The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil The Problem of Evil Does such problem contradict the existence of God? Why does our world contain so much evil? Why does it contain any evil at all? These questions and many others, particularly the presence of evil, reflects the most persistent argument raised against theism. The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world. The problem simply stems from basic beliefs or assumptions pertaining to the attributes of God: God is perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent. From this, such a God should want to prevent evil, yet much evil exists. There have been many proposed solutions to problem of evil, one being the free will defense/argument. According to this argument, God must allow His creatures to do evil sometimes in order to promote free will. So even if God wants to prevent evil, he cannot because free will is important. The free will defense successfully solves the problem. Some critics believe that this argument fails due to the fact that God could give us f ree will and still stop people from doing evil. But if that were the case, people would not really have free will; they would know they could not freely do anything they wanted. In this paper I will further explain the problem of evil and examine the concept of the free will argument. Furthermore, I will present J. L. Mackies argument regarding the issue, while exploring Alvin Plantingas defense. Despite Plantingas success and acceptance, his free will defense still presents a conflict between reasoning and the characteristics of God. The problem of evil arises because the concept of God seems to entail that there should be no evil in the world. The existence of evil seems to indicate that God is not preventing this evil. If such notion were true, why would not God step in to intervene? Many philosophers, particularly J.L. Mackie, details the problem of evil as a simple case of logical inconsistency, which arises from the attributes of God all being true at the same time. The religious believers assume that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, yet evil exist. Simply stated or broken down, the problem of evil claims that the following prepositions cannot be held consistently together: 1. God is omnipotent (all powerful) 2. God is omniscient (all knowing) 3. God is omnibenevolent (all good) 4. Evil exists If God has these features, then it follows that God can and should want to prevent evil. As Mackie states, â€Å"Good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good things always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows that a good, omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good, omnipotent thing exists, and the evil exists, are incompatible (174).† For sake of clarity, I will define the terms â€Å"good† and â€Å"evil†, as they will be used throughout this paper. Good is interpreted as anything in harmony with Gods character, will, and goal, whereas evil is any state or condition that is contrary to His character, will, and goal. Speaking in terms of evil, I will further examine two types of evil, as one will be introduced later on in the paper. Moral evil is evil that results from an act, or failure to act, by man. For instance, murder is an evil brought about by man and therefore it is a moral evil. On the contrary, natural evil arises through no fault by man. He has no control over natural evil and is completely powerless to prevent its occurrences. Examples of natural evils are sufferings caused by diseases or natural phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis. The problem of evil can be distinguished between two types of philosophical aspects or challenges to faith in God: the evidential challenge and the logical challenge. The evidential challenge (also known as the inductive argument) seeks to show that the existence of evil counts against the probability of the truth of theism (defined as the belief in at least one deity). Philosophy William L. Rowe illustrates this challenge as such: 1. There 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. 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 3. Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being (Rowe, 201) In these statements, Rowe suggests the inductive, probabilistic view of the evil argument justifies atheism (defined as either a rejection of theism or a position that deities do not exist). Evidential arguments claim that there is no good reason for Gods permission of evil. On the other hand, there is the logical challenge to belief in God, which says that it is both impossible and irrational to believe in the existence of a good, powerful God with the existence of evil in the world. A sample logical challenge would in the following form: 1. A good God would destroy evil. 2. An all-powerful God would destroy evil. 3. Evil is not destroyed. 4. Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God. The logical challenge attempts to demonstrate that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and cannot therefore all be correct. In his argument from evil, David Hume inquires about the existence of God, stating that the assumed God would not possibly allow evil to exist. He asks, â€Å"Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil (150)?