To get you thinking...• Look at these pictures – what potential problems (or

strengths) with Hick’s theodicy you think they are raising?

• God’s justice – if I must get to Heaven in order for the evils I experience in life to be justified, what value is there in doing the right thing?

• How happy are we with the idea of Hitler being in Heaven?

• If my journey of development is incomplete in this life, it must continue beyond death – what issues does this raise for the nature of afterlife? Is this philosophically possible?

• What will Heaven be like? and what must I be like in Heaven in order for me to experience satisfaction that is suffient to make all my sufferings worthwhile?

• What about atheists? Must they go to Heaven too? Should God respect the free decision of atheists who choose to reject him (like Ivan Karamazov)

The Gates of Heaven: Universal Salvation.

Hick claims that for evil to be justified, all must eventually get to Heaven.

What potential problems does this raise?

• Not everyone's life experiences are equal –some experience dire suffering and others have a relatively comfortable existence. Does Hick succeed in ironing out these inequalities?

• Does suffering always lead to moral development? What is the problem if it doesn’t?Inequalities in life

Some people are born into incredible wealth and opportunity. Others are born into

unimaginable squalor.

• Hick’s theodicy is compatible with a 21st C world view

• Many modern Christians would regard this as a real strength, making it more credible today than Augustine’s theodicy.

• The Genesis myth becomes an illustration of the process of development, enabling it to remain meaningful to 21stC Christians

• How acceptable is it to regard some parts of the Bible as myth, when many Christians would maintain the literal truth of others? eg the Resurrection.

• Hick regards the Bible as being entirely myth – Jesus’ life is reduced to an illustration of the correct way to live, an example of the moral life.

The Fall of Man

Hick’s theodicy (unlike Augustine’s) does not rely on a literalist interpretation of the Bible

Is this a good thing?

• Is freewill worth the price being paid for it?

• Is the magnitude of suffering in the world really an expression of God’s love?

• Why does me having freewill mean I must be capable of such extreme atrocities?

• Do we detract from the seriousness of suffering by claiming it is an opportunity for growth & development?

Human Freewill

Freewill is central to Hick’s theodicy as without freedom to respond to evil & sufferings, we would be unable to develop into ‘Children of God’.

Freewill, and the opportunities for development that suffering creates are an expression of God’s love for mankind.

• What if we die before we are able to respond to our suffering? (Hick would say we continue after death until the process is

complete – see issues on slide2)• Is it justifiable to use

the suffering of others as an opportunity for our own growth & development? – is it ok to use others as a means to an end?

Fatal Illness

Hick claims that our suffering is justified as it is an opportunity for

growth & development

How satisfactory is this claim?

• It is not only humans that suffer – animals suffer too. There is no justification in Hick’s theodicy for animal suffering

• “Bambi” in the forest fire is the illustration associated with William Rowe’s Evidential Problem of Evil – does the suffering I experience need to be that bad in order for me to learn from it? Could I learn the same lessons from less serious instances of suffering?

A fawn in a Forest Fire

This actually raises 2 points:1. Animal Suffering

2. The extent of Suffering experienced (Evidential

Problem of evil)

Task:• Using your text book and your wider

knowledge, complete the Student Activity Task Sheet “Hick’s Theodicy: Identifying Key Strengths & Weaknesses”