According to Hick’s soul making theodicy, the evil in this world is the main ingredient that human agents need in order to build upon their character with such things as patience, courage, and compassion (Hasker, 88). Without evil, there would be a smaller chance of expanding upon one’s moral virtues.
The evil in this world that we can use to grow from is a valuable evil. But what about the evil in this world that is insurmountable? There seems to be no explanation for this evil. The soul making theodicy has an explanation that covers only a small part of the evil in this world.
There are limitations to Hick’s soul making theodicy. Some moral evils can be used to build character, but at that same token, moral evils can also have no benefit, but only pain and suffering, which he has no explanation for. The same goes for natural evils, that is, there are some instances that can be used to build upon character, and some that kill, which in effect, has no character to build upon.
If it is a plan of God’s to create natural and moral evil to the extent of causing torterous, painful suffering, which there is plenty of, is God who we think He/She is?
1.God created and endowed man with free-will.
2.Free-will is the cause of moral evil.
3.God creates and/or allows natural evil.
4.Thus, God is evil.
With all the suffering and illness within this world, is not that argument plausible? It may sound preposterous, but is it really? It should be as plausible as saying that God is good.
If we build upon our character while we are here upon this earth, do we gain entrance as God’s children after we die? That sounds nice, but is there anyone around that can tell us what it’s like? Or is it an illusion made from the human mind? If it’s not an illusion, can someone prove it?
One flaw that I think is present by Hick is that evil is the main ingredient in our character building. I believe that endless pain and suffering would not allow for any sort of character building. Nothing under constant stress will be able to grow. I think that Hick also needs to look into how good in the world helps one’s soul to grow, and how the good paired with the evil builds one’s soul.
I also think that pain does not always have an apparent purpose, but we must be careful with this because simply because we don’t see the reason in the here and now does not mean that we won’t see one at some future time. Also people that suffer, and like Hick believes, feel there suffering to have a purpose will most likely believe in an afterlife. If one believes that their suffering have meaning (even if unknown) they are able to deal with their pain and continue more normally in life than someone who believes pain is meaningless. This seems to give a reason to believe that Hick is in part right, for as we all now suffering is avoidable, and if we have to suffer why not suffer in the best possible way. If there is an afterlife then we’ll see even more purpose in our suffering, if not that’s the way it is but we were able to cope with our pain better because we believed.
One problem that I see right off the bat is the claim that evil is the main ingredient in any sort of soul-making. I fail to see how evil alone could cause any kind of growth in any person. I think that Hick needs to factor in the role that good plays with the contrasting evil. Evil alone has a tendency to destroy; I believe that when the soul is allowed a rest from the evil it is then that the person grows because they experienced the evil. If then there is no end to the evil, no good to counter it, it is useless.
Another point that should be considered is this, those that believe the soul-making theodicy will most likely believe that there is a life after this life, they have a hope that sometime things will improve and if they hold out long enough they will be rewarded. Whether or not there really is an afterlife would not seem to affect that person’s view. I believe we all would agree that suffering at some point in time must be experienced by everyone. Frankl and others tell us that those who are able to find purpose to life and suffering are better able to deal with hard times and more likely to escape those hard times. So believing that suffering has a purpose helps the suffering person to cope better with the pain and possibly overcome it. They may suffer their entire life hoping for a life after this one that will be without suffering, and if that hope makes them more able to handle the inevitable suffering, then so be it.
Well it is sad to think that in such a forward thinking phiolosophical culture that suffering has been given such a bad name. Is not suffering a vital part of life one which teaches us and builds us as persons. It is the the denial and withdrawing from suffereing or the potential to suffer that causes half the problems in this world. In order to grow it is important to perhaps that people face evil and the lack of love and God. How can a child choose btwn say vanilla and chocolate ice cream if they have only ever had vanilla. We need to deal with a flawed world in order to reach a un-flawed one. How well with love and with a God who walked and will walk with us. We need to accept evil and suffering and treat them with love then we will grow.
JC,
I believe suffering is a part of life and surviving the suffering builds us as people. But, the amount of suffering or the severity of suffering is what I question? Some in this world suffer to an extent that there is nothing to gain from it but suffering. This raised the question to what kind of God do we as humans have? A good God, bad God, indifferent God, no God, etc?
I dont quite understand what you say about the denial of suffering causes half the problems in the world?
You say we must deal with a flawed world to get to an unflawed world? I don’t understand that either being that no one in this world is able to tell us by experience what that unflawed world is like?
Joe,
Could you tell me the publication that (Hasker, 88) is making reference to? [full citation]
Hello Josh,
I wish I could tell you the publication “(Hasker, 88)” references, but, alas, I wasn’t the author of the post. The author was a student in my philosophy of religion course I taught 3 years ago at Weber State University.
Despite my not knowing immediately, Josh, I plan to do some investigating about the reference. Perhaps I’ll have news soon. My apologies to you for not having a more complete citation for you.
Best regards,
Joe U.
I have a blog that focuses on soul-making and related topics. Would you like to exchange links?
Michael Bogar