Abstract The nature of suffering and the problem of evil have been perennial issues for many of the world’s religious traditions. Each in their own way has sought to address this problem, whether driven by the all too present reality of suffering or from philosophical and religious curiosities. The Christian tradition has offered numerous and diverse responses to the problem of evil. The free-will response to the problem of evil, with its roots in Augustine, has dominated the landscape in its attempt to justify evil and suffering as a result of the greater good of having free will. John Hick offers a ‘soul-making’ response to the problem of evil as an alternative to the free will response. Neither is effective in dealing with two key issues that underpin both responses – omnipotence and omniscience. In what follows I will contrast a process theological response to the problem of evil and suffering, and how it is better placed in dealing with both omnipotence and omniscience. By refashioning God as neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, process theodicy moves beyond the dead ends of both the free will and soul-making theodicy. Indeed, a process theodicy enables us to dismount the omnibus in search of a more holistic, and realistic, alternative to dealing with the problem of evil and suffering.

中文翻译：

---

下车：拒绝自由意志和对邪恶问题的灵魂回应

摘要苦难的性质和邪恶的问题已成为世界许多宗教传统中长期存在的问题。无论是受苦的现实还是哲学和宗教的好奇心驱使，每个人都试图以自己的方式解决这个问题。基督教的传统为邪恶问题提供了多种多样的回应。根源于奥古斯丁的对邪恶问题的自由意志反应，由于拥有自由意志的更大利益，试图为邪恶和苦难辩护，从而统治了整个领域。约翰·希克（John Hick）对邪恶问题提供了“制造灵魂”的回应，作为对自由意志回应的替代。两种方法都无法有效地解决这两个对策所基于的两个关键问题-全能和全知。在下文中，我将对比对邪恶和苦难问题的过程神学反应，以及如何更好地处理无所不能和无所不知。通过将神重新塑造为既无知又无全的神，过程神学超越了自由意志和造魂神学的死胡同。的确，过程神学使我们能够卸下万能书，以寻求更全面，更现实的替代方式来处理邪恶和苦难问题。