1Victoria Jordan

Professor Ammar Hussein

ENGL1010

4-23-17

An Argument Against Atheism

Victoria Jordan

Abstract

In this paper I explain why I do not support William L. Rowes paper The Problem of Evil and
Some Varieties of Atheism(1979). I will be talking about four faults that I find with Rowes
argument. Namely how he relies on the use of pathos to present many of the his arguments, his
authorial voice in his paper, the flaws I find with his theory about how a god must not exist based
on the existence of evil, and the contradiction that is very apparent throughout his whole paper.
An Argument Against Atheism

Is there an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may rationally
justify someone in being an atheist? William L. Rowe asks this at the beginning of his paper
The Problem of Atheism and Some Varieties of Atheism when he explains the topic that he
will be discussing throughout the paper. But truly, is there really a rational argument against the
existence of God or as Rowe puts it an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, supremely good being
who created the world based off of the existence of evil (Rowe, 1979)? In answer to this
question I would have to say no, I dont believe that the argument for atheism is rationally
justified in this respect.

Now why would I believe that the argument Rowe presents is faulty? Admittedly his
argument is presented well, and he definitely uses ethos and logos to his advantage throughout
this arguments in the paper, which at first glance makes him look like he has a strong argument
for atheism. An obvious fault that I found with his paper is his use of pathos. Also, his authorial
voice is very apparent. Another thing I find faulty is his whole argument about how a god must
not exist because of evil. Lastly, Rowes paper possesses a complete contradiction with regards
to how his argument on evil is presented.

The way Rowe uses pathos is in a very subconscious way. He uses examples of children
or animals, examples that cause people to instantly open up to his argument, and then puts them
into extreme situations were he further exploits their emotions by using very strong language to
intensify their overall reaction to the argument being made. One particular example of this is
when he is explaining that a god must not exist because of the evil going on in the world,
specifically with regards to all of the suffering that occurs daily. One of the examples Rowe uses
to expand on this thought is when he says Someone might hold, for example, that no good is
great enough to justify permitting an innocent child to suffer terribly(page 336). There is a lot of
pathos being used in just this one sentence, especially when he states an innocent child to suffer
terribly.

Unlike with the use of pathos, how it was very subtle, his authorial voice is very obvious
throughout the whole paper. He makes it apparent from the beginning of his paper how he feels
about theism. Rowe displays his opinion in a way where he does not seem to despise the idea of
theism but he doesnt put much stock in the idea. Although you can see how Rowe feels about
the idea of theism, he does try to present a good counter argument for theists against his
argument. One particular situation were you can see Rowes use of an authorial voice in this
respect is when he is stating that the best way for a theist to battle the argument for atheism based
on the existence of evil is by an indirect attack. Before and throughout the whole statement he
gives an example about the G.E. Moore shift. Rowe does try to present a good argument for
theists against the atheism, but fails to do so (page 339).

In the citing done by Rowe on the first page he says that the argument for atheism based
on the existence of evil has been said by some philosophers to be logically inconsistent with
the existence of God. Rowe goes on to explain that taken in logical form it can present a
problem for his argument, but if taken in an evidential form it does provide rational support for
atheism (page 335). I would have to disagree with both of these arguments. This is because how
can anything be considered evil if a God never declared it evil? Rowes whole argument for
atheism is actually based on something that you cant have with out a God and that is evil. What
I mean by that is that you cant have evil without a god, not because god is evil but because you
have to have a god to declare something evil before something can be considered evil. So what
Rowe is essentially doing in his argument is not creating a strong argument for atheism, but
actually, unintentionally, proving that a god exists because there is evil in the world. If there was
no God then everything would just be mans law and mans word, and what one man might
consider wrong and horrid another man might think that its completely normal and good. In
Rowes paper on page 335 he says:

Intense human or animal suffering is in itself bad, an evil, even though it may sometimes be
justified by virtue of being a part of, or leading to, some good which is unobtainable without it. What is evil in itself
may sometimes be good as a means because it leads to something that is good in itself. In such a case, while
remaining an evil in itself, the intense human or animal suffering is, nevertheless, an evil which someone might be
morally justified in permitting.

In this excerpt he points out that suffering is evil. However, why would it be evil? Why couldnt
it be considered good? If there is no God then there is no evil, so in Rowes world his argument
is actually completely irrelevant because there is no god so nothing can be considered evil. Its
just one mans opinion against another.

As one may have noticed there is a lot of contradiction doing on throughout Rowes
paper. One example of this is his idea of basing an argument against God on the existence of
evil. Another example of when this happens is when he says he is going to discuss and defend
the position of friendly atheism. After he says this, he then turns around and seems to mock one
of the arguments that he says would be a good rebuttal for theists against his argument for
atheism. He does this on page 338 when he says I suppose some theists would be content with
this rather modest response to the basic argument for atheism(page 338). Another example of
the contradiction that I noticed while reading Rowes paper is when he is using the example of
the fawns suffering to help support his argument that he is trying to make presented on page 336
argument (1) There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being
could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally
bad or worse (page 336). This contradiction happens when Rowe is explaining how many
people might not be able to see how the fawns suffering and eventual death could be related to
some greater good, but that there are quite a few instances that dont seem like theyre related at
first but end up being related in the end. After explaining this theory, he then proceeds with his
points saying that because we cant prove one way or another whether or not all things are
relatable his argument is still a valid argument, and thus it is still a rational belief.

After having read this argument presented by Rowe many times I have come to the
conclusion that I dont agree with his analysis of the subject of atheism for the reasons that I
believe his use of pathos influences the reader in an unfair way. That although he does try to
present a decent defense for theists against the argument of atheism based on the existence of
evil it is influenced by his overall disregard for the theists beliefs. I also find his argument
presented against the existence of a God to be faulty for the simple reason that one can not have
evil without the existence of a God. Finally I find that the overall contradiction throughout the
paper makes it an invalid defense for atheism.

Having grown up a Christian with very firm beliefs in God, I would most likely find all
arguments against the existence of God to be faulty. But despite this, I have tried to be as
unbiased as I could while analyzing Rowes paper. The problems I have pinpointed within
Rowes essay are valid concerns with regards to his argument in favor of atheism. I believe they
are creditable points of interest to be looked at and taken into consideration when reading his
paper.
 References

William L. Rowe. (1979). The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism. American
Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335-341.