The Evidential Argument from Evil - Essay Example

The evidential argument from evil Every human being will at one-point wonder why evil happens to us, our friends and to our family yet God exists, and He is omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience thus His is capable of protecting us. Others believe that God could only be allowing suffering or evil in order to accomplish greater goods. Nevertheless, when we look at the world around us, we find prevailing occurrences of apparently gratuitous evil, and this has continued to provide a strong suggestion that God does not exist. Therefore, philosopher like Rowe and others have shifted from a logical thinking to evidential, as logical does not proof that God exist, and there is a need for evidential proof that God does not exist. In that senses, William Rowe uses evidential arguments from evil to reveal that the existence of evil in the present world inductively supports the assertion that God does not exist. Therefore, we shall use Rowe, Bergmann, and Howard-Snyders description on evidential arguments from evil to assess and candidly elucidate whether there is sufficient evidence in contrast to the existence of an all-knowing, infinitely benevolent and all-powerful God. Rowe contemplates that it is best for us as human beings to examine some specific kinds of evil that are existing in our world, and this made him to selects “intense human and animal suffering”. For that reason, Rowe claims that God does not exist as there is much suffering which an omniscient, omnipotent being could have devoid of without Him losing some greater good or allowing some evil equally to prevail. This is noticeably valid because Rowe had a rational reason as there is no any fundamental reason, why God could permit gratuitous evil to prevail over the world yet He is capable of averting it (James & Bradley N.p). The traditional monotheistic has made us believe that God is loving and naturally good thus; individuals have found it difficult to comprehend the reason, why God will allow evil and suffering in the world. On the other hand, Bergmann and Howard-Snyders respond to Rowe’s evidential argument from evil by saying our miniature minds is incapable of comprehending, why God works the way he does. Moreover, our mind is incapable of telling why God hides Himself and nose-dives to provide relief to all this horrendous evil happening to us. Bergmann and Howard-Snyders oppose Rowe point of view by claiming that God may have very good reasons for horrendous evil to exist. Therefore, Bergmann and Howard-Snyders claim that finite human reasoning has no rational justification to discern whether or not there are substantial reasons for why God permits evils. So, Bergmann and Howard-Snyder’s response is of no good as they concluded that human cognitive is too limited to grasp the connection between evil and known goods as in some cases there might be goods that justify the evil yet they fail to explain why God leaves certain tribulations to triumph (James & Bradley N.p). Additionally, Bergmann and Howard-Snyder use the notion of “good-parent analogy” to battle with Rowe’s perception. Bergmann and Howard-Snyder believe that God exists, and He is entirely good and loving so, His goodness and the love are extended to all creatures He created. These individual compared Gog goodness to a good parent who set rational limits for their offspring and imposes them fairly and yet compassionate (Evans 92). Thus, God portrays His goodness and love, by setting rational limits for His creatures and imposes them fairly and yet compassionate. Therefore, human being have no basic reason to perceives that God allowing evil or suffering to prevail mean He does not exist, since God just as a good parent would supposedly reprimand His children so as to make them achieve the desirable behavior, and this may not likely be perceived as being evil to the child. In this sense, we can all agree that children whose parent set “no boundaries” may understand this in a different dimension since they passive it, not as love but as an absolute neglect. Subsequently, a good- parent is like a good God, who will at some time cause or permit some pain to their “creature” only when doing so is vivacious for them to attain a positive behavior. Moreover, Bergmann and Howard-Snyder’s argument advocate that in some incidents, there might be suffering of human that justifies goods outcome. It is vital to pinpoint that a good parent, like a good God, may have substantial reasons for allowing suffering or evil in order to accomplish greater goods. However, Bergmann and Howard-Snyder analogy is weak as God approving us to suffer will recurrently be beyond our conception. It is beyond logic that God with great power may realistically believe that he cannot recognize some essential future good for His creatures without necessarily permitting evil to befall them (Clark 238). The argument from complexity and the progress