The Soul Making Theodicy

Cards (18)

  • John Hick
    • 1922- 2012
    • Philosopher of religion and theologian
    • Taught in the US for most of his career
  • Theodicy- a philosophical defence of God's goodness, power and even existence in the face of the reality of evil
  • Hick rejects Augustinian views:
    • Natural evil exists because of the fall
    • Women are the "devil's gateway"
    • Women allowed moral evil into the world
  • Hick called Augustinian views "utterly unacceptable" and "a product of religious imagination"
  • Hick liked Irenaeus's views
    • Humanity did not fall from perfection, but were rather created as imperfect beings with the ability to become children of God
  • Hick believed that just as children learn to love their father, humans learn to love God
  • God does not shield humans, similar to how parents do not shield their children
  • God creates humans and then lets them develop character
  • As children do, the human race will mature and will respond with love to God
  • Hick says "God is infinitely persuasive, every individual will be brought into a moral and spiritual relationship with God"
  • A loving father would not put his children in hell
  • People need free will to choose God
  • Epistemic distance
    • A distance of knowledge
    • People would lose their freedom if they knew for certain that there was a God
  • Weaknesses
    • Does not justify animal suffering
    • There are pointless evils in this world
    • It does not justify the worst evils
  • Hick's response to animal suffering
    • Animals do not fear death
    • Pain is a warning sign to animals, it's an evolutionary mechanism
  • Hick's response to pointless evils
    • We cannot know everything
    • If we knew everything, we would not have fear nor hope
  • Hick's response to the worst evils
    • There is always a "worst" evil
    • Removing one worst evil would just lead to another developing
    • More evil removed= less freedom
  • Strengths
    • Fits with scientific knowledge and biblical criticism
    • Concept of God as a "fellow sufferer"
    • No conflict between omnibenevolence and evil