Rowe argument that there is no God

Rowe argument that there is no God

Journal

Rowe states his argument that there is no God through the following statements: 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 and that an omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse, therefore, proving that there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979: 336)

From a theological point of view, it does not make sense that an all-powerful, omniscient, entirely good being would permit unnecessary intense suffering and evil to fulfil his purpose (the greater good) especially if that evil could be avoided and another means used to satisfy the same purpose. In other words, I concur with Rowe’s sentiments that if God can achieve his goal without inflicting pain and suffering, why then would he not use the alternative method presented?

However, I do believe that God’s omniscience does not involve the ability to be fore-informed of what decision any of his creatures on earth would decide to make when faced with certain situations because he gave us free will to do what we feel is right. If God knew what decision we would make in all situations, then that would mean that we don’t, in fact, have free will. Due to free will, creatures of God’s creation may suffer consequences of the decisions they made at specific points in their life. Some of these horrible instances in life give us the push to turn from our evil ways and look in the right direction, and they open up learning avenues and favor points. I believe that intense suffering and pain is in deed working out for the greater good and that an omniscient and omnipotent being could not achieve those goods without permitting the suffering to happen.

According to Hick’s view (The Irenaean type), humans were not created in a perfected state in an idyllic environment but are rather in a continuous process of creation or development from morally immature creatures to morally perfected ones. God thus created the world—with all its potential evil and suffering—to serve as a “vale of soul-making. (Barnwell,2017). Technically speaking, there existence of God is a mystery: there is no evidence against or for the existence of God. This means that the only way that humans can know God is through unconditional faith in him. This leaves a dilemma because God gave his creatures free will and therefore, they have to choose to know him.

Suffering is one of the ways in which we get drawn closer to God because we navigate through sympathy, remorse, compassion and other emotions that bring us out of evil and into the light (suffering happens for the greater good). Though it can be argued that some suffering is unnecessary, I tend to think that if suffering was always beneficial, we would all anticipate suffering due to the reward and that would make soul-making process futile. The mystery aspect: we are not aware what suffering may bring develops the good virtues in creatures such as patience, resilience, compassion and love. I therefore believe that this suffering is of great value.

Rowe’s criticism of the soul-making process actually holds water. Despite the fact that it may be necessary for some evil to happen in the world, some of it is pointless and, in some cases, extremely harsh. It can also be argued that free will gives some people the ability to choose to harm others and they don’t grow spiritually meaning that the suffering is detrimental rather than uplifting. A world with slightly less suffering or with suffering that only occurs when we do bad things would not encourage soul-making because people would do right out of wrong reasons such as fear instead of right reasons and there would be less compassion towards the suffering individuals in our community. Similarly, if God were to intervene in every moment of suffering, then we never get to know what the consequences of our free will are.

• Cited
• Mark SM. “Suffering and soul-making: Rethinking John Hick’s theodicy.” The Journal of religion3 (2010): 313-334.
• “The evidential problem of evil.” (2005).
• William L. “The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly4 (1979): 335-341.
• “Soul-making theodicy and compatibilism: new problems and a new interpretation.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82.1 (2017): 29-46.