argument are other analogies used in emphasizing the disparity between us and God. The argument from complexity postulates that the goods involved in God’s actions and purposes are complex hence limiting our ability to grasp his purpose. The progress argument holds that knowledge has progress making it difficult for humanity to understand some new good concepts. It is, thus, not astounding that there are some goods known to God, but we are oblivious of (Evans 108). Correspondingly, the good parent analogy help us to apprehend that a good parent will only allow their child to suffer for some outweighing good that the child will not easily comprehend. Conversely, every good parent will also make every conscious effort to ensure that the child during this period of suffering receive special assurances of parent love hence assuring them that their parent are capable of preventing them from suffering or evil (Peterson 138). All these analogies used by Bergmann and Howard-Snyder are of no good as they are incapable of helping to understand why would God permits all suffering or evil to occur in our daily world. Despite their complexity, they hardly disapprove Rowe’s noseeum assumption that God does not exist since there is horrendous evil. The unabated increase in gratuitous evil and suffering has made theists formulate several considerations in support of Rowe’s noseeum assumption. Firstly, if there exists an omnipotent and omniscient being, he should perform moral actions. However, since in the contemporary world the wrong-making properties often outweigh the right-making properties in many actions, then the actions are immoral, and that being performing such actions can be considered to be morally flawed. Since many people believe that God is morally perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent, considering the amount of evil currently dominating the world, it, therefore, follows that God does not exist (James & Bradley N.p). Moreover, the failure of personal plans and God’s plan further indicate that God does not control the world and destiny of humanity is open-ended, lives being left to the mercy of Fortuna or Tyche, a more reason to doubt God’s existence. Similarly, theists find no good reasons for believing in things that we are exceedingly cynical of; since we cannot find God then He does not exist (Clark 297). These mere considerations are not any good for the ostensible fact that they want to postulate that our inability to understand or discern God’s intentions or find him should make us infer his powerlessness and absence. The hypotheses formulated in support of Rowes noseeum assumption lacks logic and precision. In his response to Bergmann and Howard-Snyder, Rowe rightly informs them that his incredulous arguments from evil are not from obliviousness and denies that they depend on noseeum assumption, thus ruling out Bergmann and Howard-Snyder’s argument that his argument wholly centered on theists denying God’s existence. Moreover, Rowe insists that, “the idea none of those instances of suffering could have been prevented by an all-powerful being without loss of a greater good must strike us as an extraordinary idea quite beyond belief” (Peterson 172). However, Rowe contends that the disparity between our knowledge and understanding of God’s goods should not hinder our ability to doubt God’s reasons for permitting evil to exist, if he truly exists, since we are epistemically qualified to make realistic judgments. Rowe further holds that if God can obtain what He wants without letting gratuitous evil, then there is no need to permit such evils to occur and cause horror in the world. Apparently, Rowe’s response can be perceived to be right considering that it draws expansively from real-life examples and experiences. Rowe’s evidential argument from evil filled me with bleakness for the simple fact Rowe presents a case to be answered through some sort of theodicy. The logical constraints of granting free will and the earth being filled with unfortunate occurrences does not merely indicate that God does not exist. God has a reason for everything and controls the world in His own unique ways. God permits the occurrence of horrendous evil so that his presence can be treasured. Our tiny minds cannot fathom why God works the way he does and Rowe’s noseeum assumption is rather a smug suggestion. Works Cited Clark, Kelly J. Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2000. Print. Evans, Jeremy A. The Problem of Evil: The Challenge to Essential Christian Beliefs. Nashville: B & H Academic, 2013. Print. James, Fieser and Bradley Dowden."Evidential Problem of Evil, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An Encyclopedia of Philosophy Articles Written by Professional Philosophers. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/#H2 Peterson, Michael L, and Raymond J. VanArragon. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Malden: Blackwell Pub, 2004. Print. Read More