An Irenaean Theodicy (John Hick): Part 2

Click here to read Part 1 of this article

The importance and place of free will in matters of faith

The central principle of the Irenaean Theodicy is that we have been placed in a hostile environment in order to learn to become better people. However, this begs the question as to why God has placed humans in a 'hostile environment' in order to bring them to perfection? For if perfection is your goal, why not simply start (and end) by creating each person perfect as God intends them to be (and at the same time automatically conscious and aware of God)? Hick writes:

"In order to be a person, exercising some measure of genuine freedom, the creature must be brought into existence, not in the immediate divine presence, but at a distance from God."

Although God could have created us perfect, we might not have chosen to be a perfect being as God intended. God is not interested in creating robots. Rather God is more interested in our choosing to become who God wants us to be (at some point in the future), rather than force us to be this way from the start (no matter how long this process takes). Furthermore, in order that we might 'act naturally' and not be overwhelmed by the reality of God, God remains distant to us (what Hick calls an EPISTEMIC DISTANCE).

Epistemology is to do with knowledge. When Hick talks about an 'epistemic distance' he means that God is not 'in our face', so to speak, and knowledge of God's existence is ambiguous. To illustrate what Hick means, think about how people act when their favorite actor or singer is near them, and how differently they act when not. Now imagine how this translates to God. If God’s presence was immediately known to us, we would simply live in fear and awe. There would also be no atheists. As far as Hick is concerned God does not want this. God wants us to live free lives. We might argue that God may even want some people to choose to be atheist, which is why God needs draws away from us in order that we might act spiritually and morally as we see fit.

Of course, one consequence of this is that the world is religiously ambiguous, which means we do not have any certain evidence that there is (or is not) a God, but this is the world God desires for us to be in. We live in a world where we have the freedom to live in any way we choose. In terms of belief in God, when someone comes to 'freely to know and love their Maker', they have chosen this for themselves, and that choosing is also far more valuable and meaningful. Something we have struggled for and worked out for ourselves is more valuable (and valued) than something we are simply given:

"A moral goodness that exists as the agents initial given nature, without ever having been chosen by him in the face of temptations to the contrary, is intrinsically less valuable than a moral goodness which has been built up through the agent's own responsible choices through time in the face of alternative possibilities." (John Hick)

Making real choices that count

For Hick, the goal (of 'struggling humanity') is the turning from self-centredness to Reality (or God) centredness. Pain and suffering in the world is therefore the residue of people acting selfishly, or in other words the actions of morally and spiritually immature people. Although this explains why moral evil exists, the question begs as to why God wants our 'learning to become better people' to take place in a natural realm that is dangerous, and where the fragility of the human body can quickly and easily lead to illness, pain and suffering?

Hick's response is that moral and spiritual development cannot take place in a static environment, but in one where there are real consequences for both ourselves and others around us. For example, we cannot expect to learn about the fragility of the human body if banging a hammer down onto one's thumb

never hurt, or led to any physical injury. By living in world where our choices make a real difference we learn to live thoughtfully, and with careful consideration. If the situation was such that no-one would ever experience physical pain/suffering as a result of our actions, then how could

anyone develop any sense of moral responsibility?

And beyond…

Finally, Hick is the first to admit that the person-making process of moving from self-centredness to Reality-centredness is only being completed in a few people here on earth. There are very few

people we might regard as a 'true saint' when we look back over the course of human history. Thus the

Irenaean theodicy presupposes that there must be a continuation of life after death whereby this process can be completed:

"Only if [salvation] includes the entire human race can it justify the sins and sufferings of the entire human race throughout all history." (John Hick [bracket mine])

It is for this reason that Hick's Irenaean Theodicy is sometimes called a 'soul-making' theodicy.

Some issues

As attractive as Hick’s thesis is, it is not without problems. For one, if people are meant to live in a world where our choices have significant consequences for our personal benefit, then Hick might stand accused of belittling some of the excesses of human depravity. For instance, for a few people to learn not to be anti-Semitic, millions of Jews lost their lives in World War II. One could also say that the Jews who died in the Holocaust we also being used for the moral benefit of others, which does not

count very favorably towards what some might say God thinks of them. To use others as a means to our personal end is also something we might consider the opposite of trying to live free of self-centredness.

Hick's response to this is that our judgement of what constitutes 'the excesses of human depravity' is relative to our personal situation. In other word's, what we consider to be excessive today may not be considered so by others say in fifty or a hundred years time:

"In a world in which there was no cancer, something else would then rank as the worst form of natural evil." (John Hick)

So although the world may appear harsh and hostile (and especially towards certain groups of people), there is always something worse coming along. Even the fact that calamity strikes indiscriminately, in that the 'good' are often afflicted with pain and suffering whilst the 'bad' seem to enjoy a long healthy and happy life, is all a matter of keeping things in perspective:

"Let us suppose that... the sinner was [always] punished and the virtuous [always] rewarded. Would such dispensation serve a person-making purpose?... God has set us in a world containing unpredictable contingencies and dangers, in which unexpected and undeserved calamities may occur to anyone; because only in such a world can mutual caring and love be elicited." (John Hick)

The unsavory aspect of Hick’s theodicy is evident here. Part of 'growing up' is the realisation that we cannot always have things 'our way'. We live in a world where sometimes the cards will be stacked against us (and sometimes not), and we have to deal with that. If 'life' always patted us on the back for doing good, we might never learn to be better people when faced with times when we have done an unrecognised (or unacknowledged) 'good'. For it is in situations such as this that we learn to truly become people of deeper moral and spiritual character, rather than superficially so. However I cannot help but think that this ‘suck it up’ mentality is only going to be acceptable to a male, Christian, white, educated, and affluent member of the human race, such as John Hick!

