Review of John Hick's 1966 Book Evil and the God of Love
Hick attempts to prove that God can and in fact does exist by explaining why humans are on Earth. Humans, as Hick theorizes, are not here simply to gain pleasure but to build souls that make them closer to the finite likeness of God. This is to say that God purposely made man with a flawed character. Making man perfect, according to Hick, would go against God's purpose of creating man. Which is apparently to build souls so man could live in a perfect heaven as a perfect being and enjoy an eternity of perfection, which could only be reached by letting man learn and craft his soul in a personal and trial filled environment. Man, according to Hick, was not created in a finished state but rather created in a way that needs to be further perfected in order to dwell in the house of God. Hick quotes a variety of scripture to prove his point but this seems troubling when trying to make an argument of reason. Hick immediately places the argument into a matter of faith.
A faith that the Bible is a true account of the world as God intended it to be, and a faith that God has not allowed man to corrupt and change the original texts to what they are today. Hick himself points to free will as the reason for man's suffering on Earth, which is why Hick quoting a book written by man to prove God's existence is a troubling stance. Placing an argument of reason into the realm of faith is the beginning of tearing down said argument. Hick uses Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." What I understood as being attempted with this quoting of scripture is to show the distinction between "image" and "likeness" and demonstrate how this defends his position of a perfect God creating imperfection in order to obtain a Grand Finale of achieved perfection. This type of, for lack of better words, irrational behavior by an all-knowing, omnipotent being seems troubling if you happen to be a believer that needs convincing. How this problem is usually addressed is by a theistic viewpoint that God is beyond our understanding. This is the case if one deems God to be infinite.
God would then be unable to define himself in finite terms for our understanding. This highlights imperfection in a way that most theists should shy away from. However, this is a style of the same argument that Hick employs. A non-theistic viewpoint of what God should be is exactly what Hick describes as a failure of understanding on the non-theists part. This would mean that Hick should agree that God is beyond a non-believers understanding of what God should be, which is to say that God is unable to convince non-believers of his existence because they cannot truly understand God. This troublesome truth, according to the most used description of God as all-knowing, then means that God intentionally creates non-believers that cannot be convinced just so they will inevitably burn in a lake of fire, thus God's knowing them before they were created is a wasted portion of God's knowledge since he creates them with the ability to be a non-believer and burn in an eternal hell. Why would God allow his own creations to suffer eternally if God were not some sort of cosmic sadist- masochist who enjoys punishing himself since he crafted man after himself? Since we know that man has characteristics, if left unchecked that can be troublesome we can also assume that God also has those characteristics. Adding onto Hick's argument of soul-making, one could determine that God is imperfect and evolving spiritually along with man, while watching his own faults played out in the natural world. This type of argument would be troublesome for a believer to construct. It would mean minimizing God to nothing more than a troubled entity with major flaws of character. This would undermine the entire faithful population. Some existentialists would argue that this is the case and that God is evolving in character along with us.
Hick I believe would argue against this. This once again takes him out of the realm of reason and back into the arena of faith being the ultimate persuasion on existence. Hick then shows how Jesus' existence was to portray to man how he should act. God could have just as easily told Adam and Eve in a more explicit way not to eat of the fruit, or in fact not even make the predicament possible. God's knowledge of evil and sin shows that he knowing and willingly damned his own creations to hell. Hick does a weak job in showing why God could not have created man in a perfect state. Hick explicitly states that "they cannot be created ready-made as this". He fails in explaining this to a point of reason. Hick then moves to say that the moral knowledge of man could have been at the same level thousands of years ago as it is today. One would think that a quick glance at man's history could show otherwise. Even a believer in the Bible can see that man was not at a state of high morality but rather at a state of survival of the fittest and brutal and warring mentalities reaped the benefits of battle. Hick then asserts that human life is not a something in which pleasure is the key goal. Hick confuses pleasure as a mean and not what it truly is, which is an end. Pleasure is the ultimate end in which every being wishes to reach. Hick confuses pleasure with selfishness. Hick then defines God as a parent. This is troubling because of the many different types of parenting and raising.
Not every parent acts in the same manner and thus we have a diverse range of personalities and characters in the world. Pleasure is also the key to theistic beliefs of heaven. Heaven is known to be a place free of suffering and in turn a place of ultimate pleasure. A pleasure beyond definition. A pleasure of being perfection. This is to say that man will equal God since he is perfection and no imperfection shall exist in heaven. If man were to equal God this would entail that man could then conquer God by sheer numbers and be the rulers and expanders or destroyers of the universe. We can jump to any type of conclusion since according to Hick's own description of our world; we could be confused of what we should be doing. I will admit at this moment it may appear that my analysis has taken a jump down a rabbit hole. Hopefully that isn't the case. Hick describes this idealism as looking to the ultimate future of which only faith can see. Hick, at the end of his own argument, makes an admittance that this argument in no way is grounded in solid reason but rather can only be understood by those of faith. Hick's burden of proof is left unresolved. Hick's argument seems to make an excuse for the evil and suffering rather than show why they are necessary. His reasons for it being necessary seem like they jump around the purpose of themselves rather than find it easily and in a manner that does not need suffering. In closing I will say that Hick's argument immediately displays a sad level of speceism. Hick fails to explain why man is deserving of a soul and heaven while animals are unable to sin knowingly and do not receive a reward at the end of their suffering.
Pain does not require reason in order to be understood to a point of clear definition. This immediate and clear placement of man as the ultimate entity on Earth is exactly why man acts in a manner that is troubling and horrendous for the rest of the world. Man, because of an understanding as him as the ultimate ruler of the natural world, acts in a selfish way that is harmful to not only those around him but himself as well. It seems that understanding ourselves as part of the world rather than the ruler of the natural world and decider, since Hick's entire argument relies on free will, would be a better way to achieve perfection of character since this would humble man to a degree that he would demonstrate compassion and caring for all living things. In making Heaven the ultimate goal, Hick places this world's importance of existence to the wayside and could be seen as encouraging man to simply see Earth as temporary and not needing a great deal of protection to the environment but just enough in order to last us long enough until death. Hick has not only made an unreasonable argument in the face of non-theists but also a troubling argument that could be opened up in the arenas of environmentalism and animal rights.
Published by W. J. McCormack
- . Why would God allow his own creations to suffer eternally if God were not some sort of cosmic sadi