† Being that there is more evil than good in the world, it is difficult to see how one can reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of an all-powerful, omnibenevolent God. So it seems that either God does not exist, or His characteristics are very different from what we think. It seems that either choice contradicts the traditional belief in God. However, the conclusion that were wrong about God follows only if God has no good reason for allowing evil. Perhaps if one can explain Gods reason for allo wing evil, then the belief in God may still be rational. There are many possible replies and solutions to the problem of evil, but I will only limit focus to one particular argument. The free will defense illustrates that God allows evil for the sake of human free will. Moreover, evil occurs because God does not want to compromise this free will be preventing evil. Speaking in terms of free will, what does it mean to necessarily be free or possess free will? As used in this paper, free will is identical to freedom of choice, or the ability to do or not to do something. The concept implies that an omnipotent God does not assert its power to intervene in choice. Gods creation of beings with considerable free will is something like the greatest gift that can be given, or in another sense, the greater good. He could not eliminate evil and suffering without eliminating the greater good of having created beings with free will. The argument simply says that God is not responsible for the evil that takes place, but rather, beings are at fault; at some point in life, a being will be faced with a situation that requires moral choice and the ability to act freely, and they may possibly choose evil (Cain). The argument gives the impression that God knows that evil occurs, God does not want evil to occur, and God has the ability to prevent evil, but evil still exists because God wants us to have free will. In Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie argues that the traditional conceived God cannot possibly exist with so much evil and suffering in the world. Thus, the problem of evil leads to a contradiction in at least one, if not all, of the attributes of God (that being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent). In his essay, Mackie examines what he calls â€Å"so-called† solutions to the problem: evil being a necessary counterpart to good, the universe being better off with some evil, evil acting as a means to good, and evil being the result of human free will. For objective purposes of consistency, I will only touch basis on Mackies response to evil being the direct result of freedom. For Mackie, the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of a Christian God. He maintains the idea that God granted free will, but then asks, â€Å"If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could He not h ave made men such that they always freely choose the good (Mackie, 178)?† Being all powerful, God could have created a world with both free will and no signs of evil. In other words, God could have created a world where man had the ability to choose between two actions (good or bad), but from his omnipotence, He would always see it that man choose what was right. It is obvious that such a world was not created, so what does this say in terms of Gods power? According to Mackie, Gods inability to offer this possibility is a rational contradiction and limits not only his power, but his goodness as well. Plantinga, in his response against Mackie, suggests that atheologicans (specifically Mackie) are wrong to believe that evil and God are incompatible. He argues that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free beings that never chose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that even an omnibenevolent God would want to create a world that contains evil, only if such would bring moral goodness. God uses evil as a vehicle for bringing about the greater good. In efforts to refute the logical problem of evil, Plantinga tries to show that Mackies argument is not contradictory. In order to do so, he finds a statement that could make the claim a reasonable one and makes an addition of a necessarily true proposition to Mackies. He says that â€Å"The heart of the Free Will Defense is the claim that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil (Plantinga, 190-191).† It is not to be taken in any way that Plantinga declares his proposition is true, but rather logically sound. The free will defense, in my opinion, is a partial success. Plantingas argument is a valid justification for Gods permission of evil, but he seems to speak only in terms of one nature of evil. Yes, the evil that exists around us is a consequence of the abuse of our freedom. Not all natures of evil, however, can be explained in this way. There is much evil that is not inflicted by man. Natural evils (as described earlier in the paper) or disasters, for instance, cause great destruction, but there is nothing that man could have done to prevent them. So if the blame does not fall on man, who can we hold accountable for such occurrences? Would it be safe and logical to say that God, being the Creator of all things (nature in particular), is to blame? Of course for Plantinga he would rely on Augustines perspective to say that these particular evils are a result on moral evil, relating the incidents