Hick explains that evil provides humanity with important qualities such as appreciation, compassion and unselfishness. But evidence is that if there is a deity then the deity chooses not to act in this way and so the deity chooses the evil to occur through the actions of the humans that were created by the deity knowing in advance of their actual physical existence that they would choose evil. Why isn't the deity responsible for what the deity knows its creations will do before they are even created? Thus some would argue, for example, that the frustration that one experiences in trying to solve a difficult problem is outweighed by the satisfaction of arriving at a solution, and therefore that the world is a better place because it contains such evils. If one does not, one may hold that some contingent propositions have a probability equal to zero. Negative theodicy relies on this perspective. The prospects for a successful abstract version of the argument from evil would seem, therefore, rather problematic. There is nothing less servile than to be always led toward the good, and always by one's own inclination, without any constraint and without any displeasure.
Much of the evil in the world occurs only because we choose to create it. On the lower dimension, think about your path to school as you walk it in time. So, for example, Plantinga argues that between the logically contradictory properties of being or not being a tricycle, the latter is literally true of the Real. What is the Problem of Evil? To divide every difficulty into its last component part 3. But this conclusion, surely, is unacceptable, and so if a given version of consequentialism entails this conclusion, then that form of consequentialism must be rejected.
As we have understood from Hick, one of the main motivation for God to let the world experience suffering is to help them develop and become virtuous beings that acknowledge their dependence on Him. One striking story is that of Noah—who apparently lived around 4500 years ago—according to which there was a worldwide flood that killed all animals on Earth, except for those that were on the ark. Furthermore, if God is omnipotent, then he should be able to do away with all evil. On this supposition, then, on Hick's view, some other premise must be false. John Hick 1922—2012 John Hick was arguably one of the most important and influential philosophers of religion of the second half of the twentieth century. And here I must say that most attempts to explain why God permits evil— theodicies, as we may call them—strike me as tepid, shallow and ultimately frivolous. Philosophers like David Hume and Alvin Plantinga have attempted to explain the presence of evil despite there being a God.
Thus, as Marilyn Adams notes in the forward to the 2007 reissue of Evil and the God of Love, Hick shifts from a soul-making theodicy to a soul-making soteriology. And the good of having free will outweighs the bad of people abusing it to do evil things. The Western traditions treat the scriptures as being in some sense divinely inspired or authored and thus, for many in those traditions who are conservative and literalists, they carry the ideas of the early Hebrew deity along with them leading to complications as there arises the need to explain how an all good deity and an all merciful deity can be so cruel and vindictive as in some of the stories in the early books or chapters of the scriptures. Associated with this approach are philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. This means that one must simply accept their disagreeable circumstances and become a stronger person for having surmounted over them in order to be worthy enough for acceptance into the afterlife, in accordance with Christian beliefs.
These are developments that mark the origins of philosophical thought in the West. To overthrow this objection, therefore, it is sufficient to show that a world with evil might be better than a world without evil; but I have gone even farther in the work, and have even proved that this universe must be in reality better than every other possible universe. Due Date: A hard copy of your essay must be submitted sometime before 7:00 p. Let us now turn to another. For these philosophers traditional theism does not work, particularly when considering the discoveries of modern physics, so they conclude that a new concept of God, is needed along with the view of the world we experience. That is but one possibility. Hick presents the problem in very basic terms: The problem of Evil has traditionally been posed in the form of a dilemma: if God is perfectly loving, He must wish to abolish evil; and if He is all-powerful, He must be able to abolish evil.
How would a deity that knows the future be all good if the deity creates agents that cause evil and the deity created them knowing that they would create evil? The deity knows in advance which humans will use free will to choose evil. Madden and Hare note that there are three ways of criticizing this idea. One especially ambitious form of this first sort of argument attempts to establish the very strong claim that it is logically impossible for it to be the case both that there is any evil at all, and that God exists. Or additional physical laws of a rather specialized sort could be introduced that would either cause very harmful viruses to self-destruct, or prevent a virus such as the avian flu virus from evolving into an air-born form that has the capacity to kill hundreds of million people. The problem of evil is not there there is so much evil in the world. Religious interpretation is simply the highest order of experiencing the world, not something of a different epistemological kind.
Moral evil, or wickedness, is the pain and suffering which is a direct result brought about from human action. Thus, assuming such a God exists, it is not possible for Nazis to conduct such horrible acts. All criticisms of these apologists or defenders involve exposing the subtle attempt to convert the idea of the supreme being from one that so perfect as to generate the Problem of Evil in the first place to the idea of the deity as not quite being all perfect or all knowing or all powerful or all good. Finally, Hick appeals to mystery in his argument. This is the nature of infinity. Things that exist contingently are things that might not have existed. But if one has strong evidence that a story is false, it is hard to see how the story on its own could possibly counter an evidential argument from evil.
Hick argues that some evil is necessary in order for mankind to achieve goodness, and that goodness achieved through trial and error is better than goodness given to man from the outset. The Supreme Being, God, is seen as involved in soul making. He argues further, Men are not to be thought of on the analogy of animal pets, whose life is to be made as agreeable as possible, but rather on the analogy of human children, who are to grow to adulthood in an environment whose primary and overriding purpose is not immediate pleasure but the realizing of the most valuable potentialities of human personality. There is no need even of granting that there is more evil than good in the human race, because it is possible, and in fact very probable, that the glory and the perfection of the blessed are incomparably greater than the misery and the imperfection of the damned, and that here the excellence of the total good in the smaller number exceeds the total evil in the greater number. Words: 832 - Pages: 4. Using human suffering as a means to good is criticized and condemned on the grounds that the suffering of one child can never be justified in terms of what good results.