Collins And Rowe's Argument For The Existence Of God
The question of whether there is a God has been debated by many philosophers, religious experts, and even your average citizens. Many of those people have attempted to argue why God is or is not real. This paper is going to present two different arguments by the philosophers: Robin Collins and William Rowe. The first argument by Collins is an argument for the existence of God, who designed our incredibly complex universe. The explanation of Collin’s argument will be followed by Rowe’s argument against the existence of God, which is in relation to intense suffering that exists in this world. With those two arguments at hand, the question is, are the conclusions compatible?
Robin Collin’s created the fine-tuning argument in order to argue for the existence of God. He considers it “the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God” (Collins 194). He simply argues that the universe is far too complex and perfect for it to have all happened by chance, therefore, it must have a designer. There are examples to show …show more content…
just how fine tuned the universe actually is; including: “Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible” (Collins 193). That is just one of the five examples Collins provided of how close Earth and life as we know it is so close to not existing. Collins believes that one intelligent designer is the only plausible explanation for this perfectly fine tuned universe. That designer must be God according to Collins.
Collins combats two different arguments against his own. The first being “The Atheistic Singe Universe Hypothesis,” which states that there is only one universe that exists, and it just happened to be fine-tuned. Collins defends his argument against the Atheistic Single Universe Hypotheses with the Prime Principle of Confirmation (PPC). It is a general principle of reasoning which tells us when some observation counts as evidence in favor of one hypothesis over another. Broken down, the PPC goes like this: 1. Pr (Constants are right/design)>Pr (Constants are right/chance). 2. Chance is improbable. 3. Design is highly probable. 4. Therefore, the constants are evidence for design. The PPC disproves the Atheistic Single Universe Hypothesis by showing not that God is real or that there is even a designer, but that there is a higher probability that the universe was designed compared to the probability that it happened by chance. He explains this in simple terms with his rock example, which is: you’re on a hike with your brother and you find your name written out in rocks. Is it more likely that your brother wrote out your name, or is it more likely that an earthquake occurred causing the rocks to fall and by chance they fell into place of your name? The probability that your brother did it is simply higher and makes far more sense.
The second argument that comes up against Collin’s is “The Atheistic Many Universes Hypothesis.” This hypothesis argues that there is essentially a universe generator that produces infinite universes and by chance it produces one that is perfect and fine-tuned (our universe). Collins disregards this with a few responses, including: “everything else equal, we should prefer hypotheses for which we have independent evidence or that are natural extrapolations from what we already know” (Collins 200). He then simplifies that argument by using a woman who does not think dinosaurs are real. This woman attempts to argue that a field they find dinosaur bones in actually generates the bones, but we already have enough evidence that this is not true, due to other types of fossils found in other places. We already know that minds have the ability of producing fine tuned things, like Swiss watches, for example. Therefore, we should believe that God who has a supermind would be able to create a fine-tuned universe such as our own. Ultimately, Collins establishes with the two responses to these two arguments that, there 1. Is a designer and 2. God is the designer.
William Rowe’s goal was to argue for atheism based on the existence evil. In order to do this, he focuses on a particular type of evil, that being gratuitous suffering. Gratuitous suffering is defined as: “intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse” (225). His overall argument based on evil is: 1. Gratuitous suffering exists. 2. If God exists, then gratuitous suffering would not exist. 3. Therefore, God does not exist. Rowe knows that premise (1) cannot be proven as true, as he shows with the burning fawn argument: “For all we know, there is some familiar good out-weighing the fawn’s suffering to which that suffering is connected in a way we do not see” (226). Although Rowe knows (1) can’t be proven true, he believes that there are rational grounds for believing that (1) is true. He argues that it is in fact unreasonable to believe that the fawn’s suffering has some greater good, and therefore “we have rational support for atheism, that it is reasonable for use to believe that the theistic God does not exist” (227). He also argues that theists and nontheists will both agree with premise (2), and the theists can only argue his argument by rejecting it’s first premise. The theists attempt to do this with a “direct attack” by arguing that suffering is connected to moral and spiritual development, but it is reasonably clear that theists cannot know what greater goods might be served by this suffering. Also, in the theist’s own religious tradition, it is inappropriate to claim to know what God’s purpose is in allowing suffering. Rowe believes that the best argument for the theists is the G.E. Moore shift.
