1.5 - problem of evil

Question 1

Epicurus (problem of evil)

Answer 1

(342-270BCE)
- is God willing but not able to prevent evil? (then he is not omnipotent)
- is God able to prevent evil but unwilling? (then he is not omnibenevolent)
- is He both able and willing? (then why do we suffer)

Question 2

David Hume (problem of evil)

Answer 2

(1779)
1. God is not omnipotent
(or)
2. God is not omnibenevolent
(or)
3. Evil does not exist
Hume concluded that God must be impotent or malicious as it was evident that evil exists.

Question 3

J. L. Mackie (problem of evil)

Answer 3

(1955)
The conjunction of any two of the inconsistent triad, entails the negation of the third. The triad is:
point A = omnipotence
B = omnibenevolence
C = evil exists.

Question 4

possible problems with Mackie’s inconsistent triad

Answer 4

• there could be a loving reason for evil (free will)
• could reject that evil exists (an attempt made by Augustine, evil is a necessary part of the world)
• is God omnibenevolent? - the God in the Old Testament doesn’t always seem loving, He stokes genocides, fails to forgive, and encourages acts of cruelty
• Process Theology (God is not able to control evil)

Question 5

‘it can be shown, not that religious beliefs lack…’

Answer 5

‘it can be shown, not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another…’ - J. L. Mackie

Question 6

two possible responses to Mackie’s inconsistent triad

Answer 6

1. to deny the existence of evil
   - Hume believed there is too much evidence for the existence of evil in the world (not an a-priori argument)
   - Augustine attempted to change the nature of evil from a substance to a privation (a lack of something - good)
   - however it still seems counter-intuitive to deny evil
2. God may have a good reason for allowing evil to exist (Plantinga’s response)

Question 7

Plantinga’s response to the inconsistent triad/problem of evil

Answer 7

God may have a good reason for allowing evil to exist - 1932
Plantinga argues that it is NOT formally contradictory to say
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent
3. God is omniscient
4. Evil exists
> with the hidden assumption: God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so

• this not a proof for the existence of God but it is a logical rebuttal of Mackie’s position
• there does not need to be a God for Plantinga’s defence to work
• for the argument to work, we do not even need to know what the good reason is, only that there might be one

Question 8

Plantinga’s free will defence

Answer 8

A possible good reason for the allowance of evil is that God wishes to create beings to be significantly free. It would be impossible for: God to create a good world with free will, without the possibility of evil existing. There would be no real choice if there was no risk of harm.
In terms of natural evil, it gives the opportunity for free will.

If Plantinga’s free will defence is true then it is possible that the proposition: God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so is true. Hence the provision of free will to creatures could supply a good reason for God creating a world containing evil.

Question 9

William L. Rowe’s stance

Answer 9

• agrees with Plantinga that evil does not disprove the existence of God
• there could be examples of evil which God allows because of some greater possible good
• BUT not all evil is like this…We can imagine evils which God could stop without losing a greater good or permitting a greater evil
• Rowe believes that if evidence of such evils are found they will be unnecessary and unjustifiable. Is it reasonable to believe that all seemingly pointless instances of animal and human suffering may not be avoided by an Omni-God? To which Rowe answers no.

Question 10

Rowe’s argument

Answer 10

1. there (probably) exists instances of suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse
3. There (probably) does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

Question 11

What example does Rowe give to defend his proposition: ‘there (probably) exists instances of suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.’

Answer 11

the fawn in the forest (a serious case of natural evil):
- lightning strikes a dead tree resulting in a fire which causes injury and suffering for the fawn, after several dies death relieves the suffering
- ‘So far as we can see, the fawn’s death is pointless’
- Rowe acknowledges that this doesn’t prove the first premise because the fawn’s suffering COULD have a purpose however he asks whether we can reasonably believe that all seemingly pointless instances of animal and human suffering may be unavoidable for an omni-God

Question 12

‘In some distant forest…’

Answer 12

‘In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire, a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering’ - Rowe
- Rowe’s defence of his first proposition

Question 13

‘So far as we can see, the fawn’s suffering…’

Answer 13

‘So far as we can see, the fawn’s suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn’s suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse’ - Rowe

Question 14

how does Plantinga challenge Rowe?

