Reaction Paper # 1 – John Hick (The Problem of Evil)

Reaction Paper # 1 – John Hick

Premise:

I agree with everything Hick presents in our materials. Thus my “How I agree?” is "Completely". As to Why I agree: I present here the seven main points Hick makes in our course-work as I understand them, following each with my thoughts and reasons as to why I agree with them.

Reactions:

Hick recognizes the Fact of Evil as a positive objection to belief in God, but not to the reasonableness of his existing. This view posits an impediment (if only a seeming one) without detracting or negating anything.

He suggests that analysis of the Judeo-Christian tradition necessarily rules-out several inconsistent solutions to the problem of evil:
First, they rule-out the solution presented by Christian Science that evil is only but an illusion of the mind. This is easily refuted by all the strife, human tension and insecurity, and even martyrdoms and the Cross in the Bible.

Secondly, the Judeo-Christian tradition nullifies the supposed solution of the Boston "Personalist" School that God is but an imperfect deity who cannot manage to end evil but does the best he can, pulling-together the divided elements of himself from across and within the universe. The ancient Judeo-Christian tradition of an infinitely sovereign monotheistic God clearly refutes this.

Third and most-inclusive is the ruling out by Judeo-Christian tradition of ANY proposed solution to the problem of evil that sets Evil as coordinate-to or substantially coexisting with Good in the Universe. St Augustine and the early Church fathers speak against the possibility of evil existing as anything but the parasitic - misuse, misappropriation-of, or corruption or distortion of Good. We see this as early as the Creation narratives, with the fall from grace of Satan, created Lucifer - the light-bringer.

I am compelled to agree with these being historical based on my knowledge of these traditions.

Reaction Paper # 1 – John Hick, cont'd

Reactions, continued:

Highlighting the Christian tradition and Moral Evil:
  A. Moral Evil goes hand-in-hand with personhood, allowing free persons to choose their actions from greater and lesser-good options.
  B. Creating persons without the possibility of moral evil is contradictory.
  C. Only free, imperfect beings may choose without being compelled.
These points clarify the meaning of "person" as someone who may be free to choose, and clarify the meaning of "moral evil" as consistent lesser goods by degree, which I understand.

While Theodicy cannot explain suffering from without man, it does show how the Judeo-Christian tradition is incompatible with the Hedonist world view. Change or growth are dynamic, and limited good means or Natural Evils are conducive to this, as a setting for values.
I tend to agree with this because it is simple history. It does not over-reach, and allows for the neutrality of natural limited goods such as storms in death.

Despite the Skeptic view of God as necessarily the curator of perfection, this view has never been compatible with Judeo-Christianity. As per Ireneus and St Paul, the world is a stage for "Soul-Building", for Creation-being-Created. The purposefulness of Life draws from the value of limitations, necessitated by Natural Laws unaffected by a jinn-god. As it is now, this world remains idyllic for growth, for development. This limitation of natural goods, called natural or non-moral evils, creates value for what does exist, setting a stage where right or wrong acts may occur.

I'm skeptical of Skepticism, and agree there is no conflict: Christian history, and an imperfect world as a stage for rightness and growth are consistent.

Regarding an After-life, Perfection, or Greater Being After Death:
As rightness and folly can both lead to either strength and development, or toward a disintegration of character (fear, hopelessness, distrust, etc.). This life of imperfect and ever=ambivalent "soul-building" must somehow continue toward a completion.
Great Failures and Rises relate - none are guaranteed but changing. Having this resolve in the end is ALL there is, and consistent with growth-creation.

Reaction Paper # 1 – John Hick, cont'd

Reactions, continued:

On the Judeo-Christian Tradition's Hope amidst Suffering and Evils:

In these faiths, the focus on a development never-satiated in life allows the necessary eschatology to look to an afterlife of completion. Thus we are assured that the bumpy road we travel is worth the effort, despite the struggles.

Part Memento-Mori, part hopeful resolve... time is finite, and change a constant, so we are assured in this that our fleeting moments have value, and are worth valuing.

Hick’s Main Arguments against the Problem of Evil:

An All-loving and All-powerful creator God allows moral and natural evil to exist, while maintaining the qualities of being all-loving and all-powerful.

Natural Evil seen rightly is natural goods existing in limited quality and quantity, such as the division of labor, death, illness, and other unavoidable events not caused by man, permitted for the express purpose of allowing a value to things and actions amidst and because of their finite means.

Moral evil seen rightly is greater and lesser good choices we must all decide upon. Less-benevolent choices are evil by comparison to greater ones available, again, as an opportunity for right action.

As to undoing moral evil, or the option of greater and lesser good choices, this would nullify the potential for persons, who freely choose how to act.

As to undoing natural evil, or natural good in limited quality and quantity, this would nullify the potential existence of everything beyond free will.

In Closing:

I am not the best interpreter of John Hick's philosophy on good and evil. Far from it. Yet, given my limitations, I do what I can with all the effort I can muster, trusting it is good to some degree. If my work is judged poor and insufficient, then, it is as it is. Still it has meaning. Still it has value. Whatever my work or I, or the world may be worth, or judged to be worth, it is all just a work-in-progress, toward its completion, and there is good in it.