The Evidential Argument from Evil

Rating:
Summary: A MUST-HAVE book on the problem of evil!
Review: Anyone interested in the debate over the evidential argument from evil simply must have this book. It includes two influential but distinct formulations of the argument--those by William Rowe and Paul Draper--followed by a number of essays written in response to one another. The list of authors who contributed to the anthology is impressive. Besides Rowe and Draper, the book also contains essays by Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Gale, Bruce Russell, Peter van Inwagen, and Stephen Wykstra.

Like Cole Mitchell, I was also somewhat disappointed by the demographics of the book (10 of the book's 16 articles were theistic). Despite this flaw, I was still so pleased with the book that I rated it with 5 stars. Any serious student of the problem of evil will want their own copy of this book.

Rating:
Summary: A Great Exploration of a Sticky Issue
Review: Daniel Howaed-Snider has put together a truly excellent collection of articles on one of the most difficult problems confronted by the philosopher of religion. I approached the work as a philosophy graduate student and an atheist convinced that the problem of evil constituted a nearly unbridgeable barrier to rational belief in God. Howard-Snyder's book changed my mind. I recommend it to any and all philosophically inclined theists, atheists and anyone else interested in the philosophy of religion. Both sides of the issue are well represented by some of the best contemporaty philosophers of religion

Rating:
Summary: AtheistWorld.Com Book Review
Review: The existence of evil - undeserved human and animal pain and suffering - has been a barrier to religious belief for many people. One of those people was this reviewer's mother, raised Catholic but turned atheist after witnessing terrible suffering in her native Scotland during World War II. As she once told me, "when you've seen mothers holding their children, both riddled with machine gun bullets from German planes, it's impossible to believe there's a good God in heaven". Bertrand Russell once made the comment that "no one can believe in a good God if they've sat at the bedside of a dying child."

C.S. Lewis called this issue "The Problem of Pain" in his book of that title. The current preferred term is "The Evidential Argument From Evil" because, as explained in the Introduction, it's not a "Problem" except for people who believe in God.

Readers of this book will discover why belief in an all-good, all-powerful God, in the face of human suffering and evil, is not necessarily "cognitively dissonant". It provides a balanced, fair treatment of the issue by both believers and atheists.

The book is quite technical at times. Several of the essays feature complex equations purporting to illustrate various logical propositions. There is also a good deal of philosophical jargon used. Nonetheless, while the book is not as readable as anything by C.S. Lewis (or Ayn Rand for that matter), it provides the best treatment I've seen in print of the arguments for both sides in this perennial issue.

Rating:
Summary: AtheistWorld.Com Book Review
Review: The existence of evil - undeserved human and animal pain and suffering - has been a barrier to religious belief for many people. One of those people was this reviewer's mother, raised Catholic but turned atheist after witnessing terrible suffering in her native Scotland during World War II. As she once told me, "when you've seen mothers holding their children, both riddled with machine gun bullets from German planes, it's impossible to believe there's a good God in heaven". Bertrand Russell once made the comment that "no one can believe in a good God if they've sat at the bedside of a dying child."

C.S. Lewis called this issue "The Problem of Pain" in his book of that title. The current preferred term is "The Evidential Argument From Evil" because, as explained in the Introduction, it's not a "Problem" except for people who believe in God.

Readers of this book will discover why belief in an all-good, all-powerful God, in the face of human suffering and evil, is not necessarily "cognitively dissonant". It provides a balanced, fair treatment of the issue by both believers and atheists.

The book is quite technical at times. Several of the essays feature complex equations purporting to illustrate various logical propositions. There is also a good deal of philosophical jargon used. Nonetheless, while the book is not as readable as anything by C.S. Lewis (or Ayn Rand for that matter), it provides the best treatment I've seen in print of the arguments for both sides in this perennial issue.