Hadley Gilpatrick

Professor Wisdo

Philosophy of Religion

30 October 2020

Question One: A Critical Examination of John Hick’s “Soul-Making Theodicy”

“The Problem of Evil” refers to the philosophical objection to the all-powerful, all-loving

God represented in classical theism, due to the fact that such a God would not allow for evil in

any form to exist. John H. Hick, a Professor of the Philosophy of Religion and Theology, wrote

his essay “The Problem of Evil” to examine this concept in detail, along with offer his own

argument on how the purpose of human existence can reconcile the discrepancy between an

omnipotent and perfectly loving God and evil’s existence in the world. Many previous

justifications have been made for moral evil that proved insufficient due to their incompatibility

with classical theism. In his essay, Hick first dismisses the idea that moral evil could be an

illusion, fabricated in the mind of humanity. The bible, being so blatantly descriptive of the

history of evil acts and the suffering of man, is undoubtedly aware and genuinely opposed to

evil. The problem of evil then lies in the fact that a God, as proposed in biblical faith to be all-

loving, would want to abolish evil. Since evil exists, some philosophers then propose that this

all-loving god must be finite. In accepting that god is not omnipotent, however, one is, as

described by Hick, “rejecting belief in the infinity and sovereignty of God.” (Cahn, 290)

The term “theodicy,” as described by Steven M. Cahn, describes the “justification of

God’s goodness in the face of the fact of evil.” (Cahn, 295) The Free-Will Theodicy is one of the

first of its kind, and it addresses the problem of moral evil in the world by examining human

agency. First proposed by Augustine, it describes the reason as to why God would allow the
wickedness man inflicts on one another by acknowledging that God created humans as finite

agents of free will in the world, capable of both right and wrongdoing. The idea supposes that

since humans were created to have free will, it must be uncertain whether or not one will do right

or wrong, because if humans were created with this freedom but never had moral failings, they

would not fit the previous definition of humanity. The Free-Will Theodicy asserts that moral evil

exists in the world not because of God’s allowance, but because he created people to act as free

agents capable of sin, who then create the evil and suffering of humanity. Some have tried to

reject the Free-Will Theodicy by proposing that God could have created creatures that acted

freely, yet still always chose the right and virtuous option when presented with it. Hick, however,

agrees that moral evil is a result of God’s given agency to humans, and disputes this claim by

noting that people who believe they have free will but are truly controlled by the will of a higher

power are more akin to “lifeless puppets,” or “a patient acting out a series of posthypnotic

suggestions.” (Cahn, 292)

While Hick maintains some of the beliefs of the Free-Will Theodicy, agreeing that moral

evil results from the sins of humanity, he believed that it fell short in truly reconciling evil and

God’s omnipotence. In order to do so, he proposed his own theodicy, the Soul-Making theodicy,

which accounts for natural evil’s existence in the world. Natural evil is defined as the evil that

cannot be a result of human’s own moral corruption, such as natural disasters and crop diseases,

and in turn cannot be accounted for properly in the Free-Will Theodicy. Hick’s argument for the

existence of natural evil in conjunction with a perfectly-loving, omnipotent god begins with his

proposal on the reason for why God created the world. He explains that while a skeptic may

think God created fully-formed creatures of free will, and His purpose should therefore be to take

care of them and shelter them from evil. However, Hick bases his theodicy not on the idea that
God created the world not as a paradise for completed creations, but rather a place of “soul

making,” where a human must develop their soul by experiencing hardship and finding virtue.

This concept supports itself off of the ideas of an Irenaean view of humanity, the Christian idea

that a person born in the image of God is not fully complete, but must become His likeness

through Christ. Hick expounds upon this idea by presenting a theoretical conception of the world

where no suffering whatsoever could occur. He proposes that in order for this to be true, any act

of evil would immediately be fixed, and no one could be hurt by one another. This would lead to

inconsistent natural laws in the world, along with no way to teach humans the concepts of good

virtues like love and kindness. Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy provides the solution to why evil

and suffering by no human’s fault must occur: To mold the soul to have good values and reach

fulfillment.

Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy has important specifically Christian aspects, as the soul-

making process may start on Earth but finishes in the afterlife. The universalist view of

eschatology in Christianity is one that describes every person one day being able to achieve

salvation and fulfillment in Christ. Evil in the world is a part of the “soul-making process,”

however many people during their life fall victim to evil and do not recover, gaining morally

unfavorable traits instead. Therefore, according to hick the “soul-making process” cannot end

and must “continue beyond this life if it is ever to achieve more than a very partial and

fragmentary success.” (Cahn, 295) Hick claims that in order for the making of one’s soul to be

worth the sorrow of evil in the world, the salvation of the afterlife must be great enough to

outweigh it. The idea that evil and suffering can be endured to make way for a greater goodness

is also often expressed in Christianity, as represented in the story of the death and resurrection of

Christ.
 There are potential objections to Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy. Those who do not agree

may say that the amount of moral or natural evil in the world is too great in comparison to

whatever value it may have in order to be spiritually developmental. Hick responds to both of

these claims, claiming that an overabundance of moral evil should not make God revoke the

uniquely human aspect of free will from people. He also notes that any form of natural evil in the

world would be seen as too much to those it is supposed to be influencing. The third objection to

Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy is that the pain and suffering as a result of evil strikes randomly

and undirected, without reason in promoting virtuosity. In response to this Hick explains that the

very nature of certain evil striking randomly is meant to call humanity to always provide and

protect one another. All of the responses to the Soul-Making Theodicy are plausible, but

especially the third in representing how the nature of evil would prove God’s soul-making

process rather inefficient, as the pain and suffering in the world is so great that many people do

not reach a certain level of enlightenment after being afflicted with it, often tearing them down

even further. Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy is a fascinating way to view the problem of evil

from a productive perspective, and it builds upon ideas from its past to create an argument that

accounts for the perfectly-loving and omnipotence of God with the simultaneous existence of

moral and natural evil.