Talk:Problem of evil/Archive 5

"Christian Science" does not belong under Christianity.
Christian Science disagrees with Christianity on a great many major points, including the existance of Hell or evil, and the deity of Jesus Christ (and almost everything else, except the historicity of the Bible). Christian Science is therefore not part of Christianity. In fact, I don't think they're part of Christendom, either. Editors, please keep your religions straight.192.197.54.32 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While Christian Science disagrees with some beliefs of traditional religions, to call it NON-Christian is not accurate. Its interpretation of the deity of Jesus is often misunderstood. It does claim that Christ did order his disciples to heal the sick and raise the dead in his name. Perhaps the critic does not know that it also accepts the virgin birth of Christ. Its concept of distinguishing Jesus of Nazareth and his Christ nature is not new. Jesus referred to his humanity when he called himself "the son of man" and his unique status as Christ when he said, "I and my Father are one." He also said when asked, "Good master...' "Why do you call me good. Matt 19:17 and the original Greek is clear even while it is ignored in several modern translations - "New International." He says, "There is none good but one, even God." "The Greek says, "Oudais agathos ei me eis o Theos." I studied both traditional Christianity and so-called non-traditional. There was much discussion in the early Church on the nature of Christ and on many doctrines that traditional Christians believe. As for a literal hell and heaven, consider what Jesus said of heaven. Luke 17:20-21 "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." This business of Christian Science as Christian or not is a hot topic, but out of scope for this topic of the problem of evil SimonATL (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Argument for the Goodness of God
There should be some discussion in the article that demonstrates why an all powerful god should also be a good god. It could be the opposite really.Thus Spake Good (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have an intro metaphysics text (The One and the Many, Clarke) that addresses the goodness of God. Is this the sort of thing you're looking for? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

picture
Why is there a picture of a deer in this article? It seems completely out of place here. Sk00byd0 (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's hard to get images that directly portray philosophical concepts. We don't have any pictures of a trapped, burning deer in great suffering due to events beyond its control, let alone a picture that asks "How could this be allowed to happen"?
 * We also have a picture of a sculpture of the head of some dead greek guy. Lacking an image that directly portrays the epicurean paradox, it's the best we can do. bobrayner (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it good to have a picture for something abstract like that? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Picture is way too abstract. It should be deleted. ParaRaride (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replaced it with another from the commons, of a forest fire, with two deer perhaps looking back for a fawn left behind. I think it's much better. Phronesis8 (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bible
Under The Bible headline it states that "...I bring prosperity and create disaster: I, Yahweh, do all these things". It then goes on to say "assuming natural disasters are evil". A non sequitur? I propose eliminating the last part unless someone can produce a source for the bible stating that god only intervenes in "natural" disasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thafrenchman (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Atheism
Might it be worth making a bit more of the Atheist conclusion here. In particular, if one simple assumes that there is no god, then the entire problem of evil vanishes at a stroke; the resolution is trivial. Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what you mean? Are you trying to say that the article is making an Atheist conclusion? Or that it should make more of Atheist conclusion? I don't think it's saying that if one simply assumes there is no god then evil disappears. It takes into account the paradox between a benevolent god and an evil world. Do you have a specific portion of the text you are wondering about? Jhunt47 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not missing anything. There is no logical 'problem of evil' and I would like this article to address that. Evil is empirically given. For instance, Epicurus probably wanted to indicate the problem with the new theoretical concept that was emerging in his days, of an infinitely good and powerful God. However, there is no such problem with the classical gods. Zeus could still exist on mount Olympus. This would mean atheism is misguided. 188.126.207.212 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, in that the logical problem on holds for a particular, narrow definition of God. Atheism, or the belief in Gods who are not omnipotent or who are not all-good neatly sidesteps the problem. But I thought that was inherent in the lead? Or should that be covered in the list of religious responses? - Bilby (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Break apart
I think the article is really lengthy and quite specific. I think it would add to the information to put the "By Religion" (at least) on a separate article. Thoughts? Jhunt47 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the material in this section can go into a 'Problem of evil in religion' article, or something like that (we already have a "Problem of evil in Hinduism' article'). In that case, this article can be renamed as 'Problem of evil in philosophy'. I'd also change the 'By philosophers' section to something else, as it's a bit of a redundant title if the article is being renamed to specify philosophy in the title. Some of this material could be built into the responses section (Leibniz, Malthus, Kant, Cousin, Kreeft, Hatcher), where it adds something new. Some of it could furnish a new quotations section in the article, or linked to a page concerning the problem of evil in wikiquote. Phronesis8 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Epicurean paradox: compatible with polytheism?
''"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief''

