Must Atheology Prove Gods Nonexistence - Literature review Example

Must Atheology Prove God’s Nonexistence? Minimum Descriptive Task William L. Rowe’s “Evil Is Evidence against Theistic Belief” argues that it is possible to get enough evidence which leads to the probabiblity that God does not exist. Making use of demonstrative arguments that rely on a couple of carefully chosen analogies, Rowe tries to establish that the existence of horrendous evil and unjustifiable human and animal suffering on the face of the earth can be evidences for the non-existence of God. In the introduction, he raises the question, “do the evils in out world make atheistic belief more reasonable than theistic belief?” (182), and maintains an answer in the affirmative as his major precept for the ensuing arguments. Rowe considers the view of the theists that there exists an all powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being (God) as ‘restricted theism’ as it “does not include any claim that is not entailed by it” (183). To find out whether the occurrence of evils in the world lower the likelihood of God’s existence, Rowe brings out two premises based on which he concludes that God does not exist. The two premises are, 1. There exist horrendous evils that an all powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being would have no justifying reason to permit. 2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being would not permit an evil unless he had a justifying reason to permit it. Rowe points out that theists have to reject either one of these premises if they have to prove the existence of God, and that they mostly accept the second premise, thereby rejecting the first one. Therefore, the theists will have to accept the fact that for every horrendous evil that takes place, there has to be an outweighing good for which God has no way of materializing without permitting the evil. Rowe provides two analogies to counter the argument that there is a justifying reason for God to permit horrendous evils. One is of a fawn horribly burned in a forest fire caused by lightning. It dies only after five days and has to undergo intense suffering until then, lying on the forest floor. The second analogy is of a five year old girl brutally beaten, raped, and strangled in Flint, Michigan, on New year’s day a few years ago. In both the cases, it cannot be argued that the suffering inflicted on the fawn and the girl are justifiable for some reason, as they personally do not benefit anything from the suffering and die without getting any relief. Rowe goes on to analyze two theistic responses to these analogies that point to the non-existence of God. The first one addresses the first premise and argues that the fact that we fail to understand the good that is meant by God when seemingly meaningless suffering is inflicted on us. The analogy of a child that is put to suffering by its parents for an unavoidable surgical procedure which would bring out some good the child fails to understand at the moment is presented, in supported of this argument. And it concludes with the statement, “the fact that we don’t know the goods that justify God in permitting much horrendous suffering cannot really be a reason for thinking he doesn’t exist” (186). Rowe counters this by referring to the good that transcends our cognition which the theists hint at, which implies a good that does not take place in this life, or in this world. This makes the existence of God a concept beyond the grasp of human beings, making it irrelevant and redundant. The presence of horrendous evil in the world which God cannot prevent because some good in the unknown future in an unknown way can be materialized makes the suffering and hope in God a meaningless affair. Rowe also makes use of the analogy of the parents who let their child suffer for some good beyond the grasp of the child at the moment, to affirm his argument. Such parents will assure the child of the good that awaits them and support them by being with them in their times of suffering. But the instances of the fawn and the five year old child does not bring about any such good in the future, neither does God assure them of His love and care with His presence, at least through some signs. Rowe infers that the first response of the theist deems insufficient to defeat his reasons for thinking that premise 1 is probably true. The possibility of further arguments demanding proof that there exists no good which can be materialized through horrendous suffering is also addressed by Rowe. He makes the possibility of a person, Mr. Smith being in town by using the probability that he would be at a concert if he is in town. The fact that he is not at the concert would not prove that he is not in town at all, but makes it more probable that he is not in town. The absence of a justifiable reason for horrendous evil is thus something that makes the non-existence of God more probable, according to Rowe. The second response by the theists refer to the second premise and affirms that it is possible to comprehend the goods that God tries to bring to us even as he permits horrendous evils for the sake of it. Religious thinkers have developed plausible theodicies that help us comprehend the reasons of God. Rowe singles out the free will theodicy developed by St. Augustine. This refers to the existence of evil in the world due to the free will of human beings, and as punishments by God, in response to the evil acts of human beings. This depends on the notion that God has created human beings and conferred to them free will that would leave them with the choice of good and evil acts. This makes the concept of an omniscient God questionable, as the evil acts of human beings seem to surpass God’s expectations so that a punishment is effected as a reaction to it. Moreover, Rowe points out that the natural calamities like plagues, floods, hurricanes etc. that take away the life of countless human beings and animals is also seen according to this theodicy as a punishment from God. This, according to Rowe, cannot be accepted as the punishment is not proportionate to the evil that is generated out of human free will. Moreover, there are unjustifiable evil that segregate people, put them to suffering and even take away their lives like the Holocaust. Even human beings would react to such situations and try to stop it, but the fact that God permits them to happen for some unknown, unjustifiable good makes Rowe conclude that the theodicies fail I explaining the reason for horrendous evil in the world. Rowe states that the presence of evil in the world is evidence enough to conclude that God does not exist. He does not rule out the probability of the existence of God in theistic terms, but makes clear that the probability for the absence of God in this world infested with evil is stronger. Rowe mentions in the essay that his argument is not a ‘proof’ that God does not exist. In his own words, “To be a proof of its conclusion, an argument must be such that its conclusion logically follows from its premises and its premises are known with certainty to be true” (185). This self-observation makes the arguments of Rowe authentic to the core and does not claim to be more than what it is. Even as he does not prove that God does not exist, the persuasive arguments in the essay posit significant evidence that would lead to the