Evaluate the claim that soul-making is the strongest theodicy. (30 marks)
This essay will evaluate whether soul-making theodicy is the strongest theodicy by
examining and evaluating it, as well as comparing it to other theodicies such as soul-
deciding theodicy and process theodicy.
The problem of evil explores Epicurus’ formulation of the inconsistent triad, which refers to
the co-existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God and the existence of evil in the
world, both moral evil (evil committed by human beings) and natural evil (such as natural
disasters). There are two different problems of evil. The logical problem of evil’s premises 1
2 and 3 state God’s qualities of being omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Premise
4 then states that evil exists. Premises 6 5 and 7 argue that if God was omnipotent, He
would have the ability and power to stop evil, if God was omnibenevolent, then He would
want to stop evil, and that if God was omniscient, He would know about evil and know how
to stop it. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument states that either God does not exist, or
if He does, either the quality of omnipotence or omnibenevolence does not apply to Him.
This argument takes a deductive form as it moves from general to specific propositions. The
evidential problem of evil’s premise 1 states that there is substantial suffering in the world,
premise 2 states that God not existing is a better reason for premise 1 than God existing and
allowing it, therefore, the conclusion states that God does not exist. This argument takes an
inductive form as it moves from specific to general propositions. David Hume, a Scottish
philosopher and empiricist, explains how the conclusions of these arguments challenge
religious belief as, at best, only two of God’s attributes work together. J.L Mackie, an
Australian philosopher, argues that these problems of evil cannot be solved as solutions
provided are either inadequate (they change the definition of God e.g. deny his
omnipotence, but still practise their religion which proposes God as omnipotent) or fallacious
(they explicitly claim they believe God’s omnipotence, but implicitly weaken these beliefs
while trying to solve the problem of evil). He also argues the problem of evil cannot be
solved because of the paradox of omnipotence (if God can create something He cannot
control, he is not omnipotent, but if God cannot create something He cannot control, he is
still not omnipotent). Despite these criticisms, theodicies such as the soul-making theodicy
are developed to try to resolve the problem of evil, which links to ethics as the Divine
Command Theory claims whatever God commands is the right. The problem of evil
discusses whether God exists and whether God is really omnibenevolent and omnipotent if
He does exist, showing how the Divine Command Theory relies on this argument.
The soul-making theodicy, originally created by Ireneaus but later developed into a theodicy
by John Hick, explains that creation is a mix of good and evil. This theodicy is linked to the
free will defence as it is explained that humans need free will to have a meaningful
relationship with God. The theodicy solves the logical problem of evil by showing how there
is no inconsistency with the triad: we are created in the image of God, and through our free
will and the existence of evil, we are able to develop our soul to match the likeness and
omnibenevolence of God. Since God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He has created the
best possible world for our soul to develop in. This also solves the evidential problem of evil
as the reason why God would allow so much evil is for our development. Hick also explains
the epistemic distance, the distance of knowledge between humans and God, which is
important as because we lack knowledge, we can make mistakes and learn from them to
develop our souls. Moreover, there is an eschatological justification for this evil, meaning evil
will be justified after death through heaven and hell. Therefore, the soul-making theodicy
may be able to solve both the logical and evidential problem of evil.
A strength of the soul-making theodicy is it argues we have free will and explains why we
have it: to develop a relationship with God and to match the likeness of God more closely,
hence providing a comprehensive theodicy. However, the theodicy is also criticised by
This essay will evaluate whether soul-making theodicy is the strongest theodicy by
examining and evaluating it, as well as comparing it to other theodicies such as soul-
deciding theodicy and process theodicy.
The problem of evil explores Epicurus’ formulation of the inconsistent triad, which refers to
the co-existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God and the existence of evil in the
world, both moral evil (evil committed by human beings) and natural evil (such as natural
disasters). There are two different problems of evil. The logical problem of evil’s premises 1
2 and 3 state God’s qualities of being omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Premise
4 then states that evil exists. Premises 6 5 and 7 argue that if God was omnipotent, He
would have the ability and power to stop evil, if God was omnibenevolent, then He would
want to stop evil, and that if God was omniscient, He would know about evil and know how
to stop it. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument states that either God does not exist, or
if He does, either the quality of omnipotence or omnibenevolence does not apply to Him.
This argument takes a deductive form as it moves from general to specific propositions. The
evidential problem of evil’s premise 1 states that there is substantial suffering in the world,
premise 2 states that God not existing is a better reason for premise 1 than God existing and
allowing it, therefore, the conclusion states that God does not exist. This argument takes an
inductive form as it moves from specific to general propositions. David Hume, a Scottish
philosopher and empiricist, explains how the conclusions of these arguments challenge
religious belief as, at best, only two of God’s attributes work together. J.L Mackie, an
Australian philosopher, argues that these problems of evil cannot be solved as solutions
provided are either inadequate (they change the definition of God e.g. deny his
omnipotence, but still practise their religion which proposes God as omnipotent) or fallacious
(they explicitly claim they believe God’s omnipotence, but implicitly weaken these beliefs
while trying to solve the problem of evil). He also argues the problem of evil cannot be
solved because of the paradox of omnipotence (if God can create something He cannot
control, he is not omnipotent, but if God cannot create something He cannot control, he is
still not omnipotent). Despite these criticisms, theodicies such as the soul-making theodicy
are developed to try to resolve the problem of evil, which links to ethics as the Divine
Command Theory claims whatever God commands is the right. The problem of evil
discusses whether God exists and whether God is really omnibenevolent and omnipotent if
He does exist, showing how the Divine Command Theory relies on this argument.
The soul-making theodicy, originally created by Ireneaus but later developed into a theodicy
by John Hick, explains that creation is a mix of good and evil. This theodicy is linked to the
free will defence as it is explained that humans need free will to have a meaningful
relationship with God. The theodicy solves the logical problem of evil by showing how there
is no inconsistency with the triad: we are created in the image of God, and through our free
will and the existence of evil, we are able to develop our soul to match the likeness and
omnibenevolence of God. Since God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He has created the
best possible world for our soul to develop in. This also solves the evidential problem of evil
as the reason why God would allow so much evil is for our development. Hick also explains
the epistemic distance, the distance of knowledge between humans and God, which is
important as because we lack knowledge, we can make mistakes and learn from them to
develop our souls. Moreover, there is an eschatological justification for this evil, meaning evil
will be justified after death through heaven and hell. Therefore, the soul-making theodicy
may be able to solve both the logical and evidential problem of evil.
A strength of the soul-making theodicy is it argues we have free will and explains why we
have it: to develop a relationship with God and to match the likeness of God more closely,
hence providing a comprehensive theodicy. However, the theodicy is also criticised by