I wonder why Epicurus talks of God in his paradox, because as we know he lived in the fourth century BCE, at the time that the ancient Greeks were polytheistic, so they believed in several gods. How then can it be he approaches the problem in singular, not in plural? Is there a mistranslation somewhere? What did Epicurus' original text say? As he was polytheistic, it should have read either 'a god can not be benevolent' or 'gods can not ben benevolent', otherwise we are dealing with an anachronism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the article, we get Epicurus' words via a christian writer.
 * If Epicurus (or some other ancient Greek) actually said this, we can only assume that he used words appropriate to the context he was working in, perhaps including plural gods. bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bobrayner is correct - the original words of Epicurus haven't survived, so the quote is via Lactantius, writing approximately 700 years later. My assumption is that Epicurus was referring to a generic, (rather than a particular), god, although there is some question as to whether or not the words really did come from Epicurus. - Bilby (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While polytheistic the ancient Greek Gods did have a strict hierarchy. And yes.. speaking about "impotent" could have a very particular meaning in the context of their hierarchy. What strikes me as strange about the alleged quote by Epicur is why would he assume that God wanted to abolish the "evil"? As far as I can see the Gods of those times did not have that agenda.. they were more or less evil themselves at least in the imagination of men. Richiez (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some information in the article Epicurus: "This argument was a type favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics, and may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist. According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academic source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean. " -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no more evidence this statement is wrongly attributed to Epicurus than anything almost any ancient thinker said. And you are stating a minority view.Stae2 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'"Evil" suggests an ethical law' - Criticism of Lewis
I think it should be noted under the '"Evil" suggests an ethical law' page that Lewis' explanation of the existence of moral law ignores the possibility that such a law came about historically, i.e., that morality may be historically and socially constructed, and therefore in some sense arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.220.41 (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The “ethical law” Lewis was talking about implies an objective and prescriptive law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.208.64 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Book of Job - interpretation?
I've flagged a couple of sentences in the section on the Book of Job as "citation needed" - in particular, the claim that Elihu's speech and the book as a whole show that "God is not subject to human morality". This is by no means an obvious interpretation of the book, and, if we're going to make such statements, we need to source them. Are they from Ehrman's book? If so, we should say that explicitly, and (perhaps) mention some other interpretations. Tevildo (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the whole paragraph about Job needs a thorough revision.
 * It does not take into consideration the structure of the Book of Job–and I think that that is a serious mistake, because in different parts of the book, there are different explanations for suffering. I hope that the following views of Bart D. Ehrman will be helpful.
 * -- Irene1949 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed and editted a lot of the Job section. Job never claims God is unjust.  The closest to this is when Job essentially says that if God is punishing him for some sin, he would defend himself; Job never says that God is punishing him for some sin.  Additionally, in the book of Job, God never actually addresses the question of why evil and suffering exist. --Bertrc (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Irene1949 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed and editted a lot of the Job section. Job never claims God is unjust.  The closest to this is when Job essentially says that if God is punishing him for some sin, he would defend himself; Job never says that God is punishing him for some sin.  Additionally, in the book of Job, God never actually addresses the question of why evil and suffering exist. --Bertrc (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed and editted a lot of the Job section. Job never claims God is unjust.  The closest to this is when Job essentially says that if God is punishing him for some sin, he would defend himself; Job never says that God is punishing him for some sin.  Additionally, in the book of Job, God never actually addresses the question of why evil and suffering exist. --Bertrc (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Absence of God
I am not sure how to source this section. It is a legend that has been bandied about for ages. The Einstein version is relatively new. Would urbanlegends.com, www.snopes.com or truthorfiction.com be considered a reliable source for the existence of a legend? --Bertrc (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think that the new paragraphe is rather vague and lacking citations, and a good deal of it is already said in the paragraph above. So I question it's relevence. I suggest that it should be removed from this article. Maybe, with some citations which may make it more clear, it can get enough relevence for the article Privatio boni. -- Irene1949 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Judaism: The Hebrew Bible
Why is a New Testament critic listed in the section on Judaism and Hebrew Bible? The Christianity section should be edited to allow for an Old and New Testament section, and it is there that the Biblical opinions of the Christian scholars should be stated. Also, if we allow this to remain in the Judaism section, Job and Ecclesiastes should be renamed as Iyyov and Kohelet, the Hebrew names of those books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.156.35 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Evil in the Jewish tradition
I have no deep understanding of this topic, and am not sure if this question is relevant. I do think, however, that it is a common understanding, perhaps deserving of either being explored or countered.

