An important topic within metaphysical philosophy is theodicy, which works to justify the existence of God even though evil exists. John Hick and Steven Cahn in their respective works, “The Problem of Evil” and “The Problem of Good”, provide valid arguments for the existence and probable non existence of God in the presence of good and evil. Through the reversal of Hick’s argument, I feel that Cahn establishes the illogic behind Hick’s view and proves that because both good and bad will always exist within the world, based on Hick’s reasoning and premises, it is likely that soul making and God do not exist to serve the greater good.
In order for one to truly understand Hick’s missteps in logic, first you must understand what he is trying …show more content…
He questions Hick on, “ What is the evidence that, as Hick proposes, the horrors of the bubonic plague somehow contribute to a better world? What is the evidence that the beauty of a sunset somehow contribute to a worse world?” (pp. 46-7). If this good and evil serves no real purpose of one day achieving strictly good or strictly evil, than Hick’s ideas of soul making become difficult to argue for. For instance, when someone dies, no matter whether they did good or bad deeds, that evil or good does not die with them. Following Hick’s logic, I exert my free will and choose to step on/kill a beautiful flower when I see it on the sidewalk. Even though Hick may try to justify that the sole evil act I committed would serve in the process of soul making, this point is discreditable because in order for it to be argued, Hick would have to contradict himself when he states, “...the Christian answer must be in terms of a future good great enough to justify all that has happened on the way to it” (p. 43). My one bad act in my lifetime will not serve to aid good after my death because other forms of evil will always still be present on this earth. Like Cahn states after reversing the argument, “...any demonic purpose of soul breaking at work in earthly history must continue beyond this life to achieve more than fragmentary success” (p. 46). Therefore, since no effect would take place on …show more content…
Under the assumption that love is a deep affection towards something, Hick’s ideas on evil creating long standing good become faulty. Following the logic and point of my previous argument, to make individuals suffer immensely and not have it serve a greater purpose is cruelty, not love. Although Hick may try to argue that God’s existence of evil is for humanity to possess free will why make a caveat of that be pain when this pain will not remain present on Earth for other human beings to suffer through and the greater good is unjustifiable.
In conclusion, Hick and Cahn provide differing opinions on the purpose of good and evil within this world. But, Hick’s theodicy has been proven to be illogical through his own contradictions and Cahn’s analysis. The existence of evil does not serve to further good in the world and vice versa. Therefore, the existence of God is
In order for one to truly understand Hick’s missteps in logic, first you must understand what he is trying …show more content…
He questions Hick on, “ What is the evidence that, as Hick proposes, the horrors of the bubonic plague somehow contribute to a better world? What is the evidence that the beauty of a sunset somehow contribute to a worse world?” (pp. 46-7). If this good and evil serves no real purpose of one day achieving strictly good or strictly evil, than Hick’s ideas of soul making become difficult to argue for. For instance, when someone dies, no matter whether they did good or bad deeds, that evil or good does not die with them. Following Hick’s logic, I exert my free will and choose to step on/kill a beautiful flower when I see it on the sidewalk. Even though Hick may try to justify that the sole evil act I committed would serve in the process of soul making, this point is discreditable because in order for it to be argued, Hick would have to contradict himself when he states, “...the Christian answer must be in terms of a future good great enough to justify all that has happened on the way to it” (p. 43). My one bad act in my lifetime will not serve to aid good after my death because other forms of evil will always still be present on this earth. Like Cahn states after reversing the argument, “...any demonic purpose of soul breaking at work in earthly history must continue beyond this life to achieve more than fragmentary success” (p. 46). Therefore, since no effect would take place on …show more content…
Under the assumption that love is a deep affection towards something, Hick’s ideas on evil creating long standing good become faulty. Following the logic and point of my previous argument, to make individuals suffer immensely and not have it serve a greater purpose is cruelty, not love. Although Hick may try to argue that God’s existence of evil is for humanity to possess free will why make a caveat of that be pain when this pain will not remain present on Earth for other human beings to suffer through and the greater good is unjustifiable.
In conclusion, Hick and Cahn provide differing opinions on the purpose of good and evil within this world. But, Hick’s theodicy has been proven to be illogical through his own contradictions and Cahn’s analysis. The existence of evil does not serve to further good in the world and vice versa. Therefore, the existence of God is