Answer 14

• We cannot dispute that instances of evil occur. However Rowe’s claim that the fawn’s suffering is ‘apparently pointless’, and does not justify the existence of God, is a stretch too far and might be branded as an ‘inductive leap’ (black swans).
• ‘Perhaps God has a good reason, but that reason is too complicated for us to understand, or perhaps he has not revealed it to us for some other reason.’ - Plantinga
• Eg. you cannot move from ‘I cannot see the fly my cat is chasing’ to ‘There is no fly my cat is chasing’ - cats can see small, fast moving objects better than we can.
• this position is unfalsifiable, so it stops the debate - is this an easy way out?

Question 15

Book of Job

Answer 15

(Judaism but recognised in all Abrahamic faiths):
- even if we can’t understand what the possible reasons are behind an act of suffering, there could be one - God understands the complexity of the world to minute detail we will never and could never understand
- Epistemic distance - the separation in knowledge and understanding between us and God

Question 16

epistemic distance

Answer 16

the separation in knowledge and understanding between us and God

Question 17

problem of divine hiddenness

Answer 17

(response to book of job)
- analogy of a loving parent - sometimes parents do things that cause us some pain, for our benefit (we just don’t understand) eg. horrible tasting medicine when we are sick
- however the parent is there to reassure and comfort, but God doesn’t behave this way. When we need comfort during our suffering, God is not there.
HOWEVER, if we rely on the idea of an afterlife, it could be argued that he is not an absent parent as he will be there to explain to us.

Question 18

Vardy’s king and peasant girl analogy

Answer 18

(support’s Plantinga’s argument)
A king is out for the ride, and sees a peasant girl who he falls madly in love with at first sight. He has two options:
1. he could ride up to her there and then, and she would feel obligated to follow him
2. or he could come back and try to woo her as the average peasant
Similarly, God gives us the chance to love him and have faith without feeling like we have to (he preserves our freedom). It’s about forming a relationship through trust.

Question 19

‘God dies the death of…’

Answer 19

‘God dies the death of a thousand qualifications’ - Flew
- if we can’t agree or test it in a sensible way, it becomes an empty idea - we may as well not have one

Question 20

Augustine’s life

Answer 20

• he had a divided home with his father hostile to Christianity and his mother a devout christian
• his father was said to be unfaithful to his mother
• when studying in school he began a life ‘lustful relationships’ resulting in a 13-year ‘arrangment’ with a lower-class woman which resulted in a son
• his first engagement with philosophy was with ‘Mancheanism’ which may have appealed given the conflicts he saw between his parents
• He then sent his mistress away as she was ‘an obstacle to a suitable marriage’ but took up another after a couple of years.
• When engaged to be married, he came across ‘Neo-Platonist’ ideas - this developed the idea of a corrupted physical body and evil as a lack of good
• When Augustine was deciding whether to convert to Catholicism and be baptised or not, he had a religious experience

Question 21

‘Manicheanism’

Answer 21

(one of the schools Augustine engaged with - the first one)
- a sort of Christian inspired cult which viewed the world as a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. They believed people had two souls, one good and one evil, which pull the individual in different directions and create constant internal struggle (REMINISCENT OF PLATO). The human soul is naturally part of the kingdom of light but becomes trapped in the kingdom of darkness due to the appetites of the body. It makes sense that this would appeal to Augustine due to the constant conflict between his parents
- follows of Manicheanism believed that evil had always existed so was just as real and eternal as God

Question 22

‘Neo-platonist’

Answer 22

(One of the schools Augustine engaged with - the second one)
this developed the idea of a corrupted physical body and expressed a shame of living in the body (this could explain any shame he felt around his relationships). For Plotinus there is only one Form of goodness, “Not Evil”. This unlocked the idea that evil is not a substance at all but rather a privation or lack of good

Question 23

Augustine’s religious experience

Answer 23

• When Augustine was deciding whether to convert to Catholicism and be baptised or not, he heard ‘take it up and read’ being recited and opened the Bible. The first passage he read went as such:
  ‘Not in revelling in drunkenness, not in lust and wantonness, not in quarrels and rivalries. Rather arm yourself with the Lord Jesus Christ. Spend no more thought on nature and Nature’s appetites.’ - Romans

Question 24

‘Not in revelling in…Spend no more…’

