Philosophy

Rowe distinguishes three kinds of atheism based on how one answers which question?

What position should the informed atheist take concerning the rationality of theistic belief?

Does Rowe attack friendly atheism?

False

What are the three sorts of atheism that Rowe describes?

theist, atheist, agnostic

What is a theist in the narrow sense of the word?

someone who believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, supremely good being who created the world.

What is broad theism?

someone who believes in the existence of some sort of divine being or divine reality.

Is Rowe's article concerned with examining narrow theism or broad theism?

narrow sense

What is the argument for atheism based on evil?

(evil in itself may sometimes be good as a means because it leads to something that is overall good in itself.)

valid

I. 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.2 2. 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. 3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

True or False: Rowe's argument for atheism depends upon the idea that different cultures

believe in different gods

false

True or false: Rowe's argument for atheism depends on the idea that there is no scientific

evidence for creation

false

True or false: Rowe's argument for atheism depends on the existence of seemingly

pointless suffering

true

True or False: the second premise of the argument for atheism based on evil (that an

omniscient, wholly good being would prevent intense suffering unless this would also

require losing some other great good or permitting some evil) is accepted by many theists

and atheists

true

What is Rowe's example of apparently pointless suffering?

(the fawn)distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn's intense suffering is pointless.

True or False: Rowe claims that we know that a fawn's burning to death in a forest fire is

a case of pointless suffering?

true

True or False: Rowe thinks that we know and can prove that the first premise of the

argument for atheism based on evil is true.

false

Should the atheist think that theists have a false belief?

no/false

What is unfriendly atheism?

the atheist may believe that no one is rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.

What is indifferent atheism?

the atheist may hold no belief concerning whether any theist is or isn't rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.

What is friendly atheism?

the atheist may believe that some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.

True or False: someone can hold a belief, be convinced that he is rationally justified in holding this belief, and yet believe that someone else is equally justified in believing the

opposite?

true

Does Rowe think that an atheist can think that some so-called "justifications of theism"

rationally justify some theists in their belief in the existence of God?

true

True or False: Howard-Snyder and Bergmann argue that even though the existence of

evil provides a reason to be an atheist, other reasons point in favor of being a theist.

true

True or False: Howard-Snyder and Bergmann argue that Rowe's argument does not

work, because it is not written in a spirit of love for God.

false

What is the "basic argument" of Howard-Snyder and Bergmann

for the conclusion that grounds for belief in God aside, evil does not make belief in atheism more reasonable for us than belief in theism:

1 Grounds for belief in God aside, evil makes belief in atheism more reasonable for us than belief in theism only if somebody has a good argument that displays how evil makes atheism more likely than theism. 2 Nobody has a good argument that displays how evil makes atheism more likely than theism. 3 So, grounds for belief in God aside, evil does not make belief in atheism more reasonable for us than belief in theism. (from 1 & 2)

True or False: Rowe, Howard-Snyder and Bergmann are friends, even though they

disagree and argue against each other in their writings

true

What is a no-see-um argument?

we don't see 'um, so they ain't there!

What general principle or hidden assumption lurks behind no-see-um arguments?

A noseeum premise makes its conclusion more likely than not only if more likely than not we'd detect (see, discern) the item in question if it existed.

True or false: anyone who makes a noseeum argument makes a noseeum assumption.

true

True or False: the noseeum assumption lurking behind Rowe's argument is roughly that

more likely than not, if there were a reason for God to allow all this suffering, we would

be able to see what it was.

True

Howard-Snyder and Bergmann think that the noseeum assumption behind the argument

for atheism based on evil should not be accepted. What reasons do they give to support

this claim?

1a So far as we can tell, there is no reason that would justify God in permitting E1 and E2. So it is more likely than not that 1b There is no reason that would justify God in permitting E1 and E2. So it is more likely than not that 1 There is no reason that would justify God in permitting certain instances of intense suffering.

Why do Howard-Snyder and Bergmann argue that atheist arguments from evil are not

good arguments?

Such limited skepticism need not extend to every argument for theism or to all reflection on the nature of God.

The Atheist's Noseeum Assumption says that, more likely than not, we'd see a God-justifying reason if there were one

What is petitionary prayer?

fundamentally a request made of God for something specific believed to be good by the one praying

True or false: contemplative kinds of prayer are paradoxical, but petitionary prayer

doesn't have any special problems.

false

True or False: Stump's article is focused on the question of whether the practice of

petitionary prayer forces those who have such a practice to believe in miracles.

true

What is the basic question or puzzle that Stump discusses in her article?

problem comes to this: is a belief in the efficacy and usefulness of petitionary prayer consistent with a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God

True or False: one of Stump's main aims in her article is to contribute to contemporary

biblical exegesis (critical examination or interpretation of a text).

false

Why do the first three requests of the so-called "Lord's Prayer" seem pointless and futile?

namely, that petitionary prayer is pointless.

Why do requests to God for something to happen, assuming the things in question are not

predetermined, seem problematic?

There is no point in asking for something if it is bound to happen anyway .

What is the conclusion of the 13-step argument Stump considers?

petitionary prayer is pointless.

What is the basic strategy of the 13-step argument?

The basic strategy of this argument is an attempt to show that there is an inconsistency between God's goodness and the efficacy of petitionary prayer

What is the purpose of the example of the little boy and the jackknife?

To show that petitionary prayer doesn't benefit the greater good, just the individual.

Stump discusses problems with friendships where one friend is inferior or disadvantaged

compared to the other. What are the 2 dangers she lists about such friendships?

Dominated- The inferior friend becomes the shadow/follower of the more advantaged friend Spoiled - self indulged, power at their disposal

How does Stump argue that petitionary prayer is related to the dangers of a certain kind

of friendship?

the institution of petitionary prayer, I think, can be understood as a safeguard against these dangers.

What does Stump say about the efficacy of prayers for big things - like for earthquake

victims?

Without more work on the problem of evil, it is hard to know what to say about the difference prayer might make in this sort of case.

Does Stump ultimately think that petitionary prayer can be justified without denying

divine goodness?

true, So in the case of the opening petitions of the Lord's Prayer, too, it seems possible to justify petitionary prayer without impugning God's goodness.

What does it mean to say that prayer could be a kind of buffer between God and humans

God must work through the intermediary of prayer, rather than doing everything on his own initiative, for man's sake. By safeguarding the weaker member of the relation from the dangers of overwhelming domination and overwhelming spoiling, it helps to promote and preserve a close relationship between an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good person and a fallible, finite, imperfect person.