Reading: Hick, "Soul-Making Theodicy", pp. 316-322
Hick writes very well, so this article is pretty straightforward, which is not to say that it is non-controversial. Hick's starting point is different from that of others we have read. First, Hick views Biblical stories of creation, the Fall, and the great flood, etc., as myths, not recountings of actual events. In consequence, the Augustinian defense of evil (evil as the result of the Fall)holds no appeal for him. Nor, he surmises, does it appeal to anyone who holds a scientific world view. Second, Hick accepts evolution as the right account of human origins. Third, Hick believes in universal salvation, the "culmination" of "the divine program of soul-making" (editors' abstract, p. 316). Hick, in formulating his theodicy, takes inspiration from St. Irenaeus, who distinguished stages in human development. He argues that human beings are gradually evolving from their original spiritual and moral immaturity to a state of moral and spiritual perfection; evils in this world are justified insofar as they are necessary for this evolutionary process.
On p. 316, Hick describes "the theodicy project", which starts from the assumption that "an infinite creative goodness exists ... and attempts to show that this belief is not rendered irrational by the fact of evil". On p. 317, he identifies the standards for a successful theodicy and distinguishes the Augustinian from the Irenaean approach. On pp. 318-322, he develops a theodicy in the spirit of St. Irenaeaus. "The central themes of out which this ... type of theodicy has arisen is the two-stage conception of the creation of humankind, first in the 'image' and then in the 'likeness' of God." (318) Unlike the Augustinian approach, which assumes that we were once morally and spiritually perfect and fell through sin, this approach, as Hick develops it, assumes that we have never been morally and spiritually perfect. Moreover, Hick assumes that we are getting progressively closer (though perhaps in fits and starts) to moral and spiritual perfection. Ultimately, each and every one of us will achieve perfection in the afterlife.
On p. 319, Hick raises the obvious question: Why would God have created us "as imperfect and developing creature(s)"? Why not just create us "as ... perfect being(s)" at the outset? Hick's answer is that "coming freely to know and love one's Maker" requires "an (initial) epistemic distance from God". I'll let you read the text to see what he means by epistemic distance and why He thinks such epistemic distance is in fact necessary. He then asks "why humans should not have been created at this epistemic distance from God, and yet at the same time as morally perfect beings" (319). He agrees with Mackie that a world in which we all freely choose not to sin is logically possible. Given that God could have created us as morally perfect creatures who would freely choose not to do evil, why didn't He? His answer appears on the left-hand column of p. 320. Hick then turns to the task of demonstrating that the actual world is "one of" "an immense range of possible worlds", each of which is consistent with "the general concept of spiritually and morally immature creatures developing ethically in an appropriate environment" (320). Along the way, he addresses the justification for non-moral (natural) evil and considers what the world needs to be like to "constitute an appropriate environment" for gradual moral and spiritual maturation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I like Hick's proposal. Evil can exist for two reasons. 1) People are created with a distance from God in order to come to know and freely love God and 2) they are created imperfectly to achieve qualities of goodness. This makes evil necessary as a kind of test to see if we are worthy of salvation. Hick believes that it is better to achieve greatness than to be born into it. How valuable would our moral character be if we were simply gifted with perfect morality? If we go through life, make mistakes, hurt others, are hurt in turn, and learn to make the right choices, our freedom means so much more than if our nature had been granted by a deity. The idea that we need to earn our morally upstanding nature justifies the idea that we are made to suffer evil in order to achieve perfection.
Hick's argument for the existence of evil is surprisingly simple and makes sense. What appeals to me the most is that we are born imperfect and through evils we develop morally and spiritually. However, there is still one thing I can't help but question. Hick says that God made it so that we have to acquire our virtues throughout life because this makes it more valuable for us. But still why is that important for us? If I was born with perfect virtues then I would not know what it would be like to earn them. This will probably be answered in class.
