Posted: June 27th, 2015

Hick`s soul searching project

“God is responsible for the continuation of evil”;

Introduction

The assay of the problem of evil has been a focus of argument since the sixteenth and the eighteenth century. The argument about the theodicity problem in the early modern philosophy was as a result of the new scientist dream of a perfect science that could explain everything on the surface of the earth. Philosophers have treated theodicy philosophically by use of ideas to explain the challenge of sin in the present world and theologically to identify, understand and justify sin. These intriguing questions about God are: is God able to prevent sin?, is He willing to prevent sin?, is He powerful and good? If God is not able to prevent or unwilling sin then He is impotent and malevolent thus consistent with the existence of sin. If god is all powerful and and benevolent then there should not be a problem with sin (Kremer, Elmar 2000).In this paper we would discuss hicks idea that God is responsible for the continuation of sin.

The attributes of God as good and powerful may not be fully understood by human beings and atheists argue that Gods attributes should be defined based on genuine theodicy showing the consistency in relating God with evil and not just hypothetical (Kremer, Elmar 2000).

Francisco Suarez: Gods involvement in sinful acts

Suarez`s argues that God is the cause and answerable to every effect produced by human beings though it is not traceable to God as a source of immorality of sin. He classifies moral sins into two categories; a sinful act that has a rational good will but has defects in due perfection as regards a free action and evil of punishment as lacking due good inflicted as a result of sin.he also implies that some of the sins human suffer are not in any way related to their or rather to their faith. In faith all the sins that befall humans are as a result of sin, especially the original sin as God`s initial intention when he created man was ton keep him free from sin, suffering and death. Natural sin is traced from the imperfect power that cause them resulting into imperfect effects, these evils are indirectly traceable to God who is the origin. Therefore evil is not intended to by God but He permits, on the other hand other causes of sins can be willed by God as God cannot just be the cause of evil but also the cause of other kinds of evil (Kremer, Elmar J. 2000) for something to occur there must be a first cause that is received by a secondary cause resulting in a final completion of the secondary cause by producing certain effects. The occurrence is a manner of principles because in that the action of the secondary power result in to a complete power. Suarez in his conclusion states that God concurs with human actions since he freely offers occurrences . He emphasizes that for human beings not to sin they must have the ability to be self determiners with God`s concurrence which is not the case, again he agrees with the catholic doctrine that God is the provider of the world there fore every action affected in the world is either knowingly intended by God or knowingly permitted by God (Kremer, Elmar 2000).

Many writers deny the the perfectness of God in moral goodness but Christian writers have not denied good as omnipotent. An early religion rival to Christianity believed that God is not powerful enough to stop bad from occurring and considered both good and bad powers equally strong. Many theologians in the past have talked vaguely concerning the weakness of God in relation to the crucifixion of Christ though it’s not clear if they thought God could not prevent Christs crucifixion. Some Christian theologians have claimed that God allows evil l to occur for the purpose of good. Christian traditions are worried about moral sin than natural evil. In the Christian history natural evil was seen an inevitable as human is mortal and embodied as many things could harm humans. As Augustine [pointed out that natural suffering could be intended for the the good purpose if the choices were made for the good purposes ( Kremer, Elmar 2000).

God`s and Human responsibility

God did not ignore human responsibility for having the sovereign responsibility over his creation. Christ freed sinners from captivity even though believers still battle with the devil and the struggle against own sinful desires. Human beings do not have the power to overcome them without the help of the holy spirit. It is a mystery that sin continues in the lives of humans after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and can only be taken out by daily repentance. Christian considers moral evil in relation to human freedom and responsibility that involves right or wrong. Some philosophers argue that God should have created human who does not sin or rather or rather he would have created people who are genuinely free and guaranteed to act rightly. This argument has caused contradiction that God made us as genuinely independent in relation to him. Another contradicting argument is that God gave us freedom in relation to him. Hicks explains that this is not a genuine freedom that5 a persons being is shaped by God and so is the nature of his or her actions. He continues to say that humans have no ability to explain a free act therefore the mystery of human freedom would always relate in understanding the origin of evil. Suffering as a result of sin draws a connection between freedom and moral evil as the moral incompetence of human causes him a great deal of suffering. Some of the pain and suffering man undergo through as a result of sin. In some cases the suffering is not necessarily as a result of sin or rather due to the structure of the earth, in such cases the theodiy follows a negative path hence does not support the argument that human suffering is for the divine good purpose. God an intention to create a perfect world for a perfect and completely created human being. The world is full and hardship that Hicks considers to must have not been made by a perfectly benevolent and powerful God.the world according to Christians was intended to be a comfortable place for the inhabitants without pain and suffering though is seen as a ”soul making” place of suffering to enable human become heirs of internal life (Cheetham 2003).

The nature of sin, as advocated for by Hick, makes it necessary for human beings have a reason for sinning. This seems to conflict with the nature of sin because it makes it hard to explain. For instance, when a person makes a wrong deed, he or she usually has a choice not to do so. The fact that a person might go ahead and do it means that there is some motivation involved. Whatever action one takes, it always serves to satisfy a certain desire. Those opposing against the claims of the soul-making project make the nature of sin seem inexplicable and irrational. In response to this, Hick questioned why God created creatures acting in an unreasonable and inexplicable way. If one tries to answer this question, one can end up attributing the origin of sin to God (Cheetham 2003).

Conclusion

Some Christian etheists considered the death of Jesus as one of the worst thing that had ever happened out of the bad. The initial intention of God for sending his beloved son to the earth was to save us, the question is that why could not the blood of Jesus restore the relationship between man and God back to where it was before sin, that is if the salvation through the blood was perfect. Some of these questions may not be understood by man. In a way I agree that the continuation of sin is Gods will as he has the power over every creation of his thus can stop a recurrence. God is good and powerful therefore whether he allows sin to continue or not , his intentions are always good as it was in the beginning of creation ( Genesis chapter 1).

Reference list

Cheetham, David. John Hick: A Critical Introduction and Reflection. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Print.

Kremer, Elmar J. The Problem of Evil in Early Modern Philosophy. Toronto [u.a.: Univ. of Toronto Press, 2001. Print.