We began reading Rowe’s “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”. I change the poor, burned fawn to “Bambie being burned”. Love it — but only in the most philosophically uplifting way. Rowe’s essay is provacative even if he’s advocating for a “friendly atheism”. Michael Martin examines Rowe’s thesis here and it’s worth reading a couple of times.
I really do think that the project is hard to support. How can you argue someone into believing or disbelieving in God? But then the flip side rears its ugly head: Should we not try to dissuade people from holding personally, and possibly socially, damaging views?
Do we not engage people from both sides of the global warming debate? Sure, some of us do. In one sense we certainly don’t mind if someone believes that global warming is a real phenomenon. Al thinks global warming is happening. He acts and urges other people to act and vote accordingly. George doesn’t believe there’s global warming. If Al actually believes global warming is really a threat, shouldn’t he do all he can to encourage people to acknowledge it, too?
The difference here is that the hypothesis that there is (or is not) global warming ought to be verifiable scientifically. I just don’t think religious belief operates that way.