Does the Jewish tradition not also consider "evil" as divine punishment for transgressions by "a stiff-necked people"? Or is that stretching the definition of "evil" too far?

The Wikipedia article on evil says, "Evil is that which is not good. The Bible defines evil as the condition of being alone (the "not good" of Gen. 2:18)." Does the Jewish tradition consider that God withdraws from His people when they transgress, in the sense of leaving them alone, albeit only until they return to follow his law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito john (talk • contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Islam
The article's section on Islam is not sourced properly and reeks of original research. The section doesn't even address the problem and instead plays word games with evil. Can someone with knowledge regarding how Islamic theology has met the problem rewrite please? A Laughton (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC) The answer can be found in Murtuza Mutahhari's Book called Divine Justice, this is a book translated from Persian - it must be read thoroughly. It would be better if someone read the persian and wrote directly from it. He is one of the latest Islamic Philosophers, and his books were written after proper research and are also sourced properly. 78.38.243.166 (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nondualism
This article does not give consideration to the possibility that God does not get involved in evil as a separate entity - i.e. we humans assign the labels of "good" and "evil," whereas God may be concerned with a much larger picture and may operate in a neutral or non-dualistic context. There is a glimmer of this idea in the "Buddhism" section, but the nuances of the various schools are beyond the scope of this article (e.g. most schools are not completely atheistic, but have a non-dualistic view). While I am only starting my exploration of non-dualist thought, perhaps someone more knowledgeable could add a credible section on this perspective. Samatva (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian science
Undue weight to this view with a very long section. Furthermore, seems like a WP:SYNTH collection of primary sources with many sentences beginning with "Eddy says...". I propose we replace this with what is said about evil in the Christian Science article. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions of sourced material
One editor seems to be deleting sourced content by blanking sections. I have restored that material. Please could this editor try to edit in a more normal way as this kind of blanking verges on vandalism? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I discussed the Christian Science material in the section immediately above. Do you have anything to add to the points there? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read a statement of your own intent. The content is sourced and, since the content is uncontroversial, the sources used were fine. Please could you stop vandalizing this article and try to edit in a more normal way? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any replies regarding the arguments of undue weight, primary sources, and original research from synth? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be a primary source. Christian Scientists can be relied upon to give an accurate statement of their beliefs and views, which are not really in doubt here or controversial in the circumstances. Please take these matters to WP:RSN in case of doubt. 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is a primary sources in the same way that the Bible is. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you did not reply regarding undue weight. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, it seems you blanked two sections, with citations, simply because you didn't like them. Because of the style in which this particular article has been written, your justification for blanking content could be probably applied indiscriminately to almost any section. A huge number of mathematics or music articles could be blanked on that basis.


 * Regarding the bible, I don't think a recent text is comparable to an archaic text written over 5,000 years ago. If you are in doubt, please make a request at WP:RSN. If you didn't like a particular citation, please add a request for another by adding the usual type of tag. I'm sure these particular issues have been discussed elsewhere in the literature and you would have little difficulty locating where.


 * Regarding weight, there seems to be no reason not to include the Christian Science viewpoint. It's clearly labelled and does not skew the article. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained both here on talk and in the edit summaries the reasons. Many of the citations in other sections goes to sources such as encyclopedias which are obviously good sources. I have not objected to including the Christian Science viewpoint and I did not blank the section. However, it is undue to spend an enormous amount of space on the view of this particular movement. No original research/Noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard would likely be better than WP:RSN. There is no question that the source is reliable for what it is, a primary source like the Bible or any other religous text. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this dispute and thought I'd just give my opinion. The long section on Christian Science does seem to give undue weight to one person. Although citing Eddy's own work will give a reliable representation of her views, it does not provide any support that her claims are notable. If Eddy's arguments are notable, then they will have been referenced by other philosophers. A brief Google books search does give some results; I would suggest that those books are used to document Eddy's views, as they will outline the most notable areas of her beliefs. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is easy enough to find sources (e.g. The reality of God and the problem of evil by Brian Davies, Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard J. Erickson & L. Arnold Hustad, etc). Better search terms on google books would probably be "Christian Science" and "evil" or "problem of evil". Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that, although the text there seems quite different, the same material appears in Christian Science with the same source (i.e. the writings of Mary Baker Eddy). Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The longest discussion is in Christian Theology by Millard Erickson:

