of evil and asked, why is God omnibenevolent yet, permit there to be so much pointless and gratuitous violence in the world. The answer is, God wouldn’t allow that to happen. However, because there is gratuitous evil in our world, then an omnibenevolent God does not exist. Theist and I fail to see the connection between premises one and two in Rowe’s argument. He states that we don’t know of any good that would justify all the gratuitous violence in the world, and God would be unable to create any good from the evil.