One of the most influential versions of the evidential argument from evil was put forth by contemporary American philosopher William Rowe. He believes that frequency of evils and certain particular instances of evil in the world provide a rational context of evidence against theism. In contrast, critics try to uncover flaws in his argument. Rowe dismisses many of these critiques as apologetic and ineffective, believing that theodicies such as John Hick’s “cultivation of the soul” fail to justify why arbitrary evils occur. In this study, we seek an answer for the following question: are William Rowe’s critiques of John Hick’s theodicy rational enough? To see this, we provide a rough account of the evidential argument from evil and John Hick’s theodicy, and finally show that while Hick’s theodicy fails to establish some of its grounds such as the belief in resurrection and is founded upon principles such as reincarnation, Rowe’s critiques do not undermine the ability of this theodicy to justify arbitrary evils.

By introducing evidential argument, William Rowe opened a new chapter in discussions about problem of evil. Rowe’ s first formulation of the problem based on the idea that because “ it appears” that some evils in the world are gratuitous then they are indeed so. The most influential critique of Rowe’ s argument is Stephen Wykstra’ sthat is based on the epistemological principle which is called CORNEA. He shows that in the Rowe’ s assumed situation we are not permitted to pass from “ it appears” to “ is” . According to CORNEA, considering evidence Xwe areentitled to say it appears that p, only if p were not the case, probably X was different in a discernable way. The goal of this paper is firstly to introduce CORNEA as an answer to the problem of gratuitous evil, then introduce and assesse some selected critiques ofCORNEA and to defencethe principle and finally compare between skeptical theism-that CORNEA is an instance of – and approaches of Islamic thinkers to the problem of evil.

Objective: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is the most important intra articular stabilizer of the knee. In 1980 the orthopedic sport medicine community focused on injury of the ACL as a major cause of athletic disability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of the ACL reconstruction by two different current techniques. Material and Methods: a prospective randomized clinical trial study was performed on 50 patients with ACL rupture during a two year period (2002 - 2003). 25 of these were operated with Zarins & Rowe (Z&R) technique. The other 25 cases were operated with Bone Patellar the Bone (BPB) technique. The mean time for follow up was 16 months. Results: All patients were men, with an average age of 27 years (range 20-40), 32 cases (68%) were left and 18 (36%) right knee. The original cause of damage was military training in 23 (46%) knee, sport injury in 15 (30%) and traffic accidents in 12 (24%) cases. Meniscal and cartilage injuries were detected in 31 (52%) and 9 (18%) of the knees respectively. All patients were returned to pre-injury activity 6 months after operation. 96% patients of the Z & Rand 32% of the BPB groups had anterior knee score of 95 points compared with 68% BPB and lysholm knee score 88 points. The remainder in the both groups was rated as good. The results were similar in both groups (P>0.05). In the assessment of relation between associated injuries and chronicity of ACL injury with decreasing of lysholm knee scores and patients dissatisfaction, we found a positive correlation (P=0.00).But there was no relationship between meniscal injury and patient disfunction (P>0.05). Conclusion: According to our overall results both reconstruction techniques are comparable but improvement of patient satisfaction was noted with ACL reconstruction in the early stages of the ACL rupture.  

Skeptical theism is a type of reply to arguments from evil against God’ s existence. The skeptical theist declines to accept a premise of some such argument, professing ignorance, for example, about whether God is justified in permitting certain evils or about the conditional probability that the world contains as much evil as it does, or evils of a particular sort, on the hypothesis that God exists. Skeptical theists are thus not supposed to be skeptical about theism; rather, they are theists who are skeptical about something else. But that raises the question of exactly what else. In particular, does skepticism with respect to some claims about God and evil lead to a more pervasive skepticism? More precisely, is skeptical theism committed to additional skepticism about God? Is skeptical theism committed to global skepticism, including skepticism about ordinary, commonplace beliefs? Or is skeptical theism at the very least committed to a broader skepticism about matters of morality? This paper takes up these questions.

One of the most important evidences of the atheists on the incompatibility of the system of the theist's beliefs throughout the history is the problem of evil. According to the special description of this problem presented by William Rowe – one of the contemporary atheists – there are some evils in this world which cannot be justified or explained by the reasons the believers present to explain them. Rowe improved his argument – after receiving some answers and critics – throughout a couple of decades and in his last description of this problem, he tried to strengthen his reasoning by explaining and updating its premises and presenting two examples and thus answer the questions of theists in advance. Explaining the last view of Rowe in this regard, the answers of Western scholars and also Muslim philosophers and writers who have reasoned against Rowe's reasoning or what can be said to answer him, are investigated and I will show that the collection of those cases can be as a response to Rowe who claimed the evidences of theists in the problem of evil is not justifiable; although they should be updated according to the new presentation of the matter of evil and an answer which is suitable with the new questions and examples should be presented.

