Hick

• Hick (1900s): Philosopher (epistemology); theologian (eschatology -life after death). previously a quaker, converted to evangelical christianity.
• Hicks major work on theodicy "evil and the god of love". Was a supporter of irenaeus and gave his work a resurgence of attention.
• Hick: accepts free will defence, that god wants genuine relationships with us. The only relationship worth having is freely chosen.
• Can question why god wants a freely chosen relationship with us. What value is it to him, if he removes free will he will get exactly what he wants. The only explanation is that god enjoys the challenge, points to a immoral god.
• If we are to have free choice in our relationship with god, real consequences must exist.
• Hick says god creates an 'epistemic distance' (gap in knowledge between ourselves and god), so we can come to our own conclusions. BUT why is this necesary if the only true conclusion is god, what is the purpose of us suffering to come to this conclusion.
• Hick develops a 'counter factual thesis' asking what the world would be like with no evil. It would be a meaningless haze where we are zombies. We would be less than we are capable of being. None of us would grow into likeness of god as we would lack his creative freedom.
• Instrumental Good: a world with no evil would be a good world in itself, but would not be a good world for soul making (making us better people). If god made the world for us to develop, then it suits this purpose very well. Argues the world is instrumentally good.
• Instrumental good, strengths: no attempt to say the goodness of a thing is wholly intrinsic. Makes little sence to say an earthquake is good in itself as it hurts people. Makes more sence to argue that it is good in the opportunities it creates for people to be better.
• Instrumental good, weakness: 'more sence'. It makes more sence that the earthquake is not good at all as it harms people, often more are harmed than helped.
• Freedom and Knowledge: if no harm could come from my actions, god would need to continually intervene. God would need to act at every moment, meaning there would be no regularity in nature. No regularity means no possibility of science, and we have no explanations of anything.
• Freedom and Knowledge (2): if we were too look for a purpose/explanation, the only possible explanation would be a benevolent god, and therefore no freedom to choose/reject god.
• With Freedom and Knowledge, hick has developed irenaeus. Follows idea of a need for choice in a relationship with god.
• Universal Salvation: hick says hell is part of the problem of evil. If evil exists to produce good, hell has no purpose apart from pain/punishment, without hope of redemption, which doesnt fit the view of a loving god.
• Roman catholics - believe that those who have chosen god, but are not yet ready to be with him, will go to purgatory (or cleansing) to prepare for eternal glory with god.
• Universal salvation: Hick says hell is a place of temporary suffering. No justice if all went to hell immediately. But since god is loving he gives us further opportunity for soul making. This is an appealing idea, eventually through gods mercy we will all make it to heaven.
• Annihilationism - idea that if we reject god we are not rewarded with eternal life. We simply stop being.
• Annihilationism doesnt work for hick, if we stop we get no better. There is nothing for god to love and he has destroyed his own creation.
• Hick acknowledges that we can see dystelological evil (evil with no purpose), no purpose for soul making to victim/others.
• Hick has soul making theodicy