(There is also an extensive footnote on the problem that the death of Mary Baker Eddy caused for Christian Science.) This is just one source. Mathsci (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, that looks like a good source. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose the following text based on that source. "The Christian Science movement views evil as having no reality and as due to false belief. Evils such as illness and death will banished by correct understanding. Criticisms include that also such an illusion is evil, that this only creates a new problem of why God allows false belief and the illusion of evil, and that presumably correct understanding by Christian Science members, including the founder, has not prevented illness and death." In addition we could quote some of the criticisms in the general "Evil is an illusion" section. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we use a range of sources for that section. The problem before was that is focusses on one person, which gave undue weight. Multiple sources will help achieve neutrality. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional views would of course be fine. Any objections to changing the text to the proposal above until more are added? I think it is better than the current very long and rather unclear text. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The section "The problem of Natural Evil"
Contains currently only a quote by David Attenborough. Natural evil has already been mentioned several times in earlier sections with both examples and possible replies. As such it is redundant. Furthermore, the quote does not differentiate natural evils from other evils so it is unclear if it is anything beside an example of an evil in the world. As I suggest it should be removed. Possibly it could be in Wikiquote. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

An explanation of why this article has a non-neutral point of view
The "problem of evil" is not a problem at all, if one simply recognizes that God has a "hands-off management style" (i.e., God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs). Even Christians should be able to recognize this fact, as there's strong evidence for it in their own doctrine: of the billions of humans who have lived, only one of them was granted a relationship with God likened to being the "son of God" -- making this type of intervention extremely rare.

Much of the article examines how the "problem of evil" -- which, I remind you, is not a problem at all -- constitutes evidence against the existence of God. (For example, Bertrand Russell is cited as saying it's an "argument against deity and not in favor of one.”) This article therefore has a non-neutral point of view.

Neutrality could be achieved by adding a section explaining why the "problem of evil" is not a problem, and pointing out that it therefore makes a poor argument against the existence of God. 174.24.79.250 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Though it doesn't pose a problem for all gods that humans have conceived of, it does for monotheists believing in an interventionist, always benevolent god, and thus for a great many mainstream Christians. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. Lionheart, you have missed the point. The article extensively caters to the irrational premise that God is an interventionist God.  The opposing point of view -- that God is a "hands-off" God -- is not represented at all.  Hence, the article has a non-neutral point of view. 174.24.79.250 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem of evil assumes that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. From these attributes it is inferred that such a God would intervene to prevent gratuitous evil. So, if one assumes that God exists and is non-interventionist, then this response either amounts to saying (i) that God lacks omnipotence, omniscience or omnibenevolence, (ii) that a God with these attributes would not intervene to prevent gratuitous evil, or (iii) that gratuitous evil does not exist. Which response does this article not cover, in your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.249.129 (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One need not assume anything. There is proof that God does not intervene to prevent suffering.  Just observe the natural world:  for hundreds of millions of years, the animals of God's creation have been killing and eating each other in the most violent ways.  It amounts to immeasurable carnage, pain, and suffering.
 * Now that we've established that God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs, it should be easy for you to see that the "problem of evil" is not a problem at all.
 * But this article has no coverage of the fact that the "problem of evil" is not a problem at all. Worse, the article extensively discusses how this non-problem constitutes evidence against the existence of God. 174.24.80.204 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you choose option (ii), which is covered in sections 2.2 - 2.12. That's to say, there's plenty of coverage for those who share your view that God would not intervene to prevent gratuitous evil. True, there's no coverage of the blanket dismissal of it as a problem, but I don't think that's of interest alongside the purported explanations in 2.2 - 2.12 of why it's not a problem. Phronesis8 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And so we have a transparent, but noticeable, bias generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.53.142 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Russell quote in Afterlife section
It's not clear that this is a response to an afterlife theodicy, or simply an observation about the implausibility of the afterlife in general. If it's the former, then it doesn't add anything to the discussion, as it simply restates the problem of evil. If it's the latter, which I think likely, then it shouldn't really be here. Does anyone disagree?

It would be much better to include instead, say, Stephen Maitzen's distinction between justification and compensation as a counterpoint: that although the infinite bliss of heaven can compensate for the finite evils suffered in the world, this in no way amounts to a justification of such evils, and justification is what is required if one is to retain traditional theism - a God who oversees gratuitous suffering, even if he later rewards those who suffer, is not perfectly good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phronesis8 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with removing the Russell quote: it comes from his lecture, 'Why I am not a Christian', and is commenting on a line of argument for God's existence, and not a response to the problem of evil. Maitzen's point is now included in its place. I deleted the suggestion that the afterlife answer ignores the problem of hell, as (i) nobody has been cited suggesting it, so it's probably original research and (ii) the afterlife doesn't so much ignore the problem of hell as attempts to answer the problem of evil in a more general form. Also deleted is the comment concerning incommensurability, as this point is not clearly in favour the afterlife theodicy or against it: if the bliss of heaven and suffering on earth are incommensurable, then they cannot be measured against each other, and so, though we could not say that earthly suffering definitely outweighed heavenly bliss, neither could we say that heavenly bliss definitely outweighed earthly suffering. In the very least, more explanation would need to be given to show how (in)commensurability is relevant, and it hasn't been provided. Phronesis8 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I suggest ( some IP in the article Talk Page did so in the first place ) the article Natural evil be merged here. This article would provide the first one with the content it needs to be understood.-- Caleb Crabb 09:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger vote