Answer 24

‘Not in revelling in drunkenness, not in lust and wantonness, not in quarrels and rivalries. Rather arm yourself with the Lord Jesus Christ. Spend no more thought on nature and Nature’s appetites.’ - Romans

Question 25

Augustine’s explanation for evil and suffering

Answer 25

• evil is a form of disorder (like a hole in a shirt), it is a non-being that occurs when something is deprived of some being or goodness that belongs to it
• every being is good but can be spoiled or disordered when it is deprived of something good - corruptible beings
• dark metaphor for evil - no real being, the absence of light
• evil is not something we choose, it is a way we choose (moral evil arises when we choose good things in the wrong order, eg. silver over your friend) - the universe as a hierarchy
• when God created free will, he made moral evil possible (when creating eyes, blindness became possible)
• the corruption of the Fall is inherited as ‘Original Sin’ through the semen of Adam. This means that even the supposedly innocent are imperfect from birth and exist in a state of Sin. This explains our inclination to do wrong and our inability to be good (especially sexually).
• all the suffering in the world, is allowed by an omnipotent God as the just punishment for human sin, which is our own fault. Even infant’s are participants in Adam’s sin, they are guilty and deserving of eternal damnation apart from the redemption that is in Christ.

Question 26

key problem’s with Augustine’s Genesis interpretation

Answer 26

• if you set someone up to do a task with faulty tools, and they fail, is it their fault? Augustine argues that we should realise we are bad and choose to return to God.
• ‘they eat the apple and their eyes were opened’ - a literal reading like Augustine seems to prefer implies that they were literally walking around with their eyes closed

Question 27

free will defence for natural evil (Augustine)

Answer 27

St Augustine relies heavily on the free will defence, this explains moral evil but not Natural Evil. St Augustine explored the idea that God’s creation contained angels as well as humans. God granted them free-will as he did humans. Being perfectly creative, God made angels in a way that allows diversity amongst them. Some with more grace than others. Those with less grace also disobeyed God and their actions resulted in natural evils which we must suffer.
- there’s nothing in the Bible that supports this, he’s just filling a gap in the argument

Question 28

Augustine’s explanation of the fundamental sin and resultant suffering

Answer 28

As Augustine portrays it, the fundamental sin from which all moral evil originates is not something as external as taking a bite out of an apple. Adam did sin when he disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3, but the root of his sin is the same as Satan’s: an inward perversion of the will which puts itself above God - ‘pride’.
In Augustine’s thinking, all the suffering in the world, is allowed by an omnipotent God as the just punishment for human sin, which is our own fault. Even infant’s are participants in Adam’s sin, they are guilty and deserving of eternal damnation apart from the redemption that is in Christ.

Question 29

Augustine’s explanation for the devil

Answer 29

according to Christian tradition, the devil is not pure evil. In fact, Satan was one of the very best things God created but he fell from heaven because of his own evil. He failed to love God above all other things - he chose a lower thing (himself) over a higher thing (God).

Question 30

Augustine’s outlook on Jesus and salvation

Answer 30

St Augustine does have a more optimistic outlook in relation to Jesus and Salvation. He argues that even though we are not worth of it, God chooses to redeem us through the crucifixion or Christ. ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive.’ - Corinthians. Therefore, those who have faith, can enjoy eternal bliss with God despite their sinful nature.

Question 31

summary of Augustine’s theodicy

Answer 31

• evil is not a real quality, it is a privation of good (privatio boni)
• uses light and dark metaphor - darkness is the absence of light
• each part of creation is good in its own right but there is a hierarchy of things, some are more good than others
• evil occurs when we choose superior things above inferior (but still good) things
• evil first came into the world via the ‘Fall’ of the angels - all were created perfect but some had less grace/more grace
• angels fell due to misuse of their free will
• this was repeated in the ‘Fall’ of Adam and Eve - it was such a terrible act that it disrupted the whole world on a cosmic scale
• ‘Free Will is the cause of our doing evil’ - Augustine
• the fundamental evil is pride

