What is John Hick's soul-making theodicy, and how does it respond to the problem of natural evil?

John Hick's soul-making theodicy — which he presented in complete form in "Evil and the God of Love" (1966, revised edition 1977) — is considered one of the most powerful contemporary attempts to answer the problem of evil, especially natural evil. Hick inverts the traditional question: instead of "Why does God permit evil?" he asks "What kind of world suits God's purpose in forming morally mature souls?"

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some defenders of theism:

"Hick solved the problem of evil definitively." An exaggeration. Hick himself acknowledges that his theodicy raises theological and philosophical problems, and that some forms of excessive evil remain a challenge even for his theory.

"Suffering is necessary for spiritual maturity, period." A simplification of a complex argument. Hick does not claim that all suffering leads to maturity, nor that maturity justifies all suffering. His argument is more precise: a certain type of world (with the possibility of real suffering) is necessary for the possibility of genuine moral maturity.

"Natural evil is merely a divine test." A reductionism that does not reflect the depth of Hick's proposal. Hick explicitly rejects the simple "testing" model, offering instead a complex evolutionary model of moral and spiritual maturity.

And from some naturalists:

"Hick theologically justifies suffering." An accusation that needs precision. Hick clearly distinguishes between philosophical explanation (why would a perfect God allow a world with evil) and moral justification (whether suffering is morally acceptable). He provides the former, not the latter.

"Soul-making theory makes God sadistic, enjoying our suffering." A misunderstanding of the argument. Hick argues that God wants free beings who are morally mature, and the only path to this passes through a world that allows real suffering — not because God wants suffering for its own sake.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They fail to grasp the complex logical structure of Hick's argument, which combines Irenaean theology, Kantian philosophy, and contemporary evolutionary theory. Hick does not offer a simple solution, but rather an integrated philosophical framework for understanding the relationship between the nature of the world and divine purpose.

The Basic Structure of Soul-Making Theodicy

First Premise: The Distinction Between Augustinian and Irenaean Theology. Hick rejects the traditional Augustinian model (humans were created perfect then fell) in favor of the Irenaean model (humans were created incomplete to develop toward perfection).

Humanity — in Hick's Irenaean vision — was created:
─ In the "image of God" (imago Dei): rational, free, capable of moral consciousness
─ To become in the "likeness of God" (similitudo Dei): morally and spiritually mature

Second Premise: The Nature of the World Suitable for Soul-Making. Not a "ready-made paradise" but a "vale of soul-making" (an expression borrowed from poet John Keats).

This world needs:
─ Epistemic distance: God is not overwhelmingly obvious, allowing genuine freedom to believe or not
─ Stable natural laws: an ordered world that is relatively predictable, without which moral responsibility would be impossible
─ The possibility of real suffering: without it, courage, sacrifice, compassion, or moral maturity would be meaningless

Third Premise: Natural Evil as a Necessary Condition. Earthquakes, diseases, death — are not "punishments" but inevitable consequences of a material world governed by stable natural laws. Without these stable laws (which sometimes produce suffering), rational beings could not develop or exercise their agency.

Hick's example: imagine a world where miracles constantly intervene to prevent all harm. A knife cuts bread but becomes rubber when approaching a finger. Fire warms but never burns. In this world:
─ There is no meaning to caution or responsibility
─ No room for developing practical wisdom
─ No opportunity for courage or sacrifice
─ Life becomes a "game" without real consequences

Application to Natural Evil Specifically

Earthquakes and volcanoes: the natural product of a geologically active planet that allows life. The tectonic plates that cause earthquakes are the same ones that renew the Earth's crust and maintain the carbon cycle necessary for life.

Diseases and epidemics: the natural product of biological evolution. The same evolutionary processes that produced the diversity and complexity of life (including human consciousness) also produce mutations and viruses.

Aging and death: necessary for generational renewal and for giving deep meaning to life. Earthly immortality would make moral maturity impossible (one could always postpone).

Major Objections to Hick

The Objection of Excessive Quantity (D. Z. Phillips, 1977): Even if we accept that some suffering is necessary for soul-making, do we need this enormous quantity? The Nazi Holocaust, the 2004 tsunami, the death of millions of children from malaria — is this "necessary" for soul-making?

Hick's response: He acknowledges this as the most difficult objection. He suggests that judging the "appropriate amount" of suffering exceeds our limited cognitive capacity. Also, a world with "precisely calculated" suffering would not be a real world but a simulation.

The Objection of Unjust Distribution (Rowe, 1979): Suffering is not distributed equally or in ways that suit "soul-making." Children die before any opportunity for maturity, innocents suffer while the wicked prosper.

Hick's response: He appeals to eschatology. The formative process is not completed in this life alone. He adopts a form of universalism — all will eventually reach complete maturity.

The Objection of Possible Alternatives (Swinburne, 1998): Could not an omnipotent God create morally mature beings directly, without passing through the valley of suffering?

Hick's response: Virtues like courage, compassion, and patience are logically connected to the existence of real risks and suffering. A being "programmed" to be brave without facing real danger is not truly brave.

Contemporary Developments (2000-2026)

The "evolutionary soul-making" stream (Murphy, Russell): integrating Hick's theodicy with contemporary evolutionary biology. Pain and death are not "evil" but a necessary part of the evolutionary process that produced conscious beings capable of love and creativity.

The "collective soul-making" stream (Adams, Stump): focusing not only on individuals but on the development of humanity as a whole. Collective suffering (wars, epidemics) drives moral and civilizational progress for the human race.

The "feminist critique" stream (Søvik, Dougherty): Is the "spiritual warrior" model that overcomes challenges inherently masculine? What about ethics of care and relationships?

Assessment from the Perspective of Rational Preponderance (rajḥān ʿaqlī)

Soul-making theodicy provides a powerful explanatory framework for natural evil, but it does not "solve" the problem definitively. Strengths:
─ It is consistent with contemporary scientific understanding of nature and evolution
─ It gives positive meaning to suffering without morally justifying it
─ It preserves human freedom and responsibility

Weaknesses:
─ It depends on unproven theological assumptions (afterlife, universal salvation)
─ It does not satisfactorily explain excessive or unproductive suffering
─ It may seem emotionally "cold" in the face of actual suffering

Where We Stand in This Debate Today

Soul-making theodicy remains one of the strongest responses to the problem of evil, especially natural evil. However, most contemporary philosophers see it as part of a broader answer, not a complete answer. The trend is toward "composite theodicies" that combine elements from Hick with other insights (free will, aesthetic value of diversity, limitations of human knowledge).

For Advanced Reading

─ Advanced level