Skip to main content

Notes on Hick's "Evil and Theodicy"

Notes on Hick’s “Soul-Making Theodicy”


Theodicy vs. Defense:
Defense: An attempt to show what God’s reason could be – as a bare logical possibility --for allowing evil to exist.

-the goal of a defense is a modest but important one: to show that God’s existence is logically compatible with the existence of evil.

-Alvin Plantinga offered a defense.

Theodicy: An attempt to explain what God’s reason actually is for allowing evil to exist.

-the goal of a theodicy is more ambitious and important: to provide a plausible explanation as to why God actually permits evil that in our world.

-John Hick is offering a theodicy.

Two major strands of theodicy:
Augustinian theodicies involve the notion of a “fall” of God’s creatures from a state of moral perfection, which in turn leads to the “disharmony of nature” (302).

Iranean theodicies don’t involve – or at least don’t essentially involve -- the notion of a fall; instead, they involve “the creation of humankind through the evolutionary process as an immature creature living in a challenging and therefore person-making world.” (302)

-Hick is offering an Iranean theodicy:

Five main components of Hick’s theodicy:

(i) Epistemic distance and the great good of freely choosing to know and love God
-the world is religiously ambiguous, in order to give us the freedom and autonomy to freely choose to know and love God if we wish.
-it’s logically impossible to freely choose this without epistemic distance

(ii) Original moral imperfection and the great goods of moral development and freely embracing virtue
-Explains the origin of evil, as well as moral evil in general
-Explains moral evil
-Explains why there is natural evil
-it’s logically impossible to get the above-mentioned goods without original moral imperfection

(iii) A universe that results in massive amounts of pain and suffering

-intellectual development can only occur as the result of responding to challenges
-morally significant actions toward others can only occur in a world in which pain and misery are possible

(iv) Continuing moral development in an afterlife

(v) The Universal salvation of humankind

Objection: This Iranean theodicy might plausibly account for the fact that there is some of the natural and moral evils in the world. But it doesn’t account for the sheer quantity, intensity, and indiscriminatory nature of evil.

-Once we see what a great good God’s plan is of bringing all persons to a state of moral, intellectual, and spiritual perfection, and that a world of free creatures is necessary to achieve it, then we will see that the quantity of evil is justifiable. For if God fiddled with someone’s free will in any given circumstance, then to that extent he has prevented or delayed bringing about this plan. And it is inconsistent to want that plan to be achieved, and yet want God to interfere with free will when it affects you.

-the intensity of evil is relative: judging one kind of evil as “most intense” is relative to which evils there are in the world. If God removed the most intense evil that exists, then the second-worst would now be the worst, at which point we would find that evil unbearably intense, and thus in need of removal; and if He removed that one, then the third-worst would now be the worst. Thus, if we kept asking God why such intense kinds of pains and sufferings that exist do exist, and He kept eliminating them, then eventually there would be no evil, and God’s plan would be thwarted.

-the indiscriminatory nature of evil events is necessary to achieve God’s purposes. For if it only occurred when people acted immorally, then this fact would become evident to all. But if so, then it would become impossible to do what is right for the right reasons (we’d all be doing good just out of an immature and unhealthy kind of self-interest)


Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…