Rowe’s argument, that God does not exist, is convincing as he states it, but his argument actually disproves itself while attempting to prove itself. He argues that premise (1) can’t be for certain, but it is reasonable to believe it is not true, but it is also reasonable to believe that it is true if that’s the case. Rowe is a friendly atheist, so he believes theists are justified in their beliefs, which is good, but his argument lacks aggression and solidity. Although all of these arguments are just theories, and there is really no way of actually knowing what is real or not, Rowe fails to truly make his argument convincing. Therefore, he does a poor job at establishing his argument in a convincing manner.
With the full explanation of Collin’s and Rowe’s arguments, the next question is: Are the conclusions of the arguments compatible?
Ultimately, no they are not compatible. Collins establishes that God does exist, and that he is the designer and fine-tuner of the universe and life as we know it. Rowe establishes (kind of) that God does not exist, due the fact that gratuitous suffering exists and there is no way to prove if there is meaning behind the gratuitous suffering or not. These two arguments establish two completely different ideas and conclusions about God’s existence. The only way these conclusions could maybe be considered compatible, is with Rowe’s friendly atheism. This would mean compatible in the sense that Collins is justified in his belief that God exists for his own reasons. The arguments themselves are arguing two different things: design and suffering. They both somewhat use probability in order to make way to their
conclusion. Overall, Collins and Rowe have two completely different arguments about the existence of God. Collins argues for the existence of God, which he shows with his fine tuning argument. Even if it was not God who designed the universe, the probability that there was a designer is much greater than the probability that it all occurred by chance. Rowe argues that there is no God, because there is gratuitous intense suffering and if God was real this suffering would not exist. Each argument has it’s own flaws, but Rowe’s seems to be the weaker of the two in the sense that his argument can be so easily reversed. Rowe is okay with this though, because he sees justification for his own belief. The two conclusions are not compatible with each other, because they both conclude the ideas of opposite beliefs: Theism and Atheism.
Robin Collin’s created the fine-tuning argument in order to argue for the existence of God. He considers it “the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God” (Collins 194). He simply argues that the universe is far too complex and perfect for it to have all happened by chance, therefore, it must have a designer. There are examples to show …show more content…
just how fine tuned the universe actually is; including: “Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible” (Collins 193). That is just one of the five examples Collins provided of how close Earth and life as we know it is so close to not existing. Collins believes that one intelligent designer is the only plausible explanation for this perfectly fine tuned universe. That designer must be God according to Collins.
Collins combats two different arguments against his own. The first being “The Atheistic Singe Universe Hypothesis,” which states that there is only one universe that exists, and it just happened to be fine-tuned. Collins defends his argument against the Atheistic Single Universe Hypotheses with the Prime Principle of Confirmation (PPC). It is a general principle of reasoning which tells us when some observation counts as evidence in favor of one hypothesis over another. Broken down, the PPC goes like this: 1. Pr (Constants are right/design)>Pr (Constants are right/chance). 2. Chance is improbable. 3. Design is highly probable. 4. Therefore, the constants are evidence for design. The PPC disproves the Atheistic Single Universe Hypothesis by showing not that God is real or that there is even a designer, but that there is a higher probability that the universe was designed compared to the probability that it happened by chance. He explains this in simple terms with his rock example, which is: you’re on a hike with your brother and you find your name written out in rocks. Is it more likely that your brother wrote out your name, or is it more likely that an earthquake occurred causing the rocks to fall and by chance they fell into place of your name? The probability that your brother did it is simply higher and makes far more sense.
