Religion might seem an outdated phenomenon to be included in such a rationalist field of study as philosophy. However, religious beliefs have dominated throughout the history of human thought, so various philosophical conceptions relied on faith primarily until the Enlightenment era. Contrariwise, to comprehend the development of society, culture, and multiple products, one should acknowledge the formative role of religion as the precursor of any non-pragmatic intentions in the sphere of knowledge. Philosophy, as a discipline about the most general, employs evidence from all domains of human activity to deliver a better understanding of the world. In this sense, religion comprises the immense mental map of the perception and reasoning produced and to be made by thinkers of past times and nowadays. The question of its membership in the world knowledge base is raised probably because of the problem of evil. As such, theologians attempt to decipher the reason for the existence of evil, which troubles both believers and non-believers and create theodicies, reasonable explanations of the issue. A soul-making theodicy serves as an example of the logically coherent one, which central concept is gaining happiness through struggle.
To begin a discussion about the reasons for evil and the evil itself even, one must postulate a concise definition of God. Despite the fact that philosophers pursue the goal of being not entirely subjective in their reflections, the problem of evil is seen from one dominant perspective. Namely, God, whose moral values are examined, is primarily Christian. Hence the “most general” features defining his nature and deeds: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Distinguishing such a problem as God’s volition to create a world where disasters and misfortunes are present in contrast with his “benevolence” is equal to accepting one concept of God. However, the human world yielded a myriad of religions other than Christianity, which are fundamentally different. For example, gods are not merciful or gracious in Norse paganism. Then, the ultimate purpose of these gods lies not in the happiness of humanity. Consequently, the problem of evil is nonsensical in the context of this religion.
The number of religious systems that do not concern the evil dilemma is enough to consider it a particular case instead of a general problem. As such, Sumerian mythology is an exemplar of the inadequacy of the issue. The Epic of Gilgamesh presents a story of the flood arranged by the gods to eliminate humankind because of the noise they produced (George 44). Apparently, these gods are not fit with the definition of “benevolent.” The other one related to the problem instance is the case of pantheism. This belief system implies a deity-unity, the wholeness of every particular, which is not an anthropomorphic being or even a self-evident entity. Hence, it is not necessarily equipped with apparatus for moral decisions or certain traits at all, being not an omnibenevolent one. Thus, the argument from evil is viewed synoptically for the majority of cases, and one should account for it in Christian terms.
Since it is established that the essay is concerned with the particular concept of God and religion, the argument from evil could be derived. Namely, evil presents a set of unpleasant occurrences or adverse conditions from the human perspective. As such, the sufferings endured by each person from birth to death, the very fact of the inevitability of death contribute to the apparent misfortunes. Additionally, the endless sequence of the needs and desires embedded in people emerge one after another if some of them are fulfilled. Yet, humans are discontent when they obtain the desired but lack mental health or existential completeness. As Hume cited in his work on the subject, people are “not satisfied with life, afraid of death” (Hume 43). Then, a question arises about God’s reason for creating the world where evil exists. If he is omniscient and omnipotent, he should know of human struggles and eliminate them. Yet, it depends on his will to do so, due to the benevolence criterion. Therefore, the problem concerns the paradox of the power, knowledge, and goodness of God contrasting with numerous evils.
To resolve the issues, numerous philosophers of religion coined their explanation of the evil phenomenon. The arguments in defense of God presented as a system of coherent statements composes a theodicy. As such, one of them, a soul-making theodicy, was devised by John Hick. This thinker asserts that God is completely aware of his actions and created the world according to one specific design. Humankind was to resemble God himself but not be identical to him, with cognitive abilities apt for realizing that a deity exists and potential moral values of love and devotion (Barnwell 32). However, a man would not be a perfect creature if God forced him to acknowledge and love his presence, meeting the high quality of moral content. The more intricate way is to make humans capable of the individual quest for God and his commandments capable of becoming virtuous (Barnwell 32). In brief, the theodicy’s central concept is the opportunity to evolve into a conscious, truthful, and sinful being given by God since it is a more valuable effort to achieve decency.
