Discuss whether or not it is possible to successfully defend monotheism in the face of evil.
Introduction
Define: Monotheism- The belief in one God.
Importance: The problem of evil is the biggest challenge to the existence of a monotheistic God.
Scholars: Hick, Augustine
Conclusion: It is not entirely possible to successfully defend monotheism in the face of evil.
Paragraph 1
Point: John Hick’s ‘vale of soul-making’ is somewhat successful in justifying the existence of moral
evil.
Argument: Hick argued that God did not create humans perfectly but instead he created us flawed
so that we could evolve towards perfection. From “bios to zoe” Hick argued that God has given
humans free will so that they can choose to good with it and thus have their souls “made”.
Hick argues that God allows moral evil to exist because it is a necessary part of humans developing
into the likeness of God- so do not want a “hedonistic paradise”.
Hick avoids the problem of having to explain how a perfect human can go wrong because Hick
argued that we were never created perfect in the first place.
Counterargument: Some people suffer more than others do- does this mean that God wants some
people to grow to spiritual maturity but does not care about the other ones who lead peaceful lives?
Some people are made worse by their suffering- it does not always teach people valuable lessons, ut
can make them lose their faith or become bitter, or drive them to mental illness where they can no
longer think and act rationally.
Paragraph 2
Point: Augustine’s view is not enough to spare God from blame for evils in the world because there
are many errors in the rationale he applies to why both evils exit- Moral evil.
Argument: Evil came into the world in those areas where free will occurred-first the angels and then
humans in the form of Adam and Eve. All humans were ‘seminally present’ in Adam and so have
inherited original sin. So all suffering is ‘sin or punishment for sin’. Our hope is that God sent Jesus to
die for the sings of the world and those who believe in him will receive God’s grace.
Counterargument: Does not overcome the evidential problem of evil- improbably that there is an
omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God with the amount of suffering in the world. William
Rowe- The sheer amount of evil and suffering present within the world cannot be reconciled with
the God of classical theism. The evidence of unnecessary (dysteleological) evil suggests that God
does not exist.
, Schleiermacher- ‘How can a perfect world go wrong’- No biological evidence for original sin passing
down the generations it is fair to punish future generations for one person’s sins.
Paragraph 3
Point: Process theodicy attempt to defend monotheism is unsuccessful because of how far it is from
the definition of God.
Argument: In process theology, God is not responsible for moral evil, because he can only do what is
logically possible, and it is not possible to force free individuals to obey moral laws.
Process theologians deny that God is omniscient and as the universe grows, so he develops in his
understanding as well as humans growing in their understanding.
Process theodicy works on the assumption that God isn’t actually omnipotent. He coexists with us
and feels our pain and suffering alongside us, he is “a fellow sufferer who understands” but has no
power to remove or limit evil and suffering.
Removes the stumbling block of why an all-powerful God does not simply remove evil- because he
cannot. For religious believers the fact that God suffers is encouraging. There is no certainty that
God will triumph in the end, this then encourages believers to join the fight against evil.
Counterargument: It is not actually a theodicy as one of God’s attributes is lessoned. Why worship
such a being? If God cannot guarantee anything why make the effort? Has good outweighed evil?
Would such a justification be provable and appeal to those who have been born the suffering? Since
there is no certainty of heaven there is no certainty the innocent will be rewarded.
Introduction
Define: Monotheism- The belief in one God.
Importance: The problem of evil is the biggest challenge to the existence of a monotheistic God.
Scholars: Hick, Augustine
Conclusion: It is not entirely possible to successfully defend monotheism in the face of evil.
Paragraph 1
Point: John Hick’s ‘vale of soul-making’ is somewhat successful in justifying the existence of moral
evil.
Argument: Hick argued that God did not create humans perfectly but instead he created us flawed
so that we could evolve towards perfection. From “bios to zoe” Hick argued that God has given
humans free will so that they can choose to good with it and thus have their souls “made”.
Hick argues that God allows moral evil to exist because it is a necessary part of humans developing
into the likeness of God- so do not want a “hedonistic paradise”.
Hick avoids the problem of having to explain how a perfect human can go wrong because Hick
argued that we were never created perfect in the first place.
Counterargument: Some people suffer more than others do- does this mean that God wants some
people to grow to spiritual maturity but does not care about the other ones who lead peaceful lives?
Some people are made worse by their suffering- it does not always teach people valuable lessons, ut
can make them lose their faith or become bitter, or drive them to mental illness where they can no
longer think and act rationally.
Paragraph 2
Point: Augustine’s view is not enough to spare God from blame for evils in the world because there
are many errors in the rationale he applies to why both evils exit- Moral evil.
Argument: Evil came into the world in those areas where free will occurred-first the angels and then
humans in the form of Adam and Eve. All humans were ‘seminally present’ in Adam and so have
inherited original sin. So all suffering is ‘sin or punishment for sin’. Our hope is that God sent Jesus to
die for the sings of the world and those who believe in him will receive God’s grace.
Counterargument: Does not overcome the evidential problem of evil- improbably that there is an
omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God with the amount of suffering in the world. William
Rowe- The sheer amount of evil and suffering present within the world cannot be reconciled with
the God of classical theism. The evidence of unnecessary (dysteleological) evil suggests that God
does not exist.
, Schleiermacher- ‘How can a perfect world go wrong’- No biological evidence for original sin passing
down the generations it is fair to punish future generations for one person’s sins.
Paragraph 3
Point: Process theodicy attempt to defend monotheism is unsuccessful because of how far it is from
the definition of God.
Argument: In process theology, God is not responsible for moral evil, because he can only do what is
logically possible, and it is not possible to force free individuals to obey moral laws.
Process theologians deny that God is omniscient and as the universe grows, so he develops in his
understanding as well as humans growing in their understanding.
Process theodicy works on the assumption that God isn’t actually omnipotent. He coexists with us
and feels our pain and suffering alongside us, he is “a fellow sufferer who understands” but has no
power to remove or limit evil and suffering.
Removes the stumbling block of why an all-powerful God does not simply remove evil- because he
cannot. For religious believers the fact that God suffers is encouraging. There is no certainty that
God will triumph in the end, this then encourages believers to join the fight against evil.
Counterargument: It is not actually a theodicy as one of God’s attributes is lessoned. Why worship
such a being? If God cannot guarantee anything why make the effort? Has good outweighed evil?
Would such a justification be provable and appeal to those who have been born the suffering? Since
there is no certainty of heaven there is no certainty the innocent will be rewarded.