Question 32

problems with Augustine’s argument

Answer 32

• J. L. Mackie questions the Free Will Defence saying it is logically possible for God to create being with free will who are also good, if he is omnipotent He should be able to do whatever is logically impossible
  > Augustine is also inconsistent in his free will defence - he argues that we are responsible for our choices but talks of human ignorance and an inability to overcome our wretched state. If we are ignorant then we can’t be asked to make informed decisions and any punishment would be unfairly distributed
• natural evil (the angels argument seems ad hoc and too far from biblical theories)
• Friedrich Schleiermacher - 19th century theologian who showed that there was no reason for angels to sin unless they weren’t created perfectly in the first place, if God made evil, his benevolence is questioned, if it came from nowhere his power is questioned
  > Augustine would defend this with the idea of evil as a non-being
• the idea of a perfect then damaged world contradicts evolutionary theory
  > evolution suggests that evil and suffering existed long before Homosapiens, according to Darwinian theory, evil and suffering are the inevitable consequences of the struggle for survival
  > It also suggests that the human race did not descend from one ancestor (Adam) as Augustine claimed, therefore we cannot be though to have inherited his sin
• it is not clear how the first sin ‘disrupted’ the natural order of thing to account for natural disasters etc. It makes more sense to use the structure of the world as a reason (a structure that God made)
• The amount of suffering, which is not evenly distributed, seems cruel and unnecessary
• It is also hard to justify how some people are granted His grace and others are not - Augustine even said that some angels were granted more grace than others.
  > Why would a benevolent God wish for any of his creatures to suffer torment in hell
• Hell appears to be built into the design of the universe in Augustine’s theodicy, it seems, therefore, that God was expecting things to go wrong and did nothing about it

Question 33

the world cannot have been created perfect before original sin (problems with Augustine’s argument)

Answer 33

• evil would have to create itself out of nothing which is impossible, therefore responsibility for evil must lie with God - either the world was not perfect or God allowed it to go wrong and knew that it would
• How can there be freedom to obey/disobey God in a perfect world since good and evil are unknown?
• Friedrich Schleiermacher - 19th century theologian who showed that there was no reason for angels to sin unless they were created perfectly in the first place, if God made evil, his benevolence is questioned, if it came from nowhere his power is questioned

Question 34

Augustine’s theory contradicts with evolution (problems with his argument)

Answer 34

• evolution suggests that evil and suffering existed long before Homosapiens, according to Darwinian theory, evil and suffering are the inevitable consequences of the struggle for survival
• It also suggests that the human race did not descend from one ancestor (Adam) as Augustine claimed, therefore we cannot be though to have inherited his sin

Question 35

is God really just? (problems with Augustine’s argument)

Answer 35

• suffering is seen as a just punishment for sin, even the so-called “innocent” aren’t really innocent as they are descended from Adam but this can be questioned
• The amount of suffering, which is not evenly distributed, seems cruel and unnecessary
• It is also hard to justify how some people are granted His grace and others are not - Augustine even said that some angels were granted more grace than others.
• Why would a benevolent God wish for any of his creatures to suffer torment in hell
• Hell appears to be built into the design of the universe in Augustine’s theodicy, it seems, therefore, that God was expecting things to go wrong and did nothing about it

Question 36

inconsistency in Augustine’s free will defence (problems with his argument)

Answer 36

• it is logically possible for God to create being with free will who are also good, if he is omnipotent He should be able to do what
• he argues that we are responsible for our choices but talks of human ignorance and an inability to overcome our wretched state. If we are ignorant then we can’t be asked to make informed decisions and any punishment would be unfairly distributed

Question 37

why would God create corruptible things?

Answer 37

In short it is because there is no other way to make things, everything other than God is corruptible because everything other than God was created and to be created is to be changeable.
It is important to note that by saying all things are corruptible, Augustine is NOT saying that all things are evil. In fact, they are corruptible because they have goodness to lose.

Question 38

key points for evaluation of Augustine’s theory

Answer 38

+ preserves and protects God’s loving nature
+ reminds us of our flaws and helps us overcome these with God

• disparity in grace (unjust)
  > does the ‘diversity’ response work?
  
