Hick's Irenaean Theodicy

Intro

The problem of evil is traditionally defined as an inconsistent triad which is expressed: that if God were omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would want to and be able to abolish evil, yet evil still exists: therefore, how is it possible that these three claims could all be true?
A theodicy is a technical term given to an attempt to justify the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God in the face of evil.
John Hick was a liberal Christian and modern philosopher who took a similar approach to Irenaeus, arguing that if we never experienced any difficulties or challenges, we would not be able to grow as personalities or learn anything morally.
Hick developed Irenaeus’ soul-making theodicy. Soul-making is the theory that evil has to exist so that humans can develop their souls by living and becoming good, moral people. It gives humans a chance to learn from suffering and develop moral virtues.

1 of 7

The Irenaean theodicy claimed that evil and suffering is allowed by God for a telos. Can evil and suffering ever be part of God’s plan for his own creation? Can we really justify suffering because it helps with the soul-making process? Hick’s theodicy can be seen to challenge God’s omnibenevolence.
The welsh philosopher D.Z Phillips was not convinced by the argument that evil is justified because it gives opportunities for character development and help us to develop positive qualities when responding to the suffering of others. there’s such horrendous evil in the world, like The Holocaust, and he felt it was problematic to argue that a benevolent God deliberately allows such suffering as part of his plan for us
For example, could we really justify the Holocaust because it somehow aids the moral development of humanity? It could be argued that extreme suffering like this soul-destroying rather than soul-making. It completely crushes people, even causing people to commit suicide. Does the end goal really justify the means? It seems incoherent that character building would result in loss of life, like suffering in the holocaust. It seems so difficult to justify the Holocaust with the concept of soul-making, It could be argued it is dysteleological evil rather than soul-making.

2 of 7

Hick’s irenaean theodicy does not seem to take into consideration the magnitude of suffering. Couldn’t we learn and grow with less intense suffering? In my opinion why should soul making involve suffering? The suffering is “good for you” argument I believe seems unjust, especially in the suffering of innocents.
Therefore, Hicks irenaean theodicy is non-sensical and deeply flawed, as suffering can’t be justified on the grounds of motive for soul-making.

3 of 7

As pointed out by JS Mill, there is tremendous suffering in the animal kingdom. Animals do not have souls according to the Bible, so this would mean they they do not have souls to develop. I believe this raises inconsistencies within hick’s theodicy. What is the point in animal suffering?
Furthermore, Hick does not adequately explain suffering. For example, why do some people suffer more than others? presumably the wicked, should suffer more than good people as they have more soul making to do, but in reality, they don’t? some people suffer considerably more then others, why would God single them out?
This suggests that these inconsistencies and inadequacies implying that Hicks theodicy is incoherent, and therefore, does not solve the problem of evil.

4 of 7

Hick’s Irenaean theodicy is successful as it over comes issues with Augustine’s theodicy.
Augustine believed that existence was perfect from the point of creation and Adam and Eve’s as well as angels’ disobedience led to a shift in the natural world where evil would be able to occur. Unlike Augustine’s theodicy, this theodicy does not depend on a literal reading of Genesis, which can be seen as problematic in the real world. It does not require you to believe that Adam and Eve were real people
It also fits better with Darwin’s theory of evolution because Hick and Irenaeus did not believe that perfection could be made. They argued that humans were created were created by God as spiritually immature and need to grow into his likeness. The concept of humans progressively improving works hand in hand with the theory of evolution, which can be supported by empirical evidence such as fossils and biological theory.

5 of 7

some may argue that not reading genesis literally makes Hick’s iranaean theodicy unsuccessful. Irenaeus and Hick both argued that everyone goes to heaven.
This would appear unjust, in evil goes unpunished. This is not orthodox Christianity, as it denies the fall and Jesus’ role is reduced to that of a moral example rather than the sacrifice that makes our redemption possible. Morality then arguably becomes pointless.
the idea for redemption through heavenly realms as suggested by hick is incoherent because it may make people lacks with morality on earth.
Universal salvation is not supported by biblical texts, in fact in Genesis 3, God can be seen punishing Adam and Eve for their sins, implying that Hick’s theodicy is contradictory.
Hick believed that we would be given further opportunities for soul-making in the afterlife and also rejected the belief in hell completely as it questioned the goodness of God. But if everyone is saved, what is the point of Jesus’ death on the cross? The idea that everyone eventually goes to heaven seems unfair and disregards the idea of divine justice.

6 of 7

Irenaeus believed that we have to have free will beause without, moral development would not be possible, he clearly vied free will as a worthwhile gift. We need free will to repomd positively to others and we can also be free to make mistakes and hence learn from them, as part of soul making .
Hick supported this view, as well as the Christian thinker Swinburn, true goodness has to involve free choice and without it our existence would become meaningless, mechanical and robotic. It would not be a genuine existence at all if God simple pre-programmed us to do good on every occasion. Without this option to make mistakes we would not be able to do soul-making; we wouldn’t have the chance to develop our morality. We would be slaves or puppets and there would be no such thing as genuine goodness.
The free will defence argument argues that best possible world is one in which humans have free will, even though wrong choices can lead to suffering, it makes our existence meaningful.

7 of 7