Hick Flashcards
D.Z. Philips
1) if all evil doesn’t lead to some good, theodicy doesn’t hold up - God would be source of pain and suffering
2) Hick instrumentalises human suffering; means to an end- implies we should be happy about it; utilitarian and ego-centric, dismissive of suffering
3) will we continue developing in afterlife?
4) if god had planned our suffering from eternity, this could make god evil
Gratuitous evil
If it exists, we have to admit that God is either indifferent or powerless to stop it; would render Irenaean theodicy useless
Universal Salvation
Hick maintains a successful theodicy must be consistent with religious tradition- STEPHEN DAVIS points out the doctrine of hell is intrinsic to teachings
David Griffin
two equivocations of the word evil and distinction between intrinsic and instrumental values
Hick doesn’t seem to believe in genuine evil
Griffin thinks that concept of epistemic distance involves ‘divine deception’
Roth
we need to think of God as good but not good enough- he should be held accountable
Whitehead
God evolves, changes are not immutable - he suffers alongside us; can’t be omnipotent and so doesn’t have the power to stop evil
Plantinga
Argues God must necessarily allow moral evil
Mackie
if free will exists why didn’t god make us kinder?
Hick responds: predictability of behaviour wouldn’t be acceptable to god, as there is no uncertainty over who chooses to follow him, but this leads to odd conclusion that God lets us make bad choices for his benefit rather than ours
2) If moral agents decide to do good sometimes, is it not possible for them to do good always?
Ninian Smart
notion of goodness is empty if there is no such thing as temptation and hence no occasion to choose good over evil
what is the word for purposeless and gratuitous
dysteleological
Robert Mesle
if God intentionally created us as sinful because that is necessary for soul-making, then we are compelled to say that it is good that we are sinful
some people find their salvation not through their experiences but in spite of them
explain the relevance of brothers Karamazov
by the time the characters reach salvation, the general is no longer the person he was before, and would no longer commit the crimes he had in the past, but he will be the same person who is haunted by his past actions, and wishes they never happened
o the general is far less happy than if he had never committed those crimes
o this regret is ‘genuine evil’, as it serves no one
o Hick acknowledges that there is suffering which reaches far beyond constructive character training
what are the three types of genuine evil that hick acknowledges
- excess of pain
- pain which requires the person divine therapy before enjoying heaven - time cannot be made up
- memories of shame, loss, grief
- ->suffering leaves marks
why does Swinburne argue that death is necessary
to ensure humans take their responsibility seriously - “if there is always a second chance there is no risk”
schleirmacher on the inconsistencies of the augustinian theodicy
logical contradiction that a perfect world was created and then went wrong, since this implies that evil created itself ex nihilo
name 6 differences between the augustinian and irenaean theodicies (BENROP)
A - blames humans for evil; I admits god should take responsibility
A relies on net-platonism
A - god will ensure that the sinner is punished in hell; I believes god created us to have a relationship with us
A - original perfection tainted boy the fall, I -evil will enable future infinite good
I rejects the fall’s ‘original sin’ and ‘collective guilt’
A - the saved and the damned, I - eternal hell rejected since Schleirmacher
name 6 agreements between augustinian and irenaean theodicies (GOD HPW)
- Heaven will make suffering incomparable
- Fall and redemption were part of god’s plan
- ‘O Felix culpa’ – fall worth it because redemption followed it
- Need for spiritual and moral growth via suffering
- Devil is peripheral to theodicy
- The world is good
what are the image and likeness of god
image - designates man’s intelligence which enables him to have a relationship with god
likeness - the final perfecting of humans by the Holy Spirit (we develop into the likeness of god)
walk through what each Hick chapter is about
9, 10 Historical development of Irenean view - 10 is schleirmacher
11 Contrast and agreement between A and I
12 The soul-making theodicy
13 Moral evil
14 Pain
15 Suffering
16 The kingdom and will of god + residual problems
what pages are each chapter
9: 201 - 218
10: 219 - 235
11: 236 - 242
12: 243 - 261
13: 262 - 291
14: 292 - 317
15: 318 - 336
16: 337 - 364
LOL WHAT IS MY LIFE WHY DID I NOTE THIS DOWN
schleirmacher on original perfection
both objective and subjective
Objective: awareness of god through nature - still exists in the present
Subjective: when we are receptive to god acting towards us
schleirmacher’s instrumental view of evil
in God’s created order, sin and evil lead to a greater good
what is the traditional myth and what do we need to give it up according to Hick?
