Hick's Soul-Making Theodicy

Contrary to Hick’s thesis; pain and suffering are not needed for moral development or to complete one’s “soul-making” process therefore Hick’s argument for soul-making is untenable and should be rejected. The soul-making theodicy is as follows; the idea that God has only allowed the existence of evil into the world so that people are allowed to learn from these evils in order for us to develop our moral character; to learn and further understand values. As an end result of this moral development, we will be closer to God’s likeness and perfection and we will therefore have acceptance into Heaven when we eventually die.
As shown in Hick’s thesis; God only allows evil in order to develop soul-making, but there are plenty of examples of evil that …show more content…
This is why similar events continue to happen and the opportunities for soul-making progress continues to present itself. Although one example of each moral value would be sufficient to repeat tragedies, is a flawed tactic and if God is omnipotent, as in all powerful and all knowing, then this wouldn’t happen and there would be a perfected method without flaw for soul-making progress, and this method would consist of only necessary scenarios that enable soul making.
Hick’s soul-making theodicy of soul-making is flawed as it requires an omnipotent God, which it appears that God is not omnipotent as there is unnecessary evil in the world. Based on Paragraphs 2-3, the idea of evil being necessary for soul-making is redundant and must form a loop of necessary events in order for it to be true. Pain and suffering are not needed for moral development or to complete one’s soul-making process therefore Hick’s argument for soul-making is untenable and should be