3.4.? strengths & weaknesses of the soul making theodicy Flashcards
Describe this strength: epistemic distance can justify any kind of evil (i.e. by saying it is beyond our understanding)
- philosopher John Hick uses the concept of ‘epistemic distance’ to justify any form of evil, including animal suffering & (supposedly) pointless suffering
- the so called ‘distance’ between humanity & God means our knowledge is limited
- his thesis covers the idea that ‘the end’ (which is heaven for all) justifies the means of evil
Describe this strength: St Irenaeus’ theodicy is highly consistent with his already established ideas about the purpose of evil
- Hick’s theodicy is remarkably influenced
by the thinking of Irenaeus & Origen - Hick’s contemporary theodicy is grounded in Irenaeus’ 2nd century thinking: he believed that the purpose of God created this world soul-making for ‘rational moral agents’; we are not created perfectly but in a ‘state of imperfection’, so that we may rise to perfection
- in order to achieve the ‘likeness’ of God described in Genesis, we must be refined & developed: humans are a work in progress
Describe this strength: the soul-making theodicy is consistent with evolution & the idea that humanity develops over time
- inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution, Hick’s (in this case) theodicy teaches that our souls develop over time; in this way it makes sense that humans are a ‘work in progress’
- furthermore, this is an idea that has made on influence in popular culture - “we are not born as a ‘finished product’ “ (e.g. the education system) John Locke - Tabula Rasa
Describe this strength (specifically on Hick’s theodicy): emphasis on the idea of universal salvation being compatible with beliefs about God’s omnibenevolence
- Hick’s theodicy teaches us that we will all ultimately achieve God’s ‘likeness’ and the perfection necessary to enter Heaven
- this is known as ‘universalism’ - the idea that everybody will ultimately be saved; arguably, this idea seems to have an even more benevolent (kinder) approach Augustine’s ‘soul-deciding’ theodicy, where everybody is born into sinfulness but only a selective few will be saved
- with this theodicy specifically, it gives off the message that everybody has the opportunity…and WILL ultimately be saved
- HOWEVER, is it really worth it? Why do some people have to face so much more suffering than others, if we are all going to the same place afterwards anyway?
Describe this weakness: the theory does not justify pointless suffering in the world
- e.g. animal suffering
- in response to this weakness, Hick reiterates the concept of epistemic distance: pointless suffering, including the suffering experienced by animals, is needed in order to maintain the epistemic distance between humanity & God; the epistemic distance is also supported by The Fall (Genesis), which suggests there is a separation between humanity & God
Describe this weakness: ‘the theory does not justify the quantity of evil in the world - does the end really justify the means?’ DZ Phillips
- Phillips argues that you cannot see evil & suffering as instrumental for a greater good: we should not use other people’s suffering as a MEANS TO AN END; Phillips writes that “we cannot speak of moral growth in this way”
- by what Phillips has said, it seems exceptionally unreasonable to justify the existence of horrendous evils, such as the Holocaust, by saying that ‘we need to grow deeply in responding to them..”; DZ Phillips responds to this by arguing the natural evil of illness: “Here you go, a bit of cancer should toughen you up”
What is Hick’s response to DZ Phillips’ argument?
‘All evils are a matter of degree. If we remove evils like the Holocaust, then the next-to-worst evils will seem the very worst’: Hick writes “If we ask whether the business of soul making is worth all the toil and sorrow of human life, the Christian answer must be in terms of a future great enough to justify all that has happened on the way to it”; we cannot comprehend the greatness of the good that awaits in Heaven