I can imagine that this view is appealing from many a philosopher’s point of view. By placing the responsibility to advance morally in the hands of humanity, the philosopher becomes a position of importance beyond the intellectual and into the spiritual. Even so, there seem to be several problems. Needless to say, Hick’s views are unorthodox. While his views on creation, the flood etc. may be reconcilable, the view of universal salvation seems problematic. The issue of divine justice can often be difficult to discuss. On one hand, it seems difficult to defend that a just God would send people to an eternal hell, however, the opposite is also true. Can a just God allow perpetrators of genocide who escape any retribution in this life a free pass into the next? In my background genuine repentance has always been a requirement for salvation. This means that no one escapes having to face the reality of their actions. The issue of a just God not punishing a repentant perpetrator may also be a problem but certainly not to the degree that someone who claims no responsibility for their actions can evade punishment.
Although simplistic in nature and diction, Hick's article is one of the most well-rounded arguments we have read so far in class. Hick abandons the purely traditional aspects of Christianity to explore the existence of God rationally on the grounds of "possibility and plausibility." These criteria may be relatively abstract, but there is little other option in consideration of such vast ideas. Rather than just wantonly defend a personal belief, Hick is careful to structure his argument in the form of a classic syllogism. Each idea in the article builds off the previous, allowing him to fully develop a conclusion based on a series of plausible deductions. The clear and concise style of writing only allows for further understanding by his audience.
I particularly like Hick's utilization of the Irenaeus approach. He denounces Biblical myth as scientifically implausible and attributes the stories to a pre-scientific world view. In this new theodicy, humanity begins as drastically flawed creations who are allowed the opportunity (the true freedom) to develop into moral beings. Hick's arguments for natural disasters and the eschatological aspect, though similar to Hume and Swinburne, posses a more alluring quality. Natural disasters are found to be the world's great equalizing force that enables the development of love and cooperation. With such a limited lifespan, human beings rarely reach moral perfection in this world. Therefore, Hick concludes that there is a strong case for an afterlife. At no point in his article does Hick claim that his interpretations are the only valid arguments. He remains open to the fact that this sort of broad philosophy is a very inaccurate pursuit. Thus, Hick is careful to fully address common objections to his proposals throughout the article. This is philosophic argument at its finest.
I agree with Hick to an extent when he says that "coming freely to know and love one's Maker" requires "an (initial) epistemic distance from God" However, this seems to be a slight re-hash of the previous free will argument. In essence, he says that having the ability to choose between good and evil is a choice that results in a greater good than being made as perfect beings in the first place. Hick must conform to this notion because otherwise he allows for a non-benevolent God.
I liked hicks approach in this reading. I agree that without evil in the world, the process of coming to God is meaningless. I think that there are differences in Christian theology though. I was raised to believe that our purpose on earth is to follow God and thus bring praise to him. Hick's states that Christians believe God to be a giving and generous God. I agree slightly but he is also a jealous God who does inflict pain and suffering on his own people. A few of the more recent readings seem to take this viewpoint but if you actually have read more than a chapter of the bible you see that God is not as benevolent as he is always portrayed. Jesus even states in the new testament that in life you will have suffering and troubles.
I thought Hick’s argument was interesting and somewhat refreshing because it was very different from the other ideas that we have read, although I don’t know if I am completely convinced by his reasoning. He mentioned in his theodicy that he believes humans have been in two stages on their path to moral perfection. The first stage in which they are the “image” and the second where they are the “likeness” but I don’t think that the evolution of human fits into two neatly defined stages of moral capability. Another problem with his argument is that he states that parts of the bible are myths which I would agree with but I think the whole protestant denomination would reject, probably not Catholics but the point is that his point here doesn’t settle with a large number of Christians. Also throughout the whole argument I am not very sure what he is responding to, is he trying to convince us that existence of evil is not contradictory to an existence of an omnipotent benevolent God, because if it is then I am not sure he does just that. It seems that he is saying that evil is necessary for good, evil is a necessary part of our evolution to perfect beings. This whole idea is interesting but there are problems that arise like what if we don’t evolve into perfect beings? Is our evolution not free action?
