In reading Louise M. Antony’s article “Good Minus God,” I found myself agreeing with a lot of what she had to say. I think her distinction between “Divine Command Theory” and “Divine Independence Theory” is clear and easy to understand. Antony draws similarities between the Divine Command Theory and tyranny, believing that if moral actions are only moral because God/some higher power deems them to be moral, it is no different than a tyrant doing the same because there is no basis for that action being moral. I think that Hick would have to disagree with this statement because, according to his reading, he believes that God has his reasons for allowing evil to exist, and he also has reasons for deeming some actions to be moral and other actions to not be moral. Hick would not accept that God frivolously decides what is moral and what is not moral because he believes that there is always a bigger reason behind God’s actions. Despite this, I still have to agree with what Antony is suggesting about morality because I think her argument is thorough and well thought out and supported.
I completely agree with you. I think Antony’s argument is very strong and I agree with her points about the Divine Independence Theory and Divine Command Theory. I also agree with you that Hick might have some objections with Antony. I’m not sure which theory Hick would agree with – because with both the existence of God can be defended – but I’m sure he would say that if the DCT were true, that it is not an act of tyranny by God. He would probably argue that any thing god chooses to be bad or good has a purpose, and that any bad thing that goes on is probably due to free-will or “soul-making.”