For generations upon generations people around the world have asked the question, “If god is good, why is there evil in the world?”. On first observation of this simple question one sees what seems to be a fundamental flaw in the Christian belief. John Hick attempts to solve this life- changing question and prove that it has no effect on the essential belief of God. He defines this “Problem of Evil” in the following dilemma: “If God is perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil; and if he is all- powerful, he must be able to abolish evil. But if evil exists; therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving” (Hick 1). In going about proving the instability in what seems to be an ironclad argument, John Hick looks at multiple
…show more content…
To solve the problem of moral evil, John Hick argues that in order for God to have created the human entity he had to create him with the capacity for freewill. If he had not done so, a person would no longer carry his or her identity as a person. In response to the argument of God creating a free person who would always make the right decision, Hick argues that the contradiction in itself does not make sense despite the apparent logic. In order for something to be free it must be free of any causation by an outside source. There cannot be any choice out of reach or not allowed. There cannot be a guarantee that anything will happen in any situation. Arguably there cannot be a guarantee of anything at all. The idea of a guarantee to make the right decision would fall under a situational basis and Hick compares this idea to a hypnotist who would take away one’s freewill and put you under the influence of his or her will. Hick goes as far to say that the idea of a person acting freely but always choosing the right thing is ultimately a “ ‘meaningless conjunction of words’- in this case ‘a person who is not a person’ ” (Hick 2) because the phrase in itself is not logically possible. As Hick accurately puts it, “The origin of moral evil lies forever concealed within the mystery of human freedom” (Hick …show more content…
This assumption is very reasonable. If god is omnipotent, omniscient he must have control of everything in the universe and if he wanted to change something he could with no difficulty. He would not be going against human will by choosing not to let the sun blow up. Nevertheless here’s the first area where Hick’s solution beats Clarke’s story of injustice. John Hick’s essay says that in order to live out “soul-making” one must live in a world of laws of physics and science. A world where there are consequences for our actions. The laws of science tell us that everything must end. That entropy is constantly putting the world into a more severe state of disorder and therefore nothing under our laws of reality can be eternal. So the destruction of the star was eminent. God maybe could have delayed it but ultimately eventually since it lays within our realm of reality it would have to “die” or implode. Also keep in mind the universe is constantly getting bigger and one day according to scientific belief it will snap backwards and the universe will end and we will all instanteously die. Our world like that of the inhabitants of the star will
To solve the problem of moral evil, John Hick argues that in order for God to have created the human entity he had to create him with the capacity for freewill. If he had not done so, a person would no longer carry his or her identity as a person. In response to the argument of God creating a free person who would always make the right decision, Hick argues that the contradiction in itself does not make sense despite the apparent logic. In order for something to be free it must be free of any causation by an outside source. There cannot be any choice out of reach or not allowed. There cannot be a guarantee that anything will happen in any situation. Arguably there cannot be a guarantee of anything at all. The idea of a guarantee to make the right decision would fall under a situational basis and Hick compares this idea to a hypnotist who would take away one’s freewill and put you under the influence of his or her will. Hick goes as far to say that the idea of a person acting freely but always choosing the right thing is ultimately a “ ‘meaningless conjunction of words’- in this case ‘a person who is not a person’ ” (Hick 2) because the phrase in itself is not logically possible. As Hick accurately puts it, “The origin of moral evil lies forever concealed within the mystery of human freedom” (Hick …show more content…
This assumption is very reasonable. If god is omnipotent, omniscient he must have control of everything in the universe and if he wanted to change something he could with no difficulty. He would not be going against human will by choosing not to let the sun blow up. Nevertheless here’s the first area where Hick’s solution beats Clarke’s story of injustice. John Hick’s essay says that in order to live out “soul-making” one must live in a world of laws of physics and science. A world where there are consequences for our actions. The laws of science tell us that everything must end. That entropy is constantly putting the world into a more severe state of disorder and therefore nothing under our laws of reality can be eternal. So the destruction of the star was eminent. God maybe could have delayed it but ultimately eventually since it lays within our realm of reality it would have to “die” or implode. Also keep in mind the universe is constantly getting bigger and one day according to scientific belief it will snap backwards and the universe will end and we will all instanteously die. Our world like that of the inhabitants of the star will