Argument from religious experience is one of the most important arguments for the existence of God. Contemporary philosopher and theologian, Richard Swinburne, and some of his followers, believe that justification of religious experience is based on two principles, the principle of testimony and the principle of credulity, one of which, the principle of credulity, is criticized by some epistemologists as William L. Rowe. Rowe believes that since in perception, we can distinguish true beliefs from illusory ones by checking procedures, we can use the principle of credulity for perceptual beliefs, whereas in religious experience, since there are no such procedures, we cannot use the principle of credulity.The impossibility of using this principle in religious experience, as Rowe thinks, means that the argument from religious experience is not documented. This article, after formulating the principle of credulity, argument from religious experience, and Rowe’s criticism, tries to defend the principle of credulity against Rowe’s criticism.

William Rowe’s various works on the evidential argument from evil now occupies a central place in the Western discussions on the problem of evil. In one of his formulations, Rowe tries to justify the atheistic belief by showing the likelihood of gratuitous evil’s existence based on some particular instances of intense suffering. However, some of the philosophers, who are called skeptical theists, attempt to show that if there is a God, it is completely rational to accept that the humans are not in a cognitive position to make true judgments about all of the divine intentions and actions. Therefore, we cannot infer God’s justification(s) for the prescription of what seems to us to be an instance of intense suffering. Our aim in this paper is to show that skeptical theism offers a good reason to reject the evidential problem of evil developed by William Rowe.

2Background and Objectives: This research aims to investigate the components of Rowe and Kahn's successful aging model, encompassing the absence of disease and disability, high cognitive and physical performance, and active participation in life among the elderly population in Tehran in 2020, considering both genders. Methods: This study utilized a survey approach, involving a sample of 637 individuals aged 60 years and above in Tehran. The sample was selected using a multi-stage cluster sampling method from 22 districts of Tehran, considering the elderly population in each district. Confirmatory structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to assess whether Rowe and Kahn's model aligns with the collected data. Results: The study's findings demonstrated that Rowe and Kahn's model exhibited a strong statistical fit (p<0. 01). Factor loadings in the overall population model and among the two genders were statistically significant and varied. Across the three dimensions of successful aging (avoiding disease and disability, maintaining physical and cognitive functioning, and continuing engagement with life), avoiding disease and disability was the most strongly associated with successful aging, regardless of gender. However, in the other two dimensions, the significance and strength of participation in life and physical and cognitive function varied based on gender. Conclusion: Programs to support the physical health of the elderly, especially in chronic diseases resulting from lifestyle choice should be developed, and increasing active participation should be a priority, which requires interventions in youth and middle age

Background: Anterior glenohumeral instabilities can be corrected with open and arthroscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the surgical outcomes of arthroscopic repair of anterior glenohumeral instabilities with use of suture anchors in a series of patients who were followed for twenty to fifty months.Methods: The results of arthroscopic Bankart repair with use of suture anchors in 30 patients with traumatic recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder were evaluated. At the time of follow-up (mean of thirty-three months), the patients were assessed with two outcome measurement tools (the Rowe score, the Constant score). The recurrence rate, range of motion, and risk factors for postoperative recurrence were evaluated.Results: According to the Rowe scale, 12 patients (40%) had an excellent score, 13 (43%), a good score, 4 (13%), a fair score, and 1 (4%), a poor score. The mean Rowe score was81.8 and the mean CONSTANT score was 85.5. Overall, the rate of postoperative recurrence of instability was10% (two dislocations, one subluxation).The mean delay to recurrence was 20 months. Loss of external rotation in regard to uninvolved extremity was less than10 degrees in 30% and more than 10 degrees in 10% of patients. The average number of anchors used was 3.2 which follow-up radiographs showed all of them in the osseous glenoid without pullout. In preoperative studies, shoulder 3D CT scan was not performed routinely. Radiographic signs of degenerative changes were noted in one shoulder.Conclusion: Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair with use of suture anchors can provide satisfactory outcomes in terms of recurrence rate, activity, and range of motion.