of Adam and Eve and the concept of original sin. This response would probably be the safe way out, but again it does not necessarily pose a solution to the problem of natural evils. Not everyone hold the same beliefs or interpretations of Adam, Eve, and the forbidding fruit scenario. And at this rate of thinking, his argument would only hold strong for the theist himself. On another note, I believe that it is reasonable to say that it is better that the world contain beings with significant freedom than that it contains only automata. Evil can be seen as an instrument of God to correct, purify, and instruct (as a parent punishes his/her child). God is justified in permitting evil and suffering in terms of promoting character development; it seems that His goal would be to bring man to a point spiritual well-being and maturity. It is deemed necessary that man go through struggles in order to gain strength, a means of soul promoting, or to be conscious of certain emotions. For instance, in order for a person to know â€Å"hot†, they must inevitably know â€Å"cold†. Without being aware of the one, chances are you would not know how to distinguish between the two. In this case, in order for a person to possess happiness or feel sorrow, they must have been faced with a situation that evokes such feelings or emotions. Ultimately, perhaps God allows evil and suffering so that in the end, man will be born again and accept Gods grace and live by His word. In addition to this thought, a world without evil may not be a feasible world for those who possess free will. Everyone would always freely choose to do good acts because God would constitute everyone to do so. But if no one can choose otherwise, then no ability to choose really exists. Therefore, free will does not exist. When it comes to the problem of evil and Gods existence, there are many questions and concerns that come to mind. Firstly, it is written in the Book of Genesis that God created man in His image. But what exactly is Gods nature? Earlier in the paper, it was established that God, particularly the Christian God, is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all good. I take this as saying that God acts as an accomplice to evil because He knows what will happen before the action is done, and yet he does nothing to get involved. He is all powerful because â€Å"through Christ all things are possible†, or at least all things logically possible. He is also all good meaning He cannot sin nor do evil. Taking this into deliberation, man (being created in His image) has the ability to do wrong and create evil. Thus, we are not â€Å"all-good†. So does this fact alone contradict Gods omnibenevolence? Secondly, God granted free will, but has no means of intervening or preventing the consequenc es; if this was false, then evil would not exist. Does this inability take away from His omnipotence? In a sense, I think of it as a limitation on his power because He created something that He has no control over or at least it seems that He does not. Thirdly, it is argued that God cannot actualize a world with free will and no presence of evil. If this is true, then what do you consider heaven? Heaven is supposed to be a â€Å"perfect† world. I am sure that there is free will and absolutely no evil and suffering. Why could not have God create the physical world (in which we live) as such? In conclusion, the problem of evil exists because man believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator. Many philosophers, such as Mackie, argue that if one abolishes God himself, or at least some of His attributes, then evil needs no explanation. In response, some philosophers offer justifications for God permitting evil. The most credible of these is the free will defense, which states that there are no contradictions in Gods attributes; He is capable of destroying evil, but not at the expense of taking away free will. In my paper, I have examined the problem of evil and the concept of the free will argument, using Mackie and Plantingas arguments on the subject. I have given reason to both accept and reject the notion that it can be logically established that the existence of both evil and God are not incompatible. Perhaps no one will really understand Gods reason for allowing some things to happen. More so, there is a possibility that such knowledge is beyond our means of reasoning at present. Bibliography Cain, James. Free Will and the Problem of Evil. Religious Studies: An International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion (2004): 437-456. Gale, Richard M. Freedom and the Free Will Defense. Social Theory and Practice: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Philosophy (1990): 397-42. Gillett, Grant. The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. Journal of Applied Philosophy (2007): 435-438. Hume, David. The Argument from Evil. Pojman, Louis P. and Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2008. 147-152. Mackie, J. L. Evil and Omnipotence. Pojman, Louis P. and Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2008. 173-180. Plantinga, Alvin. The Free Will Defense. Pojman, Louis P. and Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2008. 181-199. Schellenberg, J. L. The Atheists Free Will Offence. Internal Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2004): 1-15.

