The most popular post of this blog has been “Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy.” It has been viewed more than 7100 times since it was published on 22 April 2007. The funniest thing about the popularity of this post is that I didn’t author it. The post was written by one of my Philosophy of Western Religion students, Joe Shultz, who authored and published the post as a part of fulfilling a requirement for the class. I don’t want to speculate about why the post itself is so wildly popular, but I imagine it has something to do with the topic of the problem of evil.
John Hick (1922-2012) died yesterday evening. He celebrated his 90th birthday three weeks ago. Because his work has contributed to the popularity of this blog, in this post, I reproduce Joe Shultz’s wildly popular post: “Hick’s soul-making theodicy” below the fold and provide some comments of my own on the theodicy.
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?
(1) Many critics of the argument believe that the argument fails because of the existence of “natural evils.” Natural evils include tsunamis, tornadoes, or hurricanes. If God is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then God should have prevented the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Southeast Asia, God should have prevented Hurricane Katrina from devastating the United States’ Gulf Coast, and God should have stopped last year’s horrendous tornado that killed or injured so many people in Joplin, Missouri. But, because God didn’t exercise the power to stop these natural disasters, God cannot possibly be omni-benevolent. No all-good God would have allowed such disasters to take place.
The question is whether Hick’s soul-making theodicy may exonerate God in these cases. It seems so. Whatever we may say of the natural phenomena and the terrible consequences they inflict upon a population, the people chose to live in areas prone to natural disasters. People living in New Orleans have known for quite a long time that the levees may break and that they’re in a part of the world that often receives hurricanes. Similarly, Joplin, Missouri is located in the heart of tornado alley, an area prone to receive severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. So, given they know what they’re in for, the risk they take is their own, regardless of God’s omni-benevolence.
(2) If suffering is a part of soul-making, then God might not be omni-benevolent. Suffering is bad, sans phrase. A God that permits people to suffer at least partially causes them to suffer. So, God plays a causal role in people’s suffering pain. A being that causes pain is not good. Therefore, God might not be omni-benevolent.
I believe that Joe Shultz’s reason for raising the free will defense is to partially support Hick’s soul-making theodicy against an objection like (2). God may have caused people to suffer, but the role God plays is not an active role. It may be that God merely permits the evil to take place, as a part of developing one’s soul. God is not actively causing harm to people. People suffer because of other people or from choosing to live in an area of the world more likely to receive natural disasters. God’s giving us free will is the root of all evil, but it is not evil itself.
