Hick was the first guy who put the argument of the problem of evil to paper in a concise form. The argument seems indefatigable. Christians come up with a lot of bad arguments against this argument. They are bad arguments because they fail to defeat the argument. When they fail to defeat the argument, they earn the title, "theodicy."
The book of psalms says, "A fool in his heart says there is no God." The book of proverbs says "Answer a fool according to his folly and you will be like a fool yourself." And "Answer a fool according to his folly and look wise in his eyes." To give a theodicy is to answer a fool according to his folly.
This is not a theodicy.
"Evil"
Hick's "Evil" is defined in epicurian terms. He defines good as "pain and the absence of pleasure." Because his arguent makes no mention of the human soul, the good of the soul is also not taken into consideration.
Furthermore, if God defines morality, if God defines what is good and what is evil, Hick's "evil" is not really evil. All pain and suffering caused by God is not "evil," then.
Let me present an analogy about why Hick's Problem of Evil is a flawed argument:
Dismissal of important terms
But Hick says, "Rather than attempt to define `evil' in terms of some theological theory(for example, `that which is contrary to God's will') it seems better to define it ostensively..."
It `seems' better to define "evil" in epicurian or materialistic terms, but it isn't. The `theological theory' in question is not specific. It is a broad, sweeping generalization that means anything. Furthermore, this definition of "evil" is not God inspired, but man inspired.
"Physical pain and mental suffering"
"It seems better to define it ostensively, by indicating that to which the word refers. It refers to physical pain, mental suffering, and moral wickedness. The last is one of the causes of the first two, for an enourmous amount of human pain arises from humankind's inhumanity."
"Mental suffering." What is that, exactly? It's such a broad, sweeping generalization. "Mental suffering" can include boredom. Is it really a sign of an evil God to not entertain his creations 24-7? Wouldn't boredom sometimes be the same thing as peace? Or what about those paranoid, oversensitive individuals who receive "mental suffering" at the slightest bit of criticism? What about those people who receive "mental suffering" from not having things their way all the time? Or people who always want to be correct? What about those people with mental disorders, where wearing a certain color or saying a certain emotionally neutral phrase can cause them "mental suffering"? Furthermore, what about this essay itself? Am I not receiving "mental suffering" by being forced to hear about it constantly?
Second fault. He attempts to say that moral wickedness is the only cause of physical pain and mental suffering by excluding other causes. And mental suffering is not mentioned in the last sentence, only "human pain."
"This pain includes such major scourges as poverty, oppression and persecution, war and all the injustice, indignity and inequality that occur in human societies."
First, is it really that mentally painful to not be able to afford a yacht? "Inequality" is a very vague term. While Hick might use it to describe slavery or prejudice, "inequality" can also include being deprived of your own private jet.
Clearly, there are times when mental suffering is in the eye of the beholder.
Second, physical pain is not always present in oppression, injustice, persecution, inequality or poverty. "Mental suffering," however, is.
Third, the party dishing out the injustice is not mentally suffering at all. God defines morality, and so do some wrong headed human beings.
Fourth, there are times when individuals take voluntary poverty for their soul's purification, to show their affection for God instead of material possessions. This is a weakness of Hick's argument. He omits the soul.
The definition of poverty is also a question. There's a difference between being homeless and starving and the government's definition of `poverty,' which says you are poor if you live below a certain lofty income.
There also are times when "mental suffering," "physical pain" and "moral wickedness" exist independantly. You can "suffer mentally" while being in relative comfort, physically. A person can experience agonizing pain, yet not suffer mentally, if one has the right frame of mind. Certain individuals practice meditative techniques in which they can put themselves through all kinds of physical torture without feeling the pain. So even if you define feeling the pain as part of "mental suffering," it can exist independantly from "physical pain."
"Psychosomatic illnesses"
"Even disease is fostered, to an extent that has not yet been precisely determined by psychosomatic medicine, by emotional and moral factors seated both in the individual and in his or her social environment."