Richard Ii - Silence Is The Plot :: essays research papers

In this play of challenge and debate, could it be possibly suggested that King Richard had a part to play in the murder of his uncle the Duke of Gloucester? Could the reader possibly pick up this assumption having known nothing about the play? These are all factors that one must find by reading in between the lines, noticing and understanding the silence that is exchanged. For the silence is just as important as the speech.Why is it assumed that King Richard II has anything to do with the murder? Let us review a scene from the play were Gaunt accuses Richard of being accountable for Gloucester's death. "Gaunt: O, spare me not, my [brother] Edward's son, For that I was his father Edward's son, That blood already, like the pelican, Hast thou tapp'd out and drunkenly carous'd. My brother Gloucester, plain well-meaning soul, Whom fair befall in heaven 'mongst happy souls, May be a president and witness good That thou respect'st not spilling Edwards blood." (II.i) That passage simply states: You may be a king, but you could have respected my brother enough not to kill him. There is also another quote were Mowbray indirectly suggests that the King is also at fault. "Mow: O, let my sovereign turn away his face, And bid his ears a little while be deaf, Till I have told this slander of his blood, How God and good men hate so foul a liar." (I.i) Yet with saying this remark about the King, he also begs for his innocence. "Mine honor is my life, both grow in one, Take honor from me, and my life is done. Then, dear my liege, mine honor let me try; In that I live, and for that I will die." (I.i) These passages indirectly state that King Richard II is at fault for the death of his uncle. But for the reader to see this they must break down the play and search for those "hidden meanings".For the ordinary reader, who does not search, the text clearly states that the fight for innocence is distinctly between Bullingbrook and Mowbray. Such an example can be found in Act I: "Bull: That he [Mowbray] did plot the Duke of Gloucester's death,Suggest his soon-believing adversaries,And consequently, like a traitor coward,Sluic'd his innocent soul through streams of blood." The rest of the dialogue converses back and forth between Bullingbrook and Mowbray, each fighting for their own innocence.

Emergency Room Criteria, Vivid Description, Concrete Example

In order to evaluate the quality of emergency room care, it is essential to understand and define the standards that define high-quality care. My standards for high-quality Emergency Room care include the following: 1) it maintains life. 2) It provides rapid attention to injuries in order to prevent impairment. 3) It is professional and focused on providing maximized attention to the patients’ needs. 4) It includes rapid response to crisis. 5) It includes alleviating pain. 6) It includes having well-trained personnel.7) It also includes efficiency. 8) It provides rapid assessment. 9) It provides cleanliness. 10) Finally, It utilizes excellent equipment. The American College of Emergency Physicians has established the following standards for high-quality Emergency Room care. 1) Emergency departments must possess the staff and resources necessary to evaluate all individuals presenting to the emergency department (ED.) 2) Emergency departments must also be able to provide or arrange treatment necessary to attempt to stabilize emergency patients who are found to have an emergency medical condition. 3) Because of the unscheduled and episodic nature of health emergencies and acute illnesses, experienced and quality physician, nursing, and ancillary personnel must be available 24 hours a day to serve those needs. 4) Evaluation, management, and treatment of patients must be appropriate and expedient. 5) Resources should exist in the ED to accommodate each patient from the time of arrival through evaluation, decision-making, treatment, and disposition. 6) Excellent facility design 7) State-of-the-art equipment 8) Access to required medications. (www.acep.org) The first standard is that a high-quality Emergency Room provides rapid attention. When I brought my 17-year-old son, who has asthma, to the Sutter Medical Center Emergency Department, he had difficulty breathing, was wheezing, had severe sweating, and heart palpitations. Unfortunately, the triage nurse did not prioritize my child’s medical needs. He had to wait a full 30 minutes to receive medical attention at the waiting area. When a person has an asthma attack, they need oxygen to live. If they do not receive rapid medical attention, his breathing problems increase and can even lead to shock. When my son had another asthma attack, I took him to the Kaiser Permanente Emergency Room. There the triage nurse determined that my son was in crisis. Thus, she immediately sent him to a treatment room where he received rapid attention. As a result, his crisis ended quickly. In conclusion, Kaiser was far superior to Sutter with regard to rapid attention. The second standard is that a high-quality Emergency Room provides well-trained personnel 24 hours a day. At Sutter, the triage nurse who