Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Yes, of course. But Hick too is making an important initial assumption here: He is assuming that a test of human goodness is a necessary part of the universe. But this is only the case if one assumes the presence of a certain type of God -- one that demands that people demonstrate their faith and their ability to make the choices that God wants them to make. If one concurs with this view, then Hick's argument...
But if one -- and I do -- rejects this assumption of his, the entire argument falls apart.
Evil exists in the world. This is undeniable. Cruelty also exists, as does simple bad luck. Terrible things happen for many reasons. Both Hume and Hick take the presence of evil in the world as a starting point to discuss the presence or absence of a benign God. I do not have the same impulse. I know that evil exists, but I do not feel the need to try to explain it. Rather, my impulses are all directed to the need to fight against it.
Even before one gets to Rowe's argument, however, one may disregard Hick's argument because it depends on imagining an infinite number of possibilities to explain away evil, rather than accounting for it. Instead of actually explaining how a benevolent and omnipotent god can allow evil to exist, Hick's argument simply states that this evil is not really evil, although with no evidence to back this up other than the convenient
"I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." Conversely other people state that they dislike the formality of religion, of beliefs and practices, but do believe in God and in some sense of 'higher truth.' This confusion might be best addressed by doing away with the category of religion altogether -- religion is whatever a society defines it to be, and the term has grown so meaningless, people even speak of making golf
Evil Problems The role of evil is generally misunderstood in the human approach to life. The fear of committing evil lies paramount within all facets of society. The purpose of this essay is to argue that to solve the problem of evil, humanity must begin to embrace the benefits and solutions to problems that evil provides. This essay will first define the concept of evil and discuss the problem in a
Evil The free will defense suggests that God permits, but does not cause evil. Therefore, it is possible to live in a universe in which good and evil continually coexist. Human beings are blessed with the ability to make a choice that can further the objectives of God and good, or to promote the interests of evil. Although this view is logically coherent, there are clear objections to it. One objection is
If humans are not the architects of good and evil, then, it is easy to see how a human cannot be wholly good or wholly evil. An architect may be trying to emulate the style of Frank Lloyd Wright, but his or her work will, ultimately, be different from Wright's in some ways. The emulating architect will create some aspects of his or her building that are entirely his or
Question of Evil In the Bible (The Old Testament ) God gives many codes of justice as well as righteous behavior for humans to follow his ten commandments for instance. The philosophical problem, then of why God allows evil and injustice in the world has been looked into by many people. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not willing to prevent it? If so then he is impotent. Is he