post

Hick’s argument seemed valid to me and more easy to understand compared to Rowe’s. I think Hick’s argument was stronger because he provided contradictions to the points he was making. For example he makes the point, “If by a free action we mean an action which is not externally compelled but which flows from the nature of the agent as he reacts to the circumstances in which he finds himself, there is, indeed, no contradiction between our being free and our actions being “caused” and therefore being in principle predictable.” He then goes on to provide contradictions (“there is a contradiction, however, in saying that God is the cause of our acting….”) so it is easier to see all the the facets of the statement in this manner. I also particularly liked some of the ideas Hick’s presented. His idea on negative theodicy (justify god’s goodness with the fact of evil in the world) really made sense to me. Evil exists, therefore god must exist and serve to shield us from evil, observe the evil, or mediate it for us. I also particularly liked his idea about soul-making. We need every experience the world has in order to grow. Lastly his response to the problem of evil seemed very strong to me: that the idea of moral evil in fact lies in the problem of free will.