Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 17 - Coggle Diagram
Chapter 17
Plantinga and Pike/The Logical Problem vs Substantial Problem
Nelson Pike
- if we discard the problem of evil to begin with, and take God’s existence as verified knowledge or unquestioned faith, then evil loses its importance as a real problem.
--> God is not verified knowledge
Plantinga -
There is no logical contradiction within the dual ideas that God is omnibenevolent and that evil also exists.
As long as God has a reason for allowing evil to exist, it is logically sound.
It is
possible
that all worlds suffer from 'transworld depravity' (man can freely perform at least one morally reprehensible action).
Hick disagrees with Plantinga:
If a morally good and free person makes a decision, it is unlikely that they will make the ‘evil’ choice, as they are good. Therefore it is possible to have a world with freedom, without evil.
Potential Objections with the Irenaean Theodicy:
Madden and Hare:
Soul-making is inaccessible to the insane
Can only account for a small amount of evil and and not for the “maiming of character which too much evil often produces.”
Hick rebuts this. He argues that the only necessary fact of the Theodicy is that real evil occurs. Plus, soul making does not cease at death.
The price paid for suffering is too high to be justified
Hick argues that the benefit (Heaven) that is promised to us is far greater than the mere “peace and rest at last” spoken by Aloysha in ‘The Brothers Karamazov.’
If God is all powerful, why didn’t He create spiritual people to begin with?
Hick argues that God is creating children who have to come to Him by their own free will.
There is a paradox in the Irenaean Theodicy: “Moral and spiritual growth occur through overcoming evil and that evil therefore contributes to good by being overcome by it.” (Pg. 376)
Hick says that it does not follow that we shouldn’t try to overcome evil. It is there as a tool for us.
G. Stanley Kane:
The virtues (“fortitude, courage and compassion”) which will allegedly develop out of evil does not require the extensive damage of disease, natural disaster etc. Why can’t we develop these out of goodness, e.g helping a spouse type up their dissertation?
Hick argues this example exists in a wider context. The student spouse is completing their essay in order to get a job, and avoid homelessness. Thus Kane “presuppose[s] that there are instances of academic failure...that there is poverty as well as affluence, and that undernourishment and starvation are real possibilities in this world.”
“It is outrageous to hold people responsible for doing what is right when they are ignorant of what it is, for it is wrong to hold people responsible for something which it is impossible for them to do…” (Pg. 381)
Hick argues that “man is responsible for his life within the creaturely world, whilst God is ultimately responsible for the existence of that creaturely world and for the fact that man lives responsibly within it.” (Pg. 327)
The character we obtain on earth doesn’t matter if we can develop a character in Hick’s pseudo-purgatory.
Hick argues that soul making is not only the process of acquiring virtues, but also entering a relationship with God, which is why purgatory is necessary
2
Iranaean view on significance of moral evil
If God created us in His immediate presence (ie that we immediately knew of his infinite divine love and goodness etc and were consciously aware of it) then we would not be able to CHOOSE to worship God
Therefore God creates us (to give us freedom to come to him) at an epistemic distance
He is not immediately and overwhelmingly evident to us
We are created in a world with its own structure and ‘laws; and God is not clearly evident in the world
So “
the awareness of God takes the form of the cognitive choice which we call faith
”