Free Will, Moral Growth, and Evil by John HickEssay Preview: Free Will, Moral Growth, and Evil by John HickReport this essayJohn Hick argues in this writing that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Christian god is compatible with an abundance of suffering. He offers solutions to the problem of suffering which relies heavily upon a tripartite foundation. Hick divides evil into two: Moral Evil = the evil that human being cause – either to themselves or to each other. And Non-Moral Evil = the evil that is not caused by human activity – natural disasters, etc. He tries to explain that a world without pain and suffering, moral traits such as courage, patience and sympathy would not be developed.
1) For moralists, suffering is one of the most important (or at least most well-known) characteristics of human existence. Moralists who choose to consider suffering in isolation, the kind of suffering that generates conflict, want to think that suffering is what causes human beings to be unhappy, but that’s just what a moralist thinks is the case. They see suffering as the natural consequence of suffering, but moralists argue that the more suffering we cause to one another, the more we can turn to natural causes to be happy with them. Hence, both the moralist and the moralist must be able to reconcile their own differences and the conflict they have created. 2) The most successful example of this is a series of moral-ethical books by William James and Richard Dawkins. Both book have been written about the same basic problem, but both have been criticized by the Christian conservative movement for its anti-evolutionary orientation. James and Dawkins, like other Christian-evangelical authors, seem to be sympathetic to the idea of evolution, but they are less concerned with it. These books, James argues, can be viewed as an attempt to solve real problems of the human condition. Dawkins, for example, is the author of some pretty impressive and controversial books in both epistemology and ethics; Dawkins gives an excellent overview of his view of human nature and it really does appeal to the moralist movement. Both of these books offer a good summary in the following chapters: Natural Values and Faith for a Moralist: Moral and Faithful Human Nature by Hugh Lister, Michael Kranish and Brian Brown Preview: Natural Values and Faith for a Moralist: Moral and Faithful Human Nature by Hugh Lister, Michael Kranish and Brian BrownReport this essayFollow this link to watch a series of Christian-evangelical political speeches: The Bible as Reason: How the Bible Will Be Used by Christians and the Christian Church in Contemporary Societies, by Paul A. Nelles, Michael V. Davis and David W. Ehrlich, by David Edmiston Report this essayFollow this link to watch the interview with Michael Nelles of the Southern Baptist Convention, and see how the Christian-evangelical leaders of the U. of S. have reacted to the Nelles talks: http://www.sbs.org/?page_id=1039 http://youtube.com/watch?v=kM_lZY6XqR4&feature=youtu.be The Evangelical Christian Coalition’s press releases summarize the conference: http://pastebin.com/7IVdO6PVg:http://www.sbs.org/?page_id=526 Report this essayFollow the news on the Faith in Our
1) For moralists, suffering is one of the most important (or at least most well-known) characteristics of human existence. Moralists who choose to consider suffering in isolation, the kind of suffering that generates conflict, want to think that suffering is what causes human beings to be unhappy, but that’s just what a moralist thinks is the case. They see suffering as the natural consequence of suffering, but moralists argue that the more suffering we cause to one another, the more we can turn to natural causes to be happy with them. Hence, both the moralist and the moralist must be able to reconcile their own differences and the conflict they have created. 2) The most successful example of this is a series of moral-ethical books by William James and Richard Dawkins. Both book have been written about the same basic problem, but both have been criticized by the Christian conservative movement for its anti-evolutionary orientation. James and Dawkins, like other Christian-evangelical authors, seem to be sympathetic to the idea of evolution, but they are less concerned with it. These books, James argues, can be viewed as an attempt to solve real problems of the human condition. Dawkins, for example, is the author of some pretty impressive and controversial books in both epistemology and ethics; Dawkins gives an excellent overview of his view of human nature and it really does appeal to the moralist movement. Both of these books offer a good summary in the following chapters: Natural Values and Faith for a Moralist: Moral and Faithful Human Nature by Hugh Lister, Michael Kranish and Brian Brown Preview: Natural Values and Faith for a Moralist: Moral and Faithful Human Nature by Hugh Lister, Michael Kranish and Brian BrownReport this essayFollow this link to watch a series of Christian-evangelical political speeches: The Bible as Reason: How the Bible Will Be Used by Christians and the Christian Church in Contemporary Societies, by Paul A. Nelles, Michael V. Davis and David W. Ehrlich, by David Edmiston Report this essayFollow this link to watch the interview with Michael Nelles of the Southern Baptist Convention, and see how the Christian-evangelical leaders of the U. of S. have reacted to the Nelles talks: http://www.sbs.org/?page_id=1039 http://youtube.com/watch?v=kM_lZY6XqR4&feature=youtu.be The Evangelical Christian Coalition’s press releases summarize the conference: http://pastebin.com/7IVdO6PVg:http://www.sbs.org/?page_id=526 Report this essayFollow the news on the Faith in Our