creation-fall-redemption-judgement
- The scientific challenge - human ancestors had to suffer prior to Homo sapiens; this renders Augustine’s theodicy unscientific - a real Adam and eve counter our scientific origins
- Moral challenge - punishing all of humanity for eve and adam’s sins is unjust and immoral
- logical challenge - either god created a perfect world where evil cannot arise, or he created an imperfect one
how does hick respond to Mackie’s criticism
analogy to hypnosis - the patient is under the impression that they are acting freely, and the resulting love and trust are inauthentic
–> the problem with mace’s criticism is that it does not recognise the christian view that god is seeking us to respond to him freely in faith
what are hicks thoughts on our free will and character?
thinks there is an element of unpredictability in our action - our character is formed and re-formed in the moment of free decision
why does hick think we are faced with a dilemma with a perfect world prior to the fall pertaining to the FWD? what does it then lead him to argue for?
“the creature’s fall is either impossible or else so very possible as to be excusable”
he then argues that there needed to have been epistemic distance for us to have sinned
why does epistemic distance preserve free will?
the world is ‘religiously ambiguous’, since it both ‘veils god and reveals him’
in this way sometimes we see god and other times we don’t
what does epistemic distance entail (2)
- it makes it inevitable that humans will organise life apart from god
- as humans evolved, so did the possibility of us becoming freely aware of god and choosing to love him
hick on animal pain?
‘sentient nature supports and serves the human apex”
- ->animal pain plays a supporting role for humans
- ->this depicts animals as entirely instrumental and created for our use - traditional Christian argument for the superiority of human beings
hick on a paradise without suffering
it would render useless all moral qualities
what is the challenge of defining excessive suffering
god getting rid of excessive evils would just be moving goalposts - e.g. if god struck down hitler at birth, we would think Mussolini is evil incarnate)
why must we appeal to mystery when it comes to suffering
if a world had no unjust suffering, sympathy and compassion wouldn’t exist
why is belief in the afterlife crucial for theodicy
if there is a final resolution to suffering and evil, it must lie beyond this world - xn theodicy must point to an infinite future good which will render worthwhile all the pain that was endured along the way
why is hell inconsistent with hick’s theodicy
eternal suffering endured in hell can serve no constructive end, and would make the problem of evil worse
helpful analogies (2) in thinking about how god will free all humans from the bondage of sin
analogy by William James - a chess grandmaster playing a novice: the outcome of the match is assured no matter what moves the novice plays
Hick’s own analogy of god as a divine therapist - empowers the patient to be himself
what do you call the belief that all people will be ultimately saved, and what does it rest on
christian hope; viewing god as a divine therapist
what is hick’s intermediate state
similar to catholic purgatorial suffering
state where sanctification is continued, where we can continue to grow - no point in god sanctifying us the moment we die
a problem of Hick’s view and heaven
if these evils are necessary to prepare us for heaven, how do we know they aren’t necessary during heaven? e.g. if there is no danger in heaven, courage becomes redundant - however, heaven can be a place where people live in a right relationship with god, but still have hardship
what is the biblical paradox of evil
if evil is constructive, how can it be evil and contrary to god’s will for us?
in OT, evil is related to will of god, in NT evil is the enemy of god
here we see intermingling of evil that is sometimes divinely ordained, and others runs counter to god’s will
what are the two attitudes to evil in the bible
monist view - god’s ultimate responsibility
dualist view - evil is the enemy of god and man
what hope are we left to cling to
of ‘infinite future good’
What is a theodicy?
An attempt to show that the existence of evil doesn’t rule out the possibility of god’s existence
What is the Free Will Defence?
God maximised the goodness in the world by creation free beings. Being free means that we have the choice to do evil things. Evil can’t be avoided without denying us freedom.
Moral evil?
Evil committed on purpose by humans
Natural evil
Evil we’re not responsible for. The free will defence cannot resolve natural evil.
Why is life harsh according to Hick?
‘The harshness of life, gives us a robust texture and character that wouldn’t be possible without an imperfect world’
Prepares our souls.
The evidential problem of evil
We might be able to explain why evil exists but we cannot understand why so much evil exists. Why can’t we just have low level evils.