An Irenaean Theodicy (John Hick): Part 1

"Can a world in which sadistic cruelty often has its way, in which selfish lovelessness is so rife, in which there are debilitating diseases, crippling accidents, bodily and metal decay, insanity, and all manner of natural disasters be regarded as the expression of infinite creative goodness? Certainly all this could never by itself lead anyone to believe in the existence of a limitlessly powerful God. And yet even in a world which contains these things innumerable men and women have believed and do believe in the reality of an infinite creative goodness, which they call God." (John Hick)

Introduction

John Hick has made major contributions in two areas of Christian theology. The first is the relationship between the different world faiths, whereby he attempts to explain the phenomena of religion from a religious (as opposed to a naturalist) perspective. The other is his Irenaean Theodicy, and how theists can reconcile a belief in the infinite goodness of God in light of the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

Although Hick addresses the problem of evil and suffering from a largely Christian perspective, he is aware that this is not a specifically 'Christian problem'. In fact, he acknowledges from the start that each world faith has a need to justify what they believe about the nature of the Divine and/or the world, with the existence of evil and suffering.

Setting the scene

Hick begins by insisting that any theodicy should fulfill two criteria:

• It should internally coherent and consistent with the religious tradition on which it is grounded (E.g. a theodicy grounded in the Christian tradition should be acceptable to Christians, and recognisable as a 'Christian theodicy').
• It should internally coherent and consistent with the picture of what we know of the natural realm (i.e. it should be scientifically credible).

This latter point means Hick requires a theodicy to be faithful to the scientific enterprise, and be consistent with the 'facts' we know of the world (E.g. Acting as if there is no gravity is 'bad', acting as if there is 'good'). The modern scientific enterprise also presupposes an evolutionary approach to understanding how we have developed physically, emotionally, cognitively etc. So in order to remain consistent with this, we must understand our moral and spiritual development in the same way. As such Hick refuses to accept that biological life-forms developed physically, emotionally, cognitively etc. over a long period of time, but that they suddenly gained moral and spiritual maturity (as as literal reading of the Creation accounts in the Bible seems to imply). On the contrary, the same biological evolutionary developmental processes must be said to apply all aspects of our lives (moral and spiritual included).

Hick also believes that in order to remain true to the modern scientific view of the world we must begin with the notion that evil really exists, and is the cause of real pain and suffering in humans. Hick is aware that traditionally Christians have tended to adopt the FREEWILL DEFENSE (FWD) to explain the presence of evil and suffering in the world (and his rejection of this is the main reason why he adopts the Irenaean model), which suggests that all evil and suffering is the result of a misuse of human freedom. In doing so, the FWD places the blame for evil and suffering firmly onto us.

However, this raises the question as to why God created a world where evil and suffering can occur

in it (something Hick believes the Irenaean Theodicy is better suited to explain)? Of course, the classic FWD response to this is that this is the world God made, and that is that! However, some go further and claim that God actually allows evil and suffering to occur, for some greater good:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him." (Romans 8:28)

The problem with this interpretation of things (for Hick), is that it means evil and suffering does not really occur in the world - it just appears that way to those who do not see God working 'behind the scenes'! Yet this is contrary to the modern scientific mind, which takes that view that evil and suffering

really does occur (i.e. You really are going to die if you jump off a 50 story building with no parachute or safety net to prevent you crashing into the ground). As such, Hick believes any credible theodicy must reject the 'evil re-interpretation model', and be grounded on the 'evil really occurs' premise.

More reasons why Hick rejects the FWD

As a further prelude to his Irenaean theodicy, Hick sets out two further reasons why he rejects the FWD (the traditional Christian model for explaining why evil and suffering occur in the world):

• The idea that humanity was created morally and spiritually perfect yet have 'fallen away' from this state, is not a view backed up by the scientific enterprise which teaches the exact opposite (that humanity has evolved and developed into more complex moral and spiritual beings, from more primitive states).
• There is no evidence to suggest that death, disease, decay, earthquakes, floods etc. are the direct result of human disobedience. It is simply incredible to suggest that the reason why there is death in the world, is because the first humans on the planet ate some forbidden fruit ('And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."' - Genesis 3:22).

This means that for Hick, the Genesis account of the creation of the world and the fall of humanity must but understood as a myth (story with a meaning), rather than be read as literal account of what happened.

So although it remains a popular choice for Christian theodicies, Hick believes the FWD is no longer a viable theodicy for people to believe in. The simple reason being that the FWD is contrary to everything we believe to know about ourselves, and the world we live in.

Building a credible theodicy

Hick's Irenaean theodicy takes as its starting point the notion that far from being created perfect (a state from which we are said to have fallen from), that God initiated a 'two-stage' process in the act of creating humanity. Firstly, following the modern scientific-model humans are said to have evolved into social, moral and spiritual beings, who are also capable of reflection on their environment.

However, people becoming like this did not occur suddenly, but developed through a long process of struggle against a hostile environment.

This process of struggle sets the scene for what Hick sees as the second stage in human development; this being that humans - through their own free will - are being made into the Divine 'likeness'. In other words, each human is on a journey to becoming more God-life (i.e. 'Children of God'). Thus perfection, rather than lying in the past (as the FWD suggests), now lies in the future!

An Irenaean Theodicy (John Hick): Part 2