Skeptical Theism

Skeptical Theism is a popular response to William Rowe's evidential problem of suffering. In this video, I briefly sketch what it is and why it poses a problem for a key part of Rowe's argument.

[demianhaki]

"We are epistemic toddlers"...we can't know god's mind, yet we are supremely confident in knowing what god is like, what he wants and that he and his mind exists.
The ignorance in that argument always drives me nuts.

[semidemiurge]

Much improved diction. More pleasant to listen to and follow your arguments. thanks

[yinYangMountain]

Greetings Real Atheology,

“It’s a skepticism about our ability to see any God justifying reasons that may exist.”

This is, at its core, ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam.’ I.e., because of our limited abilities to know, therefore X.

- - - - -

Example:

P1. Many instances of intense suffering seem gratuitous. (Because we cannot locate a God-justifying reason for them.)

=

P1. God exists; and,
P2. God is all-knowing (I.e., God is omniscient.); and,
P3. God is perfectly moral; morality is grounded in God’s nature. (I.e., morality is an objective universal timeless standard); and,
P4. God is perfectly logical: logic is grounded in God’s nature; and,
P5. many instances of intense suffering seem gratuitous; and,
P6. humans are limited in their abilities to justify suffering.

C. therefore, there are God-justifying reasons for the many instances of seemingly intense and gratuitous suffering.

- - - - -

The above syllogism is ‘petitio principii.’ It contains numerous unargued-for premises and attributes for an undefined God.

A teaching device used by philosophers, including A. C. Grayling, is called 'word substitution.' Example: Someone asserts, “A perfect God created the best of all possible Universes.” The philosopher will substitute the word "God" with the word 'Fred' so the argument reads thus: "Fred created the best of all possible Universes." The philosopher then asks, "Is this statement clear to everybody?" I.e., does everybody understand what is meant by the word "Fred?"

So, Real Atheology, before a theologian can proceed—and to avoid misunderstandings and/or red herrings to a Straw Man—it's necessary the theologian be honest, clear, and disclose all ’front-loaded’ presuppositions. They must be clear as to what they mean by God/Fred, knowledge, justification, etc.
—Ref. The God Argument —A. C. Grayling

It’s my opinion the believer of ’Classic Theology’ cannot justify their all-good God.
—Ref. The God of Eth —Stephen Law

yinYangMountain

[JBCAST]

We put our children to this type of suffering not only for the much greater good of the future health of our children but also because we don’t have the ability to do so without the suffering but if we had the ability that an omnipotent God has ; we wouldn’t do this to our children instead we would provide this & other benefits to our children without the need of suffering. This is God’s choice if God is omnipotent. isn’t it?

[ŚmiemWątpić]

Hello Justin! 🙂
It seems that the introduction to the evidential problem of suffering that you mention at the beginning of this video has been taken down. Could you please put it back (if possible)? ❤️

[DMint]

I like to call it the Roweian argument from evil. And other arguments other names depending on who most famously propounded the argument (e.g, Mackian (logical) argument from evil, Draperian argument etc.).

Still, it doesn't sound as sexy as "The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument". Theistic arguments have all the cool names :(

[seandavison]

I would also like to add that the analogy of the relationship of a toddler to a parent is false.

parents are limited in how they can go about providing for their children, no loving parent would subject their child to vaccination if they could just as easily wipe any disease their child could suffer from from the face of the earth, an omnipotent god is not limited in such a way.