John Hick's Soul-Making Theodicy

To reply to McCloskey’s claim that there could not be a God due to the amount of evil there is I would first acknowledge this claim. At first I too agreed with this claim that how could someone so great and loving let so much evil and pain into the lives of people who do not deserve it. Simply because I did not understand how God could be so great and let evil into this world. Since then certain truths about theology have been explained to me so I can understand the good of God verses the evil found in this world.

The "Problem of Evil" is a philosophical stumbling block for many people. There are various explanations for the evil and suffering in the world. Theodicy, which is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil explains this. Ultimate Questions by Nils Ch. Rauhut mentions eight different types of theodicy: Big-Plan, Punishment, Suffering-Builds-Character, Limits-of-Human-Knowledge, Contrast, Devil, Test, and Free Will. Many of these explanations have several similarities, although I believe that Limits-of-Human Knowledge Theodicy best fits my understanding of the world. This type has the basic idea that God is the perfect being, and therefore he has infinite knowledge as an infinite being. We simply are

Again, Huck describes feeling “wicked” and “ornery,” though this time he tries to justify his emotions with plausible insights into his upbringing; however, this is to no avail as Huck finds himself back in his perpetual state of self-deprecation. A key difference between Huck’s previous moral conundrum and this one is consistent religious reference, which is similarly reminiscent of Huck’s early morality. For example, Huck’s early rejection that Providence could love him is realized in this later scene. This example is what was previously referred to as the “religious enforcement of Huck’s emotions” and evidently does not subside; however, Huck, with his newfound empathy, now allows those emotions to lead his decision making. In doing this, Huck allows himself to surpass the status that religion attempts to fix him in. In this manner, the parallels between Huck’s early and late morals are necessary to show the extent of his shift in ideals and, moreover, Huck’s willful dislodging of his place in society, the thought of which had previously plagued him. Because of his connection with Jim, that relationship is the stable place that Huck needed and therefore his relationship to the greater society is unimportant, allowing Huck to make a definite and permanent decision of eternal hell (this idea reverts the seemingly immoral status of hell to a semblance of higher

Huck as a boy part of the poor white society, highlights that moral values can differ even within the same race. As a child, Huck represents a character not yet manipulated by society. At the beginning of the book, Huck is not yet influenced by Tom Sawyer, his id’s, romanticizing of stereotypical society. When individuals attempt to civilize Huck through warning him about the “bad place”, Huck exclaims that “all he wanted was to go somewhere; all he wanted was a change” (Twain 2). Huck does not believe in a stereotypical heaven or hell as portrayed in religion.

The problem of evil features an argument questioning the existence of god in relation to evil, attributing both atheistic and theistic replies.

John Hick discusses in his essay The Problem of Evil, the objections to the belief in the existence of God is the presence of evil in the world. He begins by posing the traditional challenge to theism in the form of the dilemma: That if God was perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil, and being all powerful, is able to perfectly do so as he will its. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, giving insights from three point of views, that of contemporary Christian Science, the Boston Personalist school, and the theologian Augustine. The first opinion takes evil as an illusion, as a construct of the human mind. The second confers upon God finity, God as a struggling ruler,

Stephen Law conducted a thought experiment with a purpose of establishing the existence of an evil God, whereby he challenged those who believed in the presence of a kind and good God, doing nothing evil, and argued that the existent God is wicked indeed. The hypothesis developed into the challenge based on the argument that, if an omnibenevolent God is said to exist, yet there is so much evil in the world, then there is as well a possibility that an evil God exists, yet there is so much good. Law aimed to doubt not the fact of the existence of God, but the generally accepted assumption that the existing God is benevolent. Another researcher, Rowe, refutes this approach, arguing that the existence of a Supreme Being, who created people and hence cares for them, cannot be associated with evil. In fact, the presence of evil is a clear sign of the absence of a God. This paper seeks to take a position opposing to Law’s theory and prove that, despite the presence of evil, an omnibenevolent God still exists.

To most theologists, God has a set definition. God is defined as an all-powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and all-loving (omnibenevolent) being that is morally perfect, meaning God always does the right thing. So how can there be a God if there is evil in the world? This question is something

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

The problem of evil (the problem of suffering) is an argument against the existence of God

When we are discussing the problem of evil, we are specifically discussing a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. A God that is perfectly good would not allow suffering to exist, and any minute amount of suffering that exists disproves God’s existence. Unless, the suffering is justified with an adequate reason. However, even then there seems to be large amounts of evil in the world that seems unnecessary for any good reason. By evil and suffering I mean death, pain, and disease. I will be using these terms interchangeably. In the problem of evil, many arguments are placed in order to find a justification for the evil that exists. However,

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson

all-good means that he only wants good to exist. But, look at all the bad and

The existence of God has been in question for as long as mankind has existed and thought logically. Many questions have plagued the human mind in regards to God, and there have been many arguments drawn with the hopes of proving the existence of a supreme being whom we know as God. The “God” question has been presented to every individual at some point in their lives. It is a topic that will bring forth never-ending questions and an equal amount of attempted answers. Many philosophers have formulated different rationales when examining the topic of God, some of which include how the word itself should be defined, what his role is in human existence, whether or not he loves us, and ultimately, if he even exists at all. Mankind cannot

The problem of evil is as ancient as humanity itself. Since the dawn of man, thinkers, philosophers, religionists and practically every human being who have suffered at the hands of evil have pondered this enigma, either as a logical-intellectual-philosophical or emotional-religious-existential problem. The preponderance of evil as a reality in human existence, and