  • all in ‘the image of God’
• unscientific
• angels problems - not biblically accurate

Question 39

Irenaeus’ theodicy

Answer 39

• genuine human perfection can’t be made, it must develop through free choice
• if God policed His creation, there would be no free will
• so God had to create the natural in a way that allowed the possibility of harm/suffering
• humans used their freedom to cause suffering, God can’t remove evil without compromising our freedom
• eventually evil and suffering will be overcome and we will develop into God’s likeness and live in heaven (which justifies temporary evil)
• he also says (like augustine) that evil helps us understand what good is - we need comparison to understand it
• humanity can only develop into perfection through transformation as a result of suffering/evil

Question 40

‘How, if we had no knowledge of…’

Answer 40

‘How, if we had no knowledge of the contrary, could we have instruction in that which is good?’ - Irenaeus

Question 41

how can suffering and evil help us to transform/improve

Answer 41

• suffering allows us to better understand that of others
  
  • appreciation of what we have
  • develop characteristics and who we are, suffering makes us strong - may even bring us closer to God/faith

However, it can be argued that suffering doesn’t always help us to improve, for example, child-abuse can lead to psychopathy. This is known as DYSTELEOLOGICAL SUFFERING.

Question 42

dysteleological suffering

Answer 42

purposeless suffering, in the context of irenaeus it refers to suffering that doesn’t help us to improve/makes us less perfect

Question 43

why does Irenaeus say God didn’t make us in his likeness from the start? Does this work?

Answer 43

‘For it certainly is within the power of a mother to give stronger food to her infant (but she does not do so), as the child is not yet able to receive more substantial nourishment; so also it was possible for God himself to have made man perfect from the first, but man could not receive this [perfection], being as yet an infant.’ - Irenaeus, Against Heresies (180CE)
- This analogy makes some sense, there are certainly instances where something unpleasant is good for us, medicine for example. However, it doesn’t seem entirely believable that the level of suffering is necessary. Equally, why could God - an all-powerful being - not create us capable of receiving perfection?

Question 44

what did Hick try to do?

Answer 44

(1922-2012)
Hick hoped to make Irenaeus’ theodicy more appealing to a modern audience who now accepted Darwin’s evolution and largely rejected the literal approach to Genesis that Augustine took. Hick wishes to propose that God gave us a world with the best circumstances in which to choose a free and loving relationship with God. The world is INSTRUMENTALLY GOOD rather than intrinsically good.
- it is good in the way it brings good about in us, like medicine

Question 45

Hick’s theodicy

Answer 45

• God have us a world with the best circumstances in which to choose a free and loving relationship with God (an instrumentally good world)
• goodness/love developed by free choice is better than goodness/love ‘injected’ into us eg. Vardy’s king and peasant girl analogy
• if perfection works by development then:
  1. humans had to be created imperfect
  2. humans had to be distanced from God
  3. the natural world could not be a paradise.
• since genuine free choice hold the possibility that we always choose good, there has to be something like natural evil to ensure some suffering
• ‘vale of soul-making’ in which things happen to us for our own good > John Keats
• since challenges in life do not always result in development and since not everyone resembles God by the end of their life , Hick relies on the afterlife: he proposes ‘resurrection worlds’ based on the idea of exact replicas

Question 46

what does it mean to say Hick proposed that the world is ‘instrumentally good’?

Answer 46

God gave us a world that has the best circumstances for us to freely choose a loving relationship with God. It is good in the way it brings about good in us, like medicine which may be unpleasant but ultimately helps us

Question 47

counterfactual hypothesis for Hick’s theory

Answer 47

Imagining that the world had no evil, we see that’s God’s purpose would not be possible. Without difficulties and challenges, we would not be able to grow as personalities or learn anything morally. He envisages a world where we are like zombies, not suffering but also not thinking or caring. There could be no sport (because someone has to lose) and no films (because they can be sad or scary). There would be little room for true human life and little purpose to existence.

Question 48

The world is not ‘Designed for the maximalisation of….’

Answer 48

The world is not ‘Designed for the maximalisation of human pleasure and the minimalisation of human pain, it may nevertheless be rather well adapted to the quiet different purpose of ‘soul-making’’ - Hick, Philosophy of Religion

Question 49

John Keats’ link to Hick’s theory

Answer 49

Hick describes the world as a ‘vale of soul-making’ in which things happen to us for our own good. He took these words from John Keats (poet, 1795-1821) who suffered a lot of hardship in his life but imagined this world as a training ground for his soul to prepare it to meet God.
‘Do you not see how necessary a world of pains and troubles is to school and intelligence and make it a soul?’ - John Keats in a letter, 1819

Question 50

‘Do you not see how necessary a…’

Answer 50

‘Do you not see how necessary a world of pains and troubles is to school and intelligence and make it a soul?’ - John Keats in a letter, 1819

Question 51

why does Hick need the afterlife for his theory to work?

