Hick’s response to evil

• How does Hick's response to natural and moral evil account for evil?

  - Moral and natural evil is explained because God created an imperfect world - Moral evil is a necessary consequence of humans being created in a morally immature state- Accepts that moral evil has always been part of the struggles of nature, through evolutionary process and today. Evil is a real presence but is created to help with the development of humans - Moral evil occurs when people have free will. True free will is about having true choices, the choices cannot always be good they must include the opposite - Natural evil exists because pain and suffering is needed to help develop human virtues
• How does Hick's response to natural and moral evil fail to account for evil?

  - Why should one human develop great virtues at the expense of someone else's suffering?- Griffin argues 'why has God wasted millions of years with a wasteful and destructive process of evolution?'- Evil is sometimes evil and can never be justified
• How does Hick's response to the logical problem of evil account for evil?

  - Moral evil is what occurs when people have free will. True free will is having true choices so the choices cannot always be good they have to include the opposite - Evil is accepted as real- Epistemic distance explains that free will is given because of the benevolence of God. God's loving is so great that true free will has to allow for the existence of evil by offering choices- Omnipotence of God is explained in two stage creation- So there is no inconsistency between the three points in the triad
• How does Hick's response to the logical problem of evil fail to account for evil?

  Hick does not explain why a benevolent God would want humans to suffer. Although he accepts evil he doesn't sufficiently explain the contradiction
• How does Hick's response to the evidential problem of evil account for evil?

  - Natural evil exists because pain and suffering is needed to help develop human virtues - Universal salvation justifies excessive injustices
• How does Hick's response to the evidential problem of evil fail to account for evil?

  - Contradicts the Bible and the idea of heaven and hell- Understanding everything in afterlife is a weak argument that is not possible to verify- Hick's theodicy doesn't explain why some people suffer excessively whilst some people do not- If everyone is saved then Jesus becomes a mere role model for good behaviour rather than the biblical understanding of Jesus being the son of God