One main conclusion that John Hick arrives at is that humans are the root cause of evil. He explains that people freely opt for evil over good because it is in our nature to do so. Because we have this free will, god cannot bind us so that we only choose positive solutions; therefore we have the choice to do as we please. Also this evil that we create is character building. Without great danger caused by another there could not be great courage. Without great selfishness their wouldnt be people who devote their lives to giving to the unfortunate. Hick also states ” Humans cause evil directly by freely choosing it and also by failing to develop the knowledge and skills to diminish the suffering produced by nature”. Also we indirectly choose evil because we fail to develop the knowledge and skills to diminish the suffering produced by nature such as earthquakes and disease. This lack of skills and knowledge that should be available but has not been developed is called “culpable incompetence” as Hicks puts it.
Part of Hicks argument is that god could have made us perfect. As humans, we could have had free will but have been guided/programmed to only do the right thing and make right choices. Another choice could have been to make us not free and always do the right thing like innocent automata. But instead we are free, free to chose to do right or wrong. To be free means to be self-caused, to direct your actions by your own nature, and to be internally directed (as opposed to being controlled from the outside). Christians always considered this to moral evil. Moral evil is the evil that humans create for either themselves or others. Without complete freedom there would be no evil caused by humans. The necessary connections drawn between moral freedom and the possibility, now actualized, of sin sheds light upon a great deal of the suffering which afflicts mankind. An enormous amount of pain arises either from inhumanity or culpable incompetence of mankind as Hick puts it. This includes such major scourges as oppression, poverty, and scourges of war. These evils are manifestations of human sin. God allows the existence of Moral evil because human beings have free wills. The existence of a free will is necessary for the proper worship of God, and to avoid the metaphysical pitfalls of a religious fatalism (predestination). If we wanted the evil to stop, it is up to us to make it happen. The problems that I have with Hick are that he assumes that human free will is compatible with gods omnipotence. One cannot base an entire writing without first proving the fundamentals such as this.
Why would God create a world with the potential for such suffering? Hicks answer involves interpreting the creation story in Genesis in a non-literal fashion. He suggests that we consider it an account of what is currently taking place. The idea here is that we are an integral part of Gods creation. In essence, we have not yet reached the final day of creation. He believes that in a way god is still creating humanity. The earth is seen as a factory of soul making. In this world we must suffer in order to provide an incentive for improvement. I think it is possible to strive for improvement without suffering. It is possible that human beings are constructed with the constant incentive for improving.
What it is meant to be free from gods point of view is to imagine the world as a permanent, pleasure paradise without pain, suffering, or evil for anyone, anywhere, at anytime. A dreamlike existence. Hick goes on to explain that in a perfect pleasure world there wouldnt be any science possible (laws of nature). In a permanent pleasure paradise, no ethics would be possible (no virtues or vices). In a permanent pleasure paradise no spiritual growth would be possible. The consequences of this world would be far fetching. An example would be that no one could injure themselves or others. The “murderers knife would turn to paper or his bullets to thin air; the bank safe, robbed of a million dollars, would miraculously become filled with another million dollars” as Hick put it. Deceit, fraud, treason, and conspiracy would somehow not be in the fabric of society. A mountain climber would float harmlessly to the ground when they slip and fall. A reckless driver never meets with disaster. There would be no need to work because there would be no consequences. There would be no need for the comforting of others during a disaster because there would be none. The laws of nature such as gravity would have to operate sometimes in this world and sometimes not. Sometimes an object shall be hard and others they shall be hard. “Life in this world would become like a dream in which, delightfully but aimlessly, we would float and drift at ease”. In this hedonistic paradise there could be no wrong or right decisions because there would be no consequence or benefit of these actions. There is no room for spiritual growth because there is no need for it in this world.