Furthermore, the theologian Hick would also agree that life after death solves the problem of evil. For Hick we are in a struggle for moral perfection. Evil exists to challenge us to become more like God. Therefore, while evil exists, our ability to face it and overcome it is rewarded by an after life. In theory this works, however, if we go beyond the definition of moral evil and actually consider some of the evils that man has faced such as the holocaust, how can the promise of a life after death ever justify a God who does not intervene? Hick was a firm believer in freedom, and argued that however strong the evil was, if God intervened we would never be truly free. Where evil originated from is a common disagreement amongst the religious and thinkers within theology. Some argue, like Augustine that humans created evil, others say that it was the work of the devil outside of God’s control and others state that God created evil. The former opinion coincides with the belief of a process theodicy. We need to suffer to become like God.
Another way to look at this statement is from the viewpoint that evil exists, but a life after death does not. This is the view of many atheists, and those Christians who take a more liberal approach to the bible (as it specifically states heaven, a literal Christian would take this as word). As D Z Philips states, a life after death is just the misinterpretation of language and should not be taken as fact. This is one of the few areas where science and religion have a common outlook. One of the fundamental principles of science is that energy cannot be destroyed. If we take the definition of life in an open way, then in fact life after death does exist through energy, just not in the way we our thought to believe.
Other theorists such as Hume argue firmly against the existence of life after death. While agnostic, he is a firm believer in the idea of proof. Faith and written word is not enough to prove the existence of God or a life after death, therefore until it can be scientifically proved a life after death does not exist. They key criticism of Hume is can you objectively say that evil exists? He emphasises the need for proof, yet what proof is there that evil exists. In many cases it can be beneficial to society, and what we think of as evil is in fact not, we just perceive it as such.
The existence of evil may seem logically true, yet it does not always appear to be so. This is the fundamental principle behind the final theory, the existence of a life after death but no existence of evil. Monism is an example of such a belief. It is the idea that evil is an illusion. What we experience as being evil is just an illusion. However, why should we have to experience evil, even if it is just an illusion? The evil may not exist, or it can be discounted as beneficial, but the suffering associated with it cannot be dismissed so easily and is very real for many. It is not something you can call an illusion or beneficial. While the dominant idea within Christianity is the belief that evil exists but is justified by life after death, there are a number of sects associated with Christianity that maintain that evil does not exist.
Such an example is Christian scientists. As the founder Mary Baker Eddy argues: evil has no reality, it is in the perception that it is created. Again, this can be a plausible belief for the occurrence of ‘everyday evil’ but how can you ever say that the Holocaust was a good or neutral event? It seems impossible to argue that not only can something so horrific be down to ones perception of an event, but even if an afterlife existed (as mainstream Christians believe) can such evil ever be justified just because those people will go to heaven? Ironically many Christians would argue that life after death is only available to believers or those who hold faith in God and Jesus, rendering those 6 million Jews not even the luxury of a life in heaven. Perhaps this is why Pascal’s wager works, it is better to believe in a God in case he does exist, than to not believe in one at all.
In conclusion, to agree that life after death solves the problem of evil requires the belief that both exist. It is a lot more logical to believe that evil exists, as despite the claims of God’s greater plans, or even the scientific version of the larger picture for society, it is clear that some forms of evil will always override these claims. The existence of a life after death is a lot harder to appreciate as a non-Christian. As a firm believer in the idea of proof, I agree with Hume that until it can be proved it does not exist. I do however, I also agree with the idea of an alternative life after death, specifically the idea of energy always existing. It is interesting to see how two very religious originating ideas as evil and heaven can both become ideas that hold true in ideologies outside that of Christianity, and also too in science.