conclusion that it is probable that God does not exist. Minimum Evaluative Task Based on the scope of demonstrative argument, it is possible to counter the arguments of Rowe. It can be seen that Rowe follows the hypothesis that the nonexistence of God is a strong probability when the evidence of evil is analyzed. However, there is no attempt from the part of him to open the arguments to the different impacts of evil other than the ostensibly devastating ones with no evidential meaning or purpose. He does not address his arguments to the theistic ideologies which interrogate basic human existence and its relation to all life forms in earth. Even as one could limit the arguments in this context to inductive or deductive aspects, there still remains the possibility of interpreting good and evil. The analogies presented by Rowe can reveal to him only the possibility of evil existing beyond the power of God, even as inevitable channels for some good. His conclusion is that the probability of God’s existence increases as long as the suffering or the fawn and the five year old girl remain unjustified especially in connection to some good for them which becomes impossibility as they die just after immense suffering. Here Rowe resorts to reductionism, as he restricts the idea of good and evil to individuals and disconnected events. If one resort to the way life patterns on earth exists, it can be seen that the elimination and extinction of certain life forms are necessary for the survival of a balance existence. The way human suffering is depicted so far through different human agencies may be sufficient to help individuals to empathize with the suffering of others, but it remains the fact that suffering has a very personal element that transcends communal comprehension. One individual can never comprehend the level of suffering another individual undergoes, not matter how hard s/he tries. Or, one cannot even predict how one individual will react inwardly to incidents that are tragic. And, one cannot deduct that the human existence is devoid of suffering at any phase. Neither can once conclude that experiencing pain in small amounts for a longer period is preferable to experiencing it in one small concentrated stretch or vice versa. Thus the interpretation of the incidents related to the fawn and the five year old child can only be understood as something beyond the grasp of another individual. The idea of good and evil would remain an individual issue for the fawn and the child, no matter how limited their cognitive faculties are, and one cannot assume that they suffered more than human beings and animals usually do through their entire life, and whether they failed to benefit some essential good that others gain. A woman giving birth may have a sense of pleasure in the act, even as the pain remains. But it cannot be deduced that the expectation one keeps during suffering justifies the suffering, as there is a possibility that her child is stillborn, or is born with some handicap. This should not lead to the sadistic argument that her suffering is meaningless in comparison to someone who gives birth to a perfectly healthy child, as there is a possibility that the healthy child can grow up to an evil person and be a cause of constant worry to the mother. What gives meaning to such life experiences is the way people react inwardly to them. The mother of a murderer can either be someone who suffers for no possible good, or a transformed person who is able to transcend the conventional views on motherhood and reach out to those for whom she can be a better mother beyond the biological possibilities. The idea of human courage in adverse situation is also problematic in relative merit. As Nicholas Tattersall mentions in his “the Evidential Argument from Evil” (1998), “it is not clear that the courage shown by a sports player who takes on superior opposition is qualitatively less significant than the courage shown by the victim of a natural disaster”. Therefore, one can definitely assume that the existence of evil and its interpretations are not evidences of the nonexistence of God. Even as there remain immense possibilities of evil in the world, the possibilities of good generating out of it are also immense. The attempt to justify the existence of horrendous evil in the world is not a task that can be successfully carried out by human beings, as the nature of life itself is beyond his comprehension. The claim by science that it is able to comprehend every aspect of life is false, as the creation and sustenance of life is never effectively done by them. In that sense God remains a supreme power, omniscient and omnipotent, as the life that he has created (if one agrees to that proposition) has lasted for so long, without any horrendous evil that questions this existence. If one is able to assume that life on earth is a good thing, in contrast to the analogies of suffering and death by Rowe, it is possible to argue that the existence of life without any immense threat to it for so long is evidence enough for the existence of God. Interpreting good and evil in accordance with human cognition restricts one from seeing this large good that is effected by some power other than one formulated by human beings. Final Note Rowe’s arguments are a reaction to natural theology, which makes use of human cognition to prove that God exists. Since the arguments serve the purpose of defending Rowe’s stand that it is probable that God does not exist against the precepts of natural theology, they are convincing as long as they bear evidential substantiation. However, it is not a valid strain of argument for anyone who has a strong belief in the existence of God which is not based on natural theology. For them, it cannot be concluded from any demonstrative argument of probability that God does not exist. The existence of God is a fact for them that surpass human cognition and analytical powers. The way they interpret their life experiences as signs that prove the existence of God can be brought under the aegis of revelation theology. Moreover, faith plays a significant part in their understanding of life and the existence of God. Scott McDonald categorizes the kind of Rowe’s arguments as part of natural atheology (30). There are two strands to this in McDonald’s view, one that “argues that the concept of God is in some way incoherent or internally inconsistent” and the other that “argues that the existence of God or the truth of some set of religious beliefs is incompatible with things we know about the world”. However, the second strand, as exhibited by Rowe’s essay gives theists an opportunity to argue for the existence of God as the second premise of Rowe involves the interpretation of things beyond human cognition. As much as natural athoelogy succeeds with convincing arguments that would at least lead to the probability of the nonexistence of God, clarificatory and philosophical theology are capable of countering them. However, as long the nature of good and evil, the existence of God and the way people interpret them cannot be fully accommodated in any of these arguments, it remains an individual choice to believe or not to believe in the existence of God. References McDonald, Scott. “Natural Theology”. Rowe, William L. “Evil is Evidence against Theistic Belief”. Tattersall, Nicholas. “The Evidential Argument from Evil” Read More