 * Oppose. Problem of evil is already quite a long article. Merging Natural evil into it would make further development of that topic more difficult. Since this proposal hasn't generated any traction or discussion, I suggest that the merge templates be removed. Herostratus (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as Herostratus gave. BreakfastJr (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The hebrew bible is not judaism
Don't want to make a long rant here, but it is a typically Christian move to think about the Christian "Old Testament" as somehow "Jewish" and to have sections exactly the one we have here, where you quote something from the OT and call it "the Jewish perspective on X". It is about as stupid as taking a quote from the new testament and calling it "the Christian perspective on X." Any reasonable Christian perspective on X will (probably) start with a biblical passage and then have layers of interpretation through the centuries - here is where Augustine went with that, where Aquinas went, Luther, Calvin, Barth, whatever - like in the Christian section of this article. It is ludicrous to have passages from the Bible like this, to cover "Judaism". There are many interpretations of these passages in Christian and Jewish and Muslim traditions, some of which are fairly mainstream and some of which are fringe-y, in those traditions. The passages themselves are foundations; starting places. I also want to note that Isaiah is way more important for Christianity than for Judaism. Bizarre to single out Isaiah in a section on Judaism, unless you are a Christian trying (pretty lamely) to write about Judaism. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous user is at 3 reverts and appears to be deleting all references to the Hebrew bible for any reason at hand against NPOV policy. BRD is invoked for purpose of previous user obtaining consensus prior to further edits which refer to the "Hebrew Bible" in relation to Judaism, and do not even mention the words "OLD Testament." Consensus is required prior to further reverts, you have already reverted this three times, with two editors restoring verified text. FelixRosch (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened the discussion, and will not revert again. I am not "deleting all references to the Hebrew Bible."  Please address what I wrote above. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment above was predicated on dialogue. If User:FelixRosch will not Talk, then I will go ahead and delete again tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and removed this section again, in this dif.  I want to note that these three paragraphs also violate WP:OR and that the one decent secondary source that was provided, was by a Christian biblical scholar. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that no one has joined in for your opinion should have been sufficient reason for you to stop serially reverting text. You are violating 3RR and edit warring against two editors. You must obtain consensus before making any further edits on this issue. No one is in agreement with you. FelixRosch (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Felix, BRD has a D in it. You can't invoke BRD and then insist "no consensus has formed" while refusing to collaborate. This sort of participation is disruptive. Either join the discussion, or drop it, but stop edit warring. Regarding the content dispute itself, Jytdog has a point about OR. I don't see any secondary sources discussing this issue (particularly within the context of Judaism). If we find secondary sources, we can consider reintroducing the content. I've found that these sort of obscure religious articles very frequently suffer from these sorts of problems, so it's not surprising. Thanks for catching that, Jytdog!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. I'm inclined to agree with Jytdog too. There appears to be no source cited in the 'Hebrew Bible' section presenting the arguments given, and consequently, it looks like WP:OR to me too. And why does a section on Judaism quote the (Christian) King James translation, only to then explain (as if our readers can't figure it out for themselves) that the translation isn't appropriate anyway? As our Book of Job article indicates, there seems to be no lack of appropriate sources which can be used for a properly-sourced section, which avoids digressions and presents the multiple views of Judaism on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings to all three respondents now. If even one of you would have joined with Jytdog over the last two days, then I certainly would have responded at that time. With three of you responding now, the situation is quite different and Jytdog does not seem to be the single and isolated voice from the last two days. Over the past two days I have presented two separate versions of this restoration the material being deleted by Jytdog. There are three paragraphs involved in the section being deleted, call them (a), (b), (c), respectively. In the first edit I posted, I responded to the concern raised by Jytdog that there was a hidden Christian reference in the text by deleting the third paragraph (c) in its entirety, and also strengthening the wording in the first two paragraphs to ensure that no mention of the words "Old Testament" appeared anywhere and to replace them with the exclusive use of the "Hebrew bible". Although Ehrman mentioned in paragraph (c) was previously protestant, he is now apparently a secular professor of religion at the University of North Carolina, and even though he is neither Chr nor Jewish now, in wanting to be fair to the issue raised by Jytdog my restore completely removed paragraph (c) before restoring the deleted subsection. User Jytdog then completely deleted the section again in its entirety. The reason given was that Judaism has no relation to the Hebrew bible. This seemed odd since the Hebrew bible is written in Hebrew (the generally accepted language of Judaism), was written by Jewish authors, and written primarily for Jewish audiences and believers. Jytdog's claim of no relation between Judaism appeared to lack any support, and as a result I returned the full edit of three paragraphs in its original form. The conduct of Jytdog I then documented as resembling that of someone who was determined to eliminate all reference to the Hebrew bible for any reason at hand. @Mann_jess and @AndyTheGrump, perhaps the discussion should be in terms of which paragraphs of (a), (b), (c) are the cause of the difficulty and to assess them on a one-by-one basis, deleting all three still seems excessive. Let me know your thoughts, and with three of you responding this is very different than when only one person was deleting a full subsection as an isolated voice. FelixRosch (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you start by telling us which sources the first two paragraphs are derived from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Andy's question is a good starting point. Without detracting from that, Felix, you should know that you should always discuss changes with other editors when reverting. That doesn't change when it's just one editor (in fact, if anything, it makes discusion more important.) I just wanted to make a note of that for your future reference since you talked about it above. Let's move forward by focusing on discussing article content. The best way to do that is if you can point to the sources we're using. