works
Jim Stone Evidential atheism article Here is a new version of the ’evidential problem of evil’. Theists claim that it is reasonable for atheists to believe that if God did exist, suffering would look just as it does now. I endorse this claim, however it cannot be deployed against my argument without the following epistemic principle: what we see makes p likely only if it is reasonable to believe it would be discernibly different if p were false. I demonstrate that this principle is mistaken. The paper also responds to objections from Alvin Plantinga and Peter Van Inwagen that God’s existence is compatible with pointless natural evil. In particular, I argue that appeals to vagueness do not support the compatibility claim.

Evidential atheism

Jim Stone

Philosophical Studies, vol. 114, no. 3, 2003, pp. 253–277

Abstract

Here is a new version of the ’evidential problem of evil’. Theists claim that it is reasonable for atheists to believe that if God did exist, suffering would look just as it does now. I endorse this claim, however it cannot be deployed against my argument without the following epistemic principle: what we see makes p likely only if it is reasonable to believe it would be discernibly different if p were false. I demonstrate that this principle is mistaken. The paper also responds to objections from Alvin Plantinga and Peter Van Inwagen that God’s existence is compatible with pointless natural evil. In particular, I argue that appeals to vagueness do not support the compatibility claim.

PDF

First page of PDF