Here Hick carelessly lumps together stress migraines with the bubonic plague. We are to believe that a disease like leprosy can possibly be caused by someone insulting or yelling at us. Psychosomatics may figure into some types of heart disease, but to make such a broad sweeping generalization weakens the overall thesis. Besides, studies show that men get heart disease before women do because they keep their feelings bottled up inside themselves. To attribute such a thing to "evil" would not be an argument against God, but of human based cultural ideas of masculinity.
"Natural Causes."
"However, although a great deal of pain and suffering are caused by human action, there is much more that arises from such natural causes as bacteria and earthquakes, storm, fire, lightning, flood and drought."
Here the middle term, "mental suffering" is undistributed. Hick leaves out the "mental suffering" aspect of "evil" to talk about the "physical suffering" caused by nature. Furthermore, a drought does not produce the same kind of "mental suffering" as persecution and prejudice. God does not come down from the sky and insult people, therefore causing them emotional stress. No, human beings tend to interpret these natural events any way they want. They are emotionally neutral happenings. While some may see a "natural disaster" as a disaster, others see it in a positive light.
The processes of nature are not inherently "evil." Bacteria is always present in the human body. It mostly does good for the body, though physical(non psychosomatic) disease can be caused by them. Earthquakes create interesting landscapes which are anything but "evil," even if the movement of plates may sometimes break a few dishes or an occassional person might fall in. Storms are the antidote to draught. Rain helps crops, snow kills insects and blights that destroy crops. Lightning may cause fires, but ancient farmers used fire to clear away plants and weeds to make the soil more fertile. Floods form bodies of water which benefit human beings. Drought can inspire innovation, like the creation of potato cakes and the like. Although all of these things can cause pain, these things are not inherently or even intentionally "evil."
The Argument
"Evil" doesn't last forever.
Hick makes no distinction between temporary and long lasting physical pain and mental suffering. Physical pain and mental suffering are not permanent.
You can recover from the flu. You can recover from some types of broken bones. You might accidentally fall into a crack in an earthquake, but someone might rescue you. You can see a professional counselor or a religious leader for training on how to deal with "mental suffering," especially such "mental suffering" as not being able to afford the Bill Gates property.
If physical pain and mental suffering are not permanent, then one can still say that God loves perfectly(see next section).
If souls exist, it's possible that the afterlife could possibly be better for a person than the current life. If so, then death is not "evil," because once a person dies, the physical pain and mental suffering end/is alleviated. This is not a recommendation for suicide, euthenasia or any other contraversial act. It is only to state that "good" may result from death.
"Perfectly loving."
The term, "perfectly loving" and "love" is undistributed in the introduction of the essay. It calls to mind this question: What is love? If you define love purely as an emotional state related to sexual excitement, I don't think any of us want to talk about God in these terms, especially whether or not he "wants" us in this regard. However, one may talk about brotherly/familial or "agape"(non-romantic/friendship) type love and be sensible about it.
Do you actually believe that "God is love?" That the sum of God is merely the concept of love and not a literal, real God? Why would anyone worship a concept? Why would anyone want to fight or argue about it?
If "perfectly loving" means loving all the time, and loving unconditionally, even the Holy Bible doesn't think God's like that.
"lory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased(Luke 2:14)."
We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his promise(Romans 8:28).
Clearly, "evil" can happen to those who don't love God.
Since God defines morality, since God works for good with those who love him, consider biblical stories, where God causes pain and suffering to happen upon the enemies of the Israelites. Fire and brimstone rains down from the sky. In Exodus, the Pharoah's heart was hardened against God, and he was destroyed by God.
God disciplines those he loves(Hebrews 12:6). This may include "evil." If we are to believe this is truly evil, then one could also say:
Improper Form
Hick's argument follows bad logical form. When stripped down to its components, it doesn't work. One complaint is that he uses words in varying `senses' and arrangements of terms. To remove this problem the argument must be reworded thusly:
Conclusion
This is not a theodicy. It is a deconstruction of the argument.
Clearly, the middle term, "Love" is undistributed, and the definition of "evil" is all inclusive, including perhaps even things that aren't evil.
The argumentative structure is also weak. Which makes me wonder why theodicies and this argument seem to be so hotly preserved over the decades. But no matter. Lack of reply does not necessarily indicate consensus.