Rowe's Fawn
Does Intense Personal Suffering Mean There is No God?
William Rowe (born 1931) is a professor of philosophy at Purdue University. In his youth, he became a born-again evangelical Christian and intended to become a minister of the gospel.
Reading the Bible more critically in his post-graduate studies, and finding that his life experiences did not match up with what his faith promised, Rowe began to question the truth of his beliefs and the validity of the authority of the Bible.
Praying for signs of God's existence, and finding no reward for his prayer, Rowe gradually grew away from his faith and became an atheist. Rowe uses the term "friendly atheist" to describe himself, and others like him, who do not believe in God but understand those who do (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
In his piece, Rowe's Fawn he argues against the existence of a loving God.
Rowe's Fawn
"Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.
"So far as we can see, the fawn's intense suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn's suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse," (What If, 44) Rowe writes.
The lightning which struck the dead tree, a natural occurrence, is often referred to as "an act of God," whether rightly or wrongly, and so had nothing to do with the fawn's free will (if a fawn has free will). It also does not appear, from the text, that this fawn was particularly bad nor especially good. Why then does the fawn suffer?
Since the fawn dies, it cannot be that this was meant to teach a lesson and since the fawn does not appear to be a bad fawn it would not seem this is a punishment. Nor is it the case, according to the text, that some greater good will come of the fawn's suffering nor some greater evil be prevented. The suffering of the fawn seems completely meaningless.
Rowe continues, saying, "Since the fawn's intense suffering was preventable and, so far as we can see, pointless, doesn't it appear that...there do exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse." (What If, 44)
Rowe's Conclusion
It is clear, then, that Rowe suggests such an "omnipotent, omniscient being" does not exist, or else he would have relieved the suffering of the fawn or prevented it entirely.
An objection could be raised at two points in the argument where Rowe says, "as far as we can see" in that there may be reasons for this fawn's suffering which an all-powerful deity deems just and we simply cannot understand.
The writer Peg Tittle addresses this concern, stating, "Rowe anticipates [this] objection, 'Perhaps, for all we know, there is some familiar good outweighing the fawn's suffering to which that suffering is connected in a way we do not see' but we do have rational grounds for believing it to be true [that the fawn's suffering is meaningless and could have been prevented]. Is that sufficient." (What If, 45)
The age-old question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is here re-phrased as "Why do bad things happen at all?"
Perhaps it is because "as far as we can see" is not far enough to give one insight into the meaning of suffering or, in Rowe's view, because there is no loving God to prevent it.
Sources:
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, WIlliam L. Rowe entry.
- What If: Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy, Peg Tittle, 2005, Pearson/Longman.
White-Tailed Fawn Like The Deer in Rowe's Fawn
|
What do you think about this article?
Latest Articles