Answer 51

• challenges of life do not always result in human development, sometimes they result in horrible suffering. If life ended at death, God’s purpose of making men in his likeness, would have been frustrated.
• only a supremely good future in heaven can justify the magnitude of suffering seen in this life
• many who appear ‘evil’ are actually just ‘victims of the system’, it would seem cruel for God to consign them to hell
• he is a universalist so he believes everyone has the opportunity to develop God’s likeness, not just Christians (unlike Irenaeus)
• not everyone resembles God’s likeness by the end of their life.

Question 52

‘The fulfilment of divine purpose, as it postulated in the Irenaean type of theodicy, presupposes…’

Answer 52

‘The fulfilment of divine purpose, as it postulated in the Irenaean type of theodicy, presupposes each person’s survival, in some form, of bodily death, and further living and growing towards that end state. Without such an eschatological fulfilment, this theodicy would collapse’ - Hick, An Irenaean Theodicy

Question 53

‘It can be predicted sooner of later […] we shall all freely come…’

Answer 53

‘It can be predicted sooner of later […] we shall all freely come to God and universal salvation can be affirmed, not as a logical necessity but as the contingent and predictable outcome of the process of the universe, interpreted theistically’ - Hick, An Irenaean Theodicy

Question 54

what is Hick’s proposal for the afterlife, how does it fit into his theory?

Answer 54

• Hick proposes ‘resurrection worlds’ in which (if the process of soul-making is not completed in this life), we go to live another life, and another, and so on, until the process is complete
• it would be possible for people to exist after death as themselves if an exact replica of themselves were to appear with all the characteristics and memories, etc of the individual. Since God is all-powerful and it is no problem for him to create a replica body.
• Effectively he is proposing the idea that we live again and again until we become perfect, at which point the suffering will be worth it.

Question 55

what three things does Hick identify as?

Answer 55

• a pluralist
• a universalist
• an anti-realist

Question 56

what does it mean when Hick describes himself as a pluralist? what are the pros and cons of this?

Answer 56

he considers all religions to be equally valid. They are all heading towards the same point; all roads, all religions lead towards God.
+ avoid unjust discrimination, good people are good people - they aren’t rejected for being born into the wrong religion (acceptance and justice)
- CONTRADICTION amongst the faiths
- no reason to be Christian

Question 57

what does it mean when Hick describes himself as an anti-realist? what are the pros and cons of this?

Answer 57

• accepting the truth of religion but not in the sense that it has literally truth, he describes it as being myth. Myths can contradict without issue.
• Christian teachings or “truths” are downgraded to metaphorical truths, a secondary level
• you might say that a person ‘embodies’ or ‘incarnates’ a spirit of resistance however you are not saying that they are literally that thing, similarly Jesus embodies/incarnates the spirit of God but is not God.
  The key idea is that incarnation should be understand as a myth:
  + prevents the notion that Christianity is superior, a necessary view for pluralism to work
• destroys the foundations of Christianity (making it almost less valid and preventing it from fitting in the modern world)

Question 58

what does it mean when Hick describes himself as a universalist? what are the pros and cons of this?

Answer 58

he believed that everyone ends up in heaven (some simply take more lives than others to get there)
+ maintains the notion of a loving God
+ solves the dysteleological suffering problem, even the most awful suffering is justified by eternal and infinite reward
- not Christian, definitely not Biblical

Question 59

in a pluralist view, can free will really exist?

Answer 59

• all roads lead to God
• we can’t reject Him and go our own way
• Hick was concerned that if man has a totality of choice (existentialism) then there is no reason why all of mankind would eventually turn to God and forcing us would undermine life itself.
• Hick’s position was that God made us with a particular human nature, with a ‘gravitation towards Him’. Seeking God then is the Telos of life. It is the ultimate good for which we were made and can benefit when freely chosen.
• For Hick, God does not cease working to save us until every individual has felt the Grace of God in their lives and turned away from evil and sin. Religious experiences might be a clue as to how this happens in life