evaluated my son did not seen to be well-trained about the effect of asthma. The doctors and nurses who provided care to my son were well-trained and were able to end his attack. At Kaiser, 100% of the personnel were well- trained. The triage nurse correctly evaluated my son and prioritized his care. The physicians and nurses who treated him were able to quickly stop his attack. The personnel at Kaiser were all well- trained where as a key staff member at Sutter was not well-trained. The third standard is that high-quality Emergency Room provides a clean, well-organized and well- designed facility. At Sutter, the Emergency Room was small and not well-ventilated. Patients were crowded together; thus their screams and pain made others anxious and germs could be easily spread. The vinyl floor was scuffed and dull, the window had a view of a brick wall, and the walls were painted drab green. In contrast, the Kaiser Permanente Emergency Room has been recently renovated inside and out. It is an attractive room with new furniture. The waiting room is spacious, and people are not crowded together. It is very clean. In conclusion, the Kaiser Emergency Room is superior with regard to high-quality facilities. The fourth standard is that a high-quality Emergency Room provides state-of- the- art equipment. At Sutter, there was a mix of modern and old equipment. The nebulizer was extremely old; however, the oxygen equipment was modern. At Kaiser, 100% of the equipment was modern. The Kaiser equipment was much more powerful, and helped to end my son’s attack more rapidly. In conclusion, Kaiser‘s Emergency Room equipment was superior to Sutter’s Emergency Room equipment because it was much more modern. The fifth standard is that there is immediate access to required medications. At both Sutter and Kaiser, my son received the necessary medication. Consequently, Kaiser and Sutter were equal with regard to the standard of access to medication. In conclusion, overall, the Emergency services at Kaiser Permanente were far superior to those provided by Sutter Medical Center. If I could it over again, I would have chosen to go to Kaiser Permanente both times. I only hope that the word gets out about Sutter Medical Center so that other patients do not make the same mistake I did and receive poor quality Emergency Room Care.

Psychology Essay on Aggression - 1780 Words

Aggression is a complex phenomenon influenced by genetic and psychosocial factors. The topics of aggression have been argued by many psychologists with different perspectives. Aggression can be described as a verbal or physical attack or even an insult such as threats, or sarcasm. Aggression can be broken down into two types, hostile and instrumental. Hostile aggression develops from feelings of anger hence; the intention is to inflict pain, for instance, someone deliberately hitting another with a baseball bat. While instrumental aggression is an act caused by an accident, therefore the intention was not to cause harm. For instance, kids playing football can accidently inflict pain through tackling, it was not premeditated. The essay†¦show more content†¦This recreated the scene; the children consequently commenced hitting the Bobo doll in an aggressive way as shown in the video Bandura (1973: p.72). The experiment established that 88% of the children had imitated the aggressive behaviour and after 8 months 40% of the same children still had violent behaviour which was modelled from the experiment. (http://www.mhcollegeco/socscienc/comm/bandur-s.mhtml) Here I state hoe the Biological criticised the experiment However, the Biological theorists argued that individual genetic condition and human’s individuality were ignored. For example, a group of people witnessing a fight would have a different response coming from 5%m their autonomic nervous system such as increased blood pressure, heart rate, nausea, and fainting. This they concluded would be the normal symptoms of responses an individual might express in such a situation. Consequently, the symptoms and behaviour are not learned, but partially inherited. They further criticised Behaviourist theory of Classical and Operant conditions which states â€Å"Social reinforcement is conditioned reinforcement based on the relationship of the conditioned stimulus to an unconditioned stimulus. The criticism here is that according to behaviourism, the stimulus should have been someone the children knew not a complete stranger. According to John Dollard (1939) a Behaviourist psychologist theShow MoreRelatedAre Humans Innately Aggressive?1410 Words   |  6 Pagesinnately aggressive or do we learn to be aggressive? Aggression is defined by Anderson Bushman (2002) as ‘any behaviour directed toward another individual that is carried out with the immediate intent to cause harm whereby the perpetrator believes the behaviour will harm the target’ although there is no one explicit definition. This essay will illustrate the main biological, social and biosocial theories surrounding the question of whether aggression is innate or acquired, or indeed a combination ofRead MoreWhat Causes Aggression? Is It an ‘Instinct’ or a ‘Learned Behaviour’?1703 Words   |  