I thought Hick’s argument was interesting and somewhat refreshing because it was very different from the other ideas that we have read, although I don’t know if I am completely convinced by his reasoning. He mentioned in his theodicy that he believes humans have been in two stages on their path to moral perfection. The first stage in which they are the “image” and the second where they are the “likeness” but I don’t think that the evolution of human fits into two neatly defined stages of moral capability. Another problem with his argument is that he states that parts of the bible are myths which I would agree with but I think the whole protestant denomination would reject, probably not Catholics but the point is that his point here doesn’t settle with a large number of Christians. Also throughout the whole argument I am not very sure what he is responding to, is he trying to convince us that existence of evil is not contradictory to an existence of an omnipotent benevolent God, because if it is then I am not sure he does just that. It seems that he is saying that evil is necessary for good, evil is a necessary part of our evolution to perfect beings. This whole idea is interesting but there are problems that arise like what if we don’t evolve into perfect beings? Is our evolution not free action?
The aspect of Hick's writing that I find most appealing is his contention that humans aren't born with the exact framework to always act in a perfect and moral manner. To be made in such a way, as Hick claims, has less intrinsic value than if humans were created imperfectly but had the capability to learn and understand what it is to morally and ethically good. Given that many philosophers have sought to contend that God prevents humans from having free will, Hick argues that in this sense God is giving the greatest amount of free will to humans and that it is up to them to choose what path they're going to take in life. In this manner, humans have a choice whether or not they want to seek the knowledge and experience for living morally. Evil is simply a way to understand what it is to diverge from the moral path and aids an immature being in attaining the most valuable quality of goodness.
I find Hick's overall argument well thought out and easy to follow. Of course, you all probably know enough about me to know that I don't find it convincing. What gets me is on page 322, he sums up the argument with a hypothetical world which is pain-free. I find this analogy lacking because it takes our nature, which is designed to fit this world, and applies it to another world for which we weren't designed and says "See! See! It wouldn't work!" Well surprise surprise! The logical omitted condition of the alternate pain-free world is that our nature would be designed to fit that world. Evolving a sense of moral perfection through freedom of action and millennia of suffering seems like quite a round-about way of arriving at a final destination which we could easily have just been endowed with. Don't forget, the conditions for our learning and understanding morality were also given to us by god. This gets back to that flawed analogy part: telling a human as we know them now what's right and wrong wouldn't be as effective as them learning it. Why not though revise our nature and the nature of the universe such that it is just as effective to tell us or imbue us with that knowledge right off the bat?
I find Hick's argument one of the better one's we have read thus far. The only problem I have is this still doesn't solve the problem of evil, it simply explains why what we consider evil exists. This argument would be almost flawless if he could just throw away the claim that God is "all good" because for evil to just be a part of our evolution and the universe's evolution, then evil still exists. It's all well and good that as he says "For it requires that it be an enviroment which offers challenges to be met, problems to be solved, dangers to be faced..." but this still doesn't coincide with the idea of all good vs. some evil.
While I did think Hick's argument was well thought out and rather simple, I still didn't find it wholly convincing. I'm not entirely sure why. I do like that he throws out non-scientific myths from the Bible to provide a different worldview on the evolution of human morality, but there's still just something off about the whole argument that I can't pinpoint. He makes assumptions about the nature of God - granted, he does say outright that he's going to do it and assume a Christian idea of God- but I don't like taking seriously any philosophical argument that only accounts for one single idea of God. Also, one of the things that bothers me is at the end, how he says that there can be no evil in a world without pain or suffering, where it cannot possibly happen: I find this to be one hundred percent wrong. In the Christian tradition, since that's what he's sticking with, even the intent to do someone an evil is evil. Even if you do not start an affair with your neighbor's wife, covetousness is out of the question. God could not then place us in that kind of world and expect us to ever learn the difference between wrong and right- not because people will not be harmed, but because we are stil human. We still have urges and feelings and the desire to sin- just because we cannot physically do harm to another does not mean we are not sinning.
I find Hicks argument very convincing. This argument for evil makes more sense than just saying we have to suffer for others, but instead we have it in order to ultimatly achieve perfection. A Christian who believes everything in the bible could also take Hick's argument saying that even though God made us perfect, he meant for us to fall from perfection. This would eliminate the problem of God knowing things before hand in this circumstance. It makes sense that God wants us to work to love and know him, since that is what religion is about.
Post a Comment