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both users AndyTheGrump and User:Mann_jess are correct in this and greetings after the week-end. Over the week-end I found this reference: (The Old Testament. Modern Library Edition, Introduction, authored by George Steiner, p. v-xvi), which is writen by a professor at Cambridge University George Steiner who identifies himself as Jewish and in the department of Comparative Literature. His Introduction covers both the Book of Job and the Book of Isaiah. Let me know if this helps for the restoration of the text with the citation added or if you might need further cites. Also, there is no reason not to get even further citations using the good idea of AndyTheGrump to obtain a number of them from the bibliography of Book of Job if the further references are needed. The reference I presented above is from Cambridge University and should meet neutrality requirements for wikipedia. FelixRosch (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What does Steiner say about the Book of Job? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The issues are weight and scope, sources.  With regard to weight and scope: (scope part) would you please point out where there is any discussion of foundational texts in other sections on religious perspectives (Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism)?  I do not think you can. (weight part): would you please provide some justification, ideally with a source, as to why the Jewish section should have over 2/3 of its length devoted to discussion of its foundational text, and zero on what any named Jewish thinkers had to say (where is anybody from the Talmud, or the early rebbes, or Mainmonides or Spinoza (if Spinoza?) or the Star of Redemption or Hertzl any of a bazillion actual Jewish thinkers).  With regard to sources: we need sources that claim that Job and Isaiah are the key biblical texts for Jewish perspectives on the problem of evil; does the Steiner source say that?  If so, please provide the page so I can verify.  As I stated in the beginning, it is pretty clear to me that somebody stuck a discussion of these two books into this section, as filler, and that the editor who did that had no ideas, and no sources, about Jewish perspectives on the "problem of evil". Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings AndyTheGrump, Mann_jess, and Jytdog. Here is another professor in good standing Professor Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt University: (The Old Testament, (The Great Courses, Book Number 653, The Teaching Company.) Chapter 19 is titled "The Southern Kingdom" and documents the prophet Isaiah recording the destruction of Jerusalem as an evil visited upon the Jewish people living in Israel at that time.) Professor Levine is in agreement with Professor Steiner as to this issue of the destruction of Jerusalem as being an evil upon the Jewish people along with the suffering and evil of their captivity and enslavement after the destruction of Jerusalem. In the same reference, Chapter 22, Professor Levine documents the Book of Job as the test and trial of Job by evil brought upon him as a testing of his faith, in order to see if his faithfulness can withstand the challenges and problems of evil. Professor Steiner accepts and documents the same reading and Professor Levine in his reference which I have provided above and both of these professors are in agreement. @Jytdog, this is now the third argument you have made, this time apparently suggesting that further subsections on "Maimonides on Evil", and "Spinoza on Evil", and other Jewish scholars writing on evil, would be interesting and helpful, but, this is a separate issue for separate subsections or expansions. Both Professor Steiner and Professor Levine are scholars of good standing at major universities who provide documentation for the present edit which is being evaluated. Their support is direct and in full agreement with the texts of the Book of Job and the Book of Isaiah. @AndyTheGrump and Mann_jess, possibly with two citations for each of these now, it is sufficient to help restore the edit. FelixRosch (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not addressing what I asked; if we are going to include a discussion of Isaiah in this section on Jewish perspectives on the problem of evil (not "bad things that may or may not have happened to ancient israelites" but rather "Jewish perspectives on the problem of evil") - we need a source that says that the text of Isaiah is somehow important for Jewish perspectives on the problem of evil.  You don't seem to have a source that says that.  I am sure you can find lots of people who have written about the book of Isaiah; that is a different matter altogether.Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And you misunderstand my point about Jewish thinkers; Jewish thinkers represent Jewish perspectives, just like the Christian thinkers discussed in the Christian section represent Christian perspectives.  And yes that is a third argument about why discussions of biblical books is inappropriate in the section on Jewish perspectives.Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Geetings AndyTheGrump, Mann_jess, and Jytdog. (Resetting tab for readability). Both users AndyTheGrump and Mann_jess have asked for citations to this edit in the Judaism section and I have now provided two each for the Book of Job and the Book of Isaiah from two separate Professors at the Cambridge University and Vanderbilt University. This should be normally sufficient to meet neutral and objective citation requirements. User:Jytdog now is changing his position again to indicate that an entire new subsection on a new topic Jewish perspectives on the problem of evil is required in order avoid blanking out a large part of this section. His previous arguments were that there were hidden Christian references, and his unexpected heading that "the hebrew bible is not judaism" even though it is written in Hebrew (the principle language of Judaism) and written by Jewish authors for Jewish audiences. It should be noted that the documented experience of evil and suffering of Jewish populations in Israel in the Hebrew bible is notable and informs the discussion of the problem of evil. The references I have provided are normally sufficient to retain and re-post this deleted section material for this survey to be supported at this time to return the deleted three paragraphs:

