Hicks theodicy Flashcards
Hick’s Theodicy
-Based on the writings of Iraneus, he suggests that the existence of evil is necessary and serves a higher purpose as it allows us to develop morally and spiritually and to grow into the likeness of God
Why is the existence of evil necessary
-God created an imperfect world, he created humans imperfect and at an epistemic distance from him so that we can grow genuinely and achieve moral development and become close to him by becoming morally and spiritually developed. Evil is necessary for this because we cannot be truly virtuous or understand virtue without evil, e.g we cannot be helpful, caring and loving without the existence of suffering, we cannot develop virtues like courage without things like natural evil to test our soul and allow us to develop skills like bravery-evil is necessary and ultimately serves a higher good and thus God is still all loving whilst allowing evil as it is done out of his love for humanity.
Strengths of Hicks theodicy: Not based on original sin
Hick does not argue that the world was created perfectly or in a perfect state unlike other theodicies such as Augustines which are limited as they are scientifically invalid- his theodicy is in allignment with the existence of evil, the world was never in a perfect state and humans were made imperfect and evolved over time-he does not argue humans are responsible for evil and need or deserve punishment-More persuasive as it is not undermined by evolution and is more valid-persuasive for liberal Christians-may have more validity
C: May be less outdated however it could be argued the theodicy is weak fundamentally as it cannot solve the problem of evil, it also lacks influence among Catholics and fundamentalists for rejecting ideas of original sin so can be considered heretical.
+Logically valid somewhat
-The existence of evil is necessary for moral development somewhat, we cannot develop virtues like kindness, honesty etc without the existence of moral evils like lying
C: Could be argued the extent of evil which exists is not necessary for moral development-thus the thedoicy fails at justifying the existence of evil serves a higher good
-The idea evil is necessary for moral development is invalid
-The extent of evil which exists in the world is unecessary for moral development-Mill-the world is ‘entrenched in suffering’-we can gain moral development with the ability to do lesser moral evils which cause less extensive suffering like lying, God creating us with the capacity to do evils like rape and murder suggests the extent of evil is unecessary and cannot be justified as a means of moral development as we can gain moral development without the capacity to do such extreme evils
-The thedoicy suggests God is responsible for the existence of such evil which is unecessary for moral development and thus is unjustifiable-the fact God is responsible for such extensive evil which is unecessary suggests God cannot be entirely all loving-doesnt justify the existence of evil or present God as all loving so cannot solve the problem of evil.
-Some evils serve no higher purpose and cannot be justified
-For example, an innocent child being tortured cannot be seen as a means for moral development, a child dying of cancer serves no higher good and doesn’t allow the child or anybody to gain moral development-some suffering like natural evil serves no higher Good-this means the existence of evil cannot be justified as a means to serve a moral good as some evil serves no purpose and is needless suffering-the fact God allows such suffering also suggests he cannot be omnibenevolent- a truly loving God would not allow his creation to suffer and would intervine with needless suffering which serves no higher purpose
-The fact needless suffering exists and God doesn’t stop it shows the argument cannot justify the existence of evil; some evil does not serve any higher good at all and God chooses not to stop it-the existence of evil is not justifiable and God cannot be omnibenevolent-doesn’t solve the problem of evil.
