11‘…may crush the character and wrest from it whatever virtues it possessed.’
12 Dysteleology is the philosophical view that there is no final cause or purposeful design to existence. Evil, which has no purpose since the universe has no purpose, clearly undermines Hick’s position.
13 He is against any theodicy that sees a utility in evil. In the same way that we would not want to justify torture in the name of some greater good, we should not try to justify God by seeing usefulness in evil. He says ‘…I am opposed to instrumentalism in ethics. To rescue sufferings from degradation by employing cost benefit analysis, is like rescuing a prostitute from degradation by telling her to charge a higher price.’
14 This question is to help you reflect on your reading in this topic. Any thoughts you have that challenge Hick or Irenaeus will probably be worth exploring. You might, for example, explore the idea of cot deaths. No growth is possible for the child who dies, at least this side of death, and it seems incredibly cruel to suggest any kind of benevolent God might so help a mother with her soul-making.
15 There are a number of areas you might explore here. You may, for example, look at the fact it is rooted in Scripture and can be seen reflected in a number of books of the Bible. Alternatively you might look at specific instances where people’s lives have been changed for the better by some act that has made them or their friends suffer.