Furthermore, the theodicy seems logical due to its conclusions about the existence of evil. The evils are represented as “epistemic distances” that prevent humans from immediately knowing good and God and, nevertheless, allow them to choose the right (Barnwell 32). The joy of fulfillment after committing the right deed is genuinely more significant than that of following the circumstances leading to beneficial results. Hence, God’s unwillingness to exclude misfortunes is justified.
However, this conceptual device has been criticized since its emergence. For example, Kane promotes several explicit theses opposing the theodicy. First, he claims that desirable traits derived from fighting evil could be developed without a “struggle against pain and suffering” (Kane 3). Additionally, qualities like “courage and fortitude” may be substituted by diligence in intellectual work through overcoming existing obstacles (Kane 3). As a matter of fact, the philosopher reduces the range of evils to appalling ones. He does not consider the difficulties, such as competition or inability to attain knowledge, to overcome wrong, which is a narrow point of view. Accordingly, humans suffer from multiple evils that include all possible misfortunes and prevent rapid development, making them valid epistemic distances.
Another argument against the soul-making theodicy of Hick is comparatively vague. As such, Kane claims that “epistemic distance does not require the existence of evil as a logically necessary condition for its existence” (2). It could be stated that knowledge meant by the “epistemic” adjective is the one about God and the moral values needed for gaining perfectness. The opposite is denial or unawareness of God and his statutes, depriving a man of the possibility of being united with God someday or of the joy of being a rightful person. Thus, evil from this perspective is logically self-evident and necessary existent because of God’s order and man’s free will.
The concept of the “epistemic distance” is largely debated since its complexity. Hence Kane coined another contention for it: he claims that as a result of the unawareness of humans about their rights, they are automatically subject to evil (8). Moreover, he asserts that the blame is put only on those who committed wrongdoing because they knew not what is right and were guilty of not knowing (8). An opposing view would be that God, according to Hick’s theodicy, gave the ability to acquire knowledge of Him and sin so that everyone has the potential to regain it. In contrast, people do not respond to the highest ethical qualities because of their unwillingness to do it. Indeed, circumstances disturb the way of getting this helpful information, but overcoming the external obstacles is the challenge apt for shaping a personality. As a result, proper knowledge is not impossible to achieve; yet, the matters of free will prevent humans from such salvation.
Yet another statement opposing the theodicy is regarding the use of the traits gained. The challenge to which God exposes a man is excessive in its injustice and difficulty, while the features attained after combat with evil are not fully rewarded. Kane states that it should be due to the “intrinsic value” of the struggle, which makes Hick believe in his theodicy (14). In contrast, it is evident that the process of rejecting evil intentions and actions is the one that leads to rejoicing. From one point of view, happiness is gained through the final reunification with God after acknowledging Him. On the other side, the moral content is achieved after choosing the right option, being responsible, and relating to a good occurrence. Consequently, the struggle is genuinely rewarded by God, according to the theodicy.
The final assertion against the theodicy is aimed to reveal its logical issues. Namely, the epistemic distance discussed by both authors thoroughly seems to Kane paradoxical. His point lies in the notion that if God’s intention to create a difference in His knowledge and humans succeeds, it becomes “evidence against the existence of God” (Kane 15). Such evidence may trouble people and mislead them, turning to a lack of belief due to the lack of evidence. The opposite situation is when “the existence of evil is not evidence against the existence of God” (Kane 15). It may be proposed that the burden of deciding how to interpret the various external factors and misfortunes is of a man’s internal struggle needs. For belief is cultivated only when humans face contradictions and brush them away through cognition. Therefore, the seemingly senseless statements become a coherent view if seen under a perspective that includes internal debates as well.
To conclude, the soul-making theodicy is a system of argumentation against the problem of evil, which includes the notion of epistemic distance. The omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God l, according to the theory, created the world with evil to develop the qualities of high value in a man. These features are responsible for the further happiness of each person attaining them. Additionally, the belief in God provides one with the necessary information about the sense of their life and the nature of evil.
Works Cited
Barnwell, Michael. “Soul-Making Theodicy and Compatibilism: New Problems and a New Interpretation.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 82, no. 1, 2017, pp. 29–46.
George, Andrew, editor. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Penguin Books, 2000.
Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Edited by Jonathan Bennett, Independently published, 2004.
Kane, G. Stanley. “The Failure of Soul-Making Theodicy.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 6, no. 1, 1975, pp. 1–22.