ABSTRACT
In a now-classic paper, William Rowe defends a position he calls ‘friendly atheism’.1 Having presented what he takes to be a compelling argument against the existence of God, Rowe raises the question whether an atheist who accepts the argument must thereby consider theistic belief to be irrational. Here is Rowe:
In effect, Rowe argues that there are two ways that a theist’s belief can be rational: either (a) the theist does not have all the evidence that the atheist has on the issue, or (b) the theist does have the evidence, but is mistaken about its force. With friends like these, one wants to say, who needs enemies?