7 PagesWhat causes aggression? Is it an ‘instinct’ or a ‘learned behaviour’? (a) Compare and contrast the views of any two psychological domains on the causes of aggression. (b) Evaluate the validity of their claims in the order to reach an informed decision about the causes of aggression. In order to explore the causes of aggressive behaviour, we have to be clear about what we mean by aggressive behaviour. The psychological definitions of aggression are determined by theoretical perspectives and thereRead MoreImportance Of Critical Thinking In Psychology1275 Words   |  6 Pagesdisciplines of psychology. As a scientific subject the information presented with any argument or conclusion cannot just be taken at face value. To understand this, we must first understand what is meant by critical thinking. Critical thinking is â€Å"the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.† (â€Å"critical thinking | Definition of critical thinking in English by Oxford Dictionaries†, 2017). Based on this definition, critical thinking within psychology means we do notRead MoreHow Do Psychologist Examine Behavior and Mental Processes?1450 Words   |  6 PagesIntroduction This essay will examine and compare the different ways in which psychologists examine behaviour and mental processes and will make reference to cognition, behaviourism, psychodynamics and neuroscience. According to Gerrig and Zimbardo (2002) behaviour can be described as â€Å"the actions by which an organism adjusts to its environment† and behaviour is said to involve mostly the frontal lobes more than the hypothalamus and is influenced greatly by external stimuli. Examples of behaviourRead MoreThe Theory Of Personality Development Essay1646 Words   |  7 Pagesthat, the father of psychology wrote the theory of personality development and the theories of aggression that have help sociologists understand the contemporary humans’ social behavior, on topics such as violence and social life. So is violence [aggression] is innate in us? In this essay, I will try to answer the following questions: what is Sigmund Freud’s relevance to sociology, how can his observati ons and theories illuminate contemporary social behavior, and how does his essay Civilization andRead MoreSocial Psychological Explanations For The Emergence Of Public Disorder1287 Words   |  6 Pagesin laboratories. The essay to follow will identify different social psychological explanations and describe how these can be applied to the emergence of such behaviours. Looking into both individual behaviours and those of groups. The explanations visited include the behaviourist approach, the cognitive approach and the collectivist approach, as well as drawing on other aspects of social psychology within these approaches. The behaviourist approach to social psychology focuses primarily on howRead MoreElias Miguel Munoz’s and Omar S. Castaneda’s essays in Muy Macho943 Words   |  4 Pagestheir original belief system due to the pressure of their new environment. Elias Miguel Munoz’s and Omar S. Castaneda’s essays in Muy Macho capture’s two interesting aspects of the internal war happening within the common immigrant. Both essays analyze the effect of the American society on the macho image. However Munoz deals with a second-generation crisis; whereas Castaneda’s essay is interested in the first generation immigrant’s feelings. In other words, while Munoz confronts the macho father, whomRead MoreSocial Psychology : An Individual1117 Words   |  5 PagesAbstract In this essay the meaning of social psychology will be introduced. The differences and similarities social psychology shares with certain fields of psychology will be clarified throughout this essay. Specific subjects such as attitudes, group behaviors, and other related sources will be cited throughout this essay. Some of the research methods used in social psychology to determine how individuals affect groups or how groups affect an individual will be discussed in this essay. Keywords: groupRead MoreDescribe and Evaluate Any Two Theories in Developmental Psychology1220 Words   |  5 PagesDescribe and evaluate any two theories in developmental psychology. By Aimee Kaur This paper will focus on two theories in moral development within developmental Psychology. There are three components to our morality; these are emotional, cognitive and behavioural. Shaffer (1993) described morals as a â€Å"set of principles or ideals that help the individual to distinguish right from wrong and to act on this decision† In his book The Moral Judgement of the Child (1932), Piaget states that allRead MoreThe Process and Reasoning: A Psychology of Rumor By Robert H. Knapp.1164 Words   |  5 PagesThe Understanding of a Rumor Synopsis. One of the more interesting readings in Behrens and Rosen’s Wrting and Reading Across the Curriculum was â€Å"A Psychology of Rumor† By Robert H. Knapp. His major point was the understanding of the process and the reasoning behind rumors. A rumor can be classified as a special case of informal social communications that include myth, legend, and current humor. Rumors have three basic characteristics to them. The first is mode transmission which is usually done