Abstract

Philosophical theists argue with great ingenuity and sophistication that there is excellent evidence insupport of the existence of the God of western theism. Philosophical atheists argue with equal skill that theevidence is negative. Both sides can't be right. But, this seems to imply that one camp is guilty of seriousepistemological error. I explore in this essay a way of understanding good theological evidence thatmitigates charges of intellectual error or blindness. According to a position that Rowe calls friendlyatheism, the atheist can argue that the relevant evidence supports his or her view, but that theists arerationally justified in believing that God exists in spite of the intense suffering that manifest in this world. Iwill argue that friendly atheism, and more generally friendly natural theology, when articulated in more detail, and with great care, represents an important metaphilosophical insight about use of evidence in theological contexts