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.'

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,

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 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.

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?

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.

Rowe brings up the problem of “pointless evil “which I find is one of the best arguments against god’s existence because to me there is really no way around it, taking into consideration the characteristics of a classical theistic god. I believe rowes argument is the most easily understood argument and most influential of its kind He defines pointless evil as evil which god (if he exists) could prevent without thereby preventing a greater good or allowing an equal or greater evil. He doesn’t bring about a greater good or prevent an equal or greater evil. Rowe would agree that we see pointless evils every day in life. Rowe’s arguments basically states that pointless evils exist therefore god does not exist. The case of Bambi is what Rowe uses to demonstrate his meaning of pointless evil. This in my opinion is a perfect example. I don’t believe any objection given renders this case invalid. “In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering” (Rowe 1979: 337). A classical theistic god would not allow pointless evils but yet we know they exist. He is faced with two kinds of objections direct and indirect. Direct objections point out goods to which the suffering may well be connected, goods which god could not achieve without permitting suffering. God would only allow as much evil or suffering as is absolutely necessary in order to achieve greater goods. But when we look at the world around us, we find prevalent instances of apparently pointless evils from which no greater good seems to result. According to proponents of Rowe’s argument, the existence of apparently gratuitous evil provides strong evidence that God (as traditionally defined) does not exist. An indirect

Rowe sets out the problem by provide an argument that he believes can be used to rationally justify someone being an atheist, William Rowe states the argument goes as follow:

However, as the political world of Greece evolved, atheism would not remain unscathed. An earlier instance of this can be found within the works of Plato, a renowned philosopher. Of all of his works, the tenth book of The Laws is most historically relevant to atheism. Within this text, Plato essentially disavowed all aspects of atheist philosophy, disregarding non-believers as “certain clever moderns” and “young men” with foolish opinions (Whitmarsh 136). Furthermore, he declared the belief in the Greek deities was essentially to the functioning of a “just society,” suggesting legal penalties for all those who undermine the gods (137). However harmful, this work raises the important question of how many atheists there truly were in Plato’s