OPPOSE User:Jytdog. The material should be deleted. The deleted text can only be supported is the presence of an extensive section on Jewish perspectives on the problem of evil. User:Jytdog.
 * (note for the archives. I did not write the text above and would not have written it; it was written by User:FelixRosch and oddly "signed" by Jytdog as though I wrote it. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC))

SUPPORT The section portions should be returned and re-posted since they now have two references each from University Professors and should be re-posted on this wikipage. Deleting all references to the Hebrew bible for any reason at hand is excessive and should not be supported. FelixRosch (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:FelixRosch you are consistently misrepresenting me. Frustrating. You have not brought any sources that discuss Jewish perspectives on the problem of evil. This is not an article on Isaiah nor on Job nor on ancient near eastern history nor on representations of evil in literature. It is an article on the problem of evil. The section is Jewish perspectives on that problem. To remind you, the "problem" is how to reconcile the existence of evil with a god that is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Nothing you have written and no source you have brought speaks to the topic. For pete's sake.Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Sources for the section need to discuss the section topic. Directly. Not 'informing' a discussion, but discussing it in detail. FelixRosch, you are going about this in completely the wrong way - you don't write articles and then look for sources to back them up, you find the sources first, and write the article accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andy. And Felix, I am not talking about creating a new section. Please look at the actual article.  It is called "Problem of evil"; it has a section called "By religion" and there is a subsection of that called "Judaism", which is where the paragraphs discussing Isaiah and Job were before I deleted them.  What content goes in that section? Jewish religious perspectives on the problem of evil.  Additionally (4th ground for excluding the paragraphs, brought up in response to what you write above) most scholars of religion understand that ancient israelites were not religiously "Jewish" in any meaningful sense of that term; it is very sloppy to talk without nuance about any "experience of ... Jewish populations in Israel in the Hebrew bible" as you have done above; and along those lines it is also not valid to simply assume the author(s) of Isaiah and Job were religiously Jewish.  Foundational religious texts (including their authors and the origin of stories in them) are not continuous in any simple way with religions built on them.  This article is not the place to go into any of that.  Again, if say Martin Buber or Franz Rosenzweig or Rabbi Akiva calls up Isaiah or Job in the course of laying out his approach to the problem of evil, that would be a valid content discussing those books.  But the content would be about Buber's, Rosenzweig's, or Akiva's  approach, not about the books per se. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Felix, let's be succinct. Please post a direct link to a source you want to include in this article, and exact wording you feel follows from the source. For instance: ""This source should be included with this wording: 'The problem of evil is an important topic in Judaism.'""  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Large chunk of text seems to be OR and EDITORIAL
There is a long paragraph that needs some copy editing, but I wonder if the whole paragraph is original research and editorializing. Although this concepts had been argued by some to how the events and calamities in the nature and environment are not the problem, for that this are a natural process and part of the cyclical nature of the ecosystem. That the fault is in man's inability to adopt to its environment, and not the environment itself, for the reason that man is ignorant and blind to his surroundings as he integrate himself with a group of people to form a society and build a technology. Establishing that animals sense when danger are coming, except man, even though he is also part of the ecosystem. An analogy given is in how a driver shouldn't complain that his car experience accidents and incidents that are done due to how the driver handles his car within his line of sight. That he shouldn't even put the blame to the car manufacturer when he is involved on a car wrecked, when the fault lies on his way of driving the car. Equating that what most people are doing is blaming God, or the car manufacturer and not acknowledging their faults. Another raised point is in the technology that man builds, for instead of a technology that complements and aligns with nature, man builds a technology that alienates and harms it. He build his city near a dangerous prone area, and complains of the conditions that he experienced in the land he lives. As George Carlin said, one shouldn't complained on volcanoes and being buried to thousands of earthquake rubble, when they build their homes next to an active volcano. Blaming a person/s, object, or deity, for their own ignorance and inability to adapt to their environment, and also to the lack of responsibility and awareness to the consequences of their actions. I am inclined to just boldy delete it. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whikie (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
it is the case that the point of judgement and creation being the same thing has been part of the introduction of this page for a long time; it is subsequently the people who keep taking it off who are persistent editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.42.243 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope - it doesn't work that way. You have been reverted by multiple contributors, and you have to establish that the material belongs. If the material is to be included, it needs to be on the basis of consensus. And as I see it, there are two problems with the disputed material. Firstly, the article lede is intended to summarise material in the body of the article, rather than presenting a particular perspective on the problem, as done here. And secondly, the disputed material cites what appears to be a personal website, rather than a published reliable source - it is almost always inappropriate to reference content to such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I second what AndyTheGrump has stated. Additionally, in this kind of edit conflict, the article should go back to it's most recent steady state, before the conflict began, and the objectionable edits should not be reinserted unless there is a consensus to do so on this talk page. — Asterisk *  Splat → 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I just saw this at the bottom of the page, I was looking at the top; I've started another/identical topic below.The point addresses The Problem of Evil Specifically and references an argument and the Wikipedia page for Judgement Day. The point of judgement and creation being the same deals with the topic of the Problem of Evil specifically; there are other points in the introduction that deal with generic evil which might be better suited to the page for Evil itself but I will (out of politeness), not remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.42.243 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Creation-Judgement explanation in the introduction
Articles can be as helpful as they can be or they can be unnecessarily troubling to their readers who could be of any age. The point that there is an explanation that equates creation and judgement is helpful and reassuring. People who quickly look up The Problem of Evil can quickly have confidence in the idea of the meaningfulness of existence brought about by the goodness of God. The sooner a reader considers the explanation the more equipped they will be for dismissing the unhelpful ideas of people who have argued that God cannot be good; but it is blatantly the case that we can see how we could come to a conclusion that He is all powerful, all knowing and good.

