William Rowe Good Vs Evil Summary

Pramiti Sankar PHIL 100 AD0 3 March 2024 Section 1: Introduction In this paper, I will critique William L. Rowe's argument from the problem of evil against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God. Rowe constructs a deductively valid argument that aims to show that the existence of intense suffering in the world provides rational grounds for atheism - the belief that such a theistic God does not exist. While his argument is logically valid, there are ultimately not sufficient grounds to confidently affirm the truth of the first premise because of our inherent human limitations in knowledge, potential ignorance of goods beyond our comprehension, fallibility in evaluating goods versus evils, and the importance of preserving
What seems "pointless" given our parochial human patterns of comprehension may be nothing of the sort from a transcendent, infinitely more expansive level of knowledge. In sum, while Rowe's argument seems compelling from a limited human viewpoint, our radical epistemic constraints, potential ignorance of transcendent goods, fallibility regarding evaluating evils versus higher goods, and the criticality of preserving free will severely undermine our ability to confidently assess instances of suffering as truly gratuitous or unjustified. The vast cognitive divide between finite human minds and an omniscient, eternal perspective renders our confident assessments of seemingly pointless suffering deeply suspect. Section 4: Responding to Worries One worry is that this criticism relies too heavily on human ignorance and skepticism about our knowledge. But some degree of humility about the limits of human knowledge seems warranted, especially on such a profound metaphysical issue. An omniscient being's perspective may be startlingly different from the limited viewpoints available to us as finite
If God proves non-existence, we should rightly have a high epistemic standard. Finally, one could object that this criticism applies generally to arguments about evil and our limited human knowledge, rather than bearing specifically on Rowe's particular formulation. However, by constructing his case as a deductive argument that depends on a strong claim about the lack of justifying goods for specific instances of suffering, Rowe's argument takes on a higher burden of proof than more generalized arguments from evil that make weaker claims. Its validity hinges on establishing the truth of that weighty first premise to a very high degree of confidence. The limited human viewpoint seems insufficient to meet this burden. Section 5: Conclusion In conclusion, while William Rowe constructs a logically valid argument against the existence of God based on the problem of evil, there are overwhelmingly significant issues with being able to affirm the truth of his crucial first