The second argument that comes up against Collin’s is “The Atheistic Many Universes Hypothesis.” This hypothesis argues that there is essentially a universe generator that produces infinite universes and by chance it produces one that is perfect and fine-tuned (our universe). Collins disregards this with a few responses, including: “everything else equal, we should prefer hypotheses for which we have independent evidence or that are natural extrapolations from what we already know” (Collins 200). He then simplifies that argument by using a woman who does not think dinosaurs are real. This woman attempts to argue that a field they find dinosaur bones in actually generates the bones, but we already have enough evidence that this is not true, due to other types of fossils found in other places. We already know that minds have the ability of producing fine tuned things, like Swiss watches, for example. Therefore, we should believe that God who has a supermind would be able to create a fine-tuned universe such as our own. Ultimately, Collins establishes with the two responses to these two arguments that, there 1. Is a designer and 2. God is the designer.
William Rowe’s goal was to argue for atheism based on the existence evil. In order to do this, he focuses on a particular type of evil, that being gratuitous suffering. Gratuitous suffering is defined as: “intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse” (225). His overall argument based on evil is: 1. Gratuitous suffering exists. 2. If God exists, then gratuitous suffering would not exist. 3. Therefore, God does not exist. Rowe knows that premise (1) cannot be proven as true, as he shows with the burning fawn argument: “For all we know, there is some familiar good out-weighing the fawn’s suffering to which that suffering is connected in a way we do not see” (226). Although Rowe knows (1) can’t be proven true, he believes that there are rational grounds for believing that (1) is true. He argues that it is in fact unreasonable to believe that the fawn’s suffering has some greater good, and therefore “we have rational support for atheism, that it is reasonable for use to believe that the theistic God does not exist” (227). He also argues that theists and nontheists will both agree with premise (2), and the theists can only argue his argument by rejecting it’s first premise. The theists attempt to do this with a “direct attack” by arguing that suffering is connected to moral and spiritual development, but it is reasonably clear that theists cannot know what greater goods might be served by this suffering. Also, in the theist’s own religious tradition, it is inappropriate to claim to know what God’s purpose is in allowing suffering. Rowe believes that the best argument for the theists is the G.E. Moore shift.
Rowe’s argument, that God does not exist, is convincing as he states it, but his argument actually disproves itself while attempting to prove itself. He argues that premise (1) can’t be for certain, but it is reasonable to believe it is not true, but it is also reasonable to believe that it is true if that’s the case. Rowe is a friendly atheist, so he believes theists are justified in their beliefs, which is good, but his argument lacks aggression and solidity. Although all of these arguments are just theories, and there is really no way of actually knowing what is real or not, Rowe fails to truly make his argument convincing. Therefore, he does a poor job at establishing his argument in a convincing manner.
With the full explanation of Collin’s and Rowe’s arguments, the next question is: Are the conclusions of the arguments compatible?
Ultimately, no they are not compatible. Collins establishes that God does exist, and that he is the designer and fine-tuner of the universe and life as we know it. Rowe establishes (kind of) that God does not exist, due the fact that gratuitous suffering exists and there is no way to prove if there is meaning behind the gratuitous suffering or not. These two arguments establish two completely different ideas and conclusions about God’s existence. The only way these conclusions could maybe be considered compatible, is with Rowe’s friendly atheism. This would mean compatible in the sense that Collins is justified in his belief that God exists for his own reasons. The arguments themselves are arguing two different things: design and suffering. They both somewhat use probability in order to make way to their
conclusion. Overall, Collins and Rowe have two completely different arguments about the existence of God. Collins argues for the existence of God, which he shows with his fine tuning argument. Even if it was not God who designed the universe, the probability that there was a designer is much greater than the probability that it all occurred by chance. Rowe argues that there is no God, because there is gratuitous intense suffering and if God was real this suffering would not exist. Each argument has it’s own flaws, but Rowe’s seems to be the weaker of the two in the sense that his argument can be so easily reversed. Rowe is okay with this though, because he sees justification for his own belief. The two conclusions are not compatible with each other, because they both conclude the ideas of opposite beliefs: Theism and Atheism.