What is certainly the case is that the introduction to The Problem of Evil contains comments about generic evil which might be better suited to the Wikipedia page for Evil. The point about creation and judgement being the same thing is precisely about The Problem of Evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.42.243 (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of this encyclopaedia. It is not here to create "confidence in the idea of the meaningfulness of existence brought about by the goodness of God". It is not even here to create confidence in the existence of a God or gods - omnibenevolent or otherwise. Instead, it is here to inform readers as to what scholarly sources have to say on particular topics - in this case, the problem of evil, as defined by said sources. If you wish to promote a particular explanation because you personally find it "helpful and reassuring" and because you consider particular arguments "blatantly the case", you will need to find somewhere else to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of scholarship? And what makes you think that you have the authority to exclude the idea that it can be for the creation of confidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.42.243 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The 'point of of scholarship', as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that it provides the necessary sources for our articles. As for 'authority', Wikipedia has policies - arrived at through consensus after considerable debate - concerning article content. If you wish to contribute towards Wikipedia, you will have to conform to such policies. I am going to remove the material you have added one final time - and if you restore it without prior consensus, I shall report you for edit-warring, which will undoubtedly lead to you being blocked from editing. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I happen to think that any scholarship and any encyclopedia exists to equip its readership with the ability to speak confidently about a particular area of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.42.243 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Given your repeated violation of Wikipedia rules against edit-warring, I have reported the matter. I suggest that while you are blocked, you take the time to read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding content, and then decide whether you are willing to work within them, or would prefer to promote your ideas elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Did someone really delete my comment from this discussion; that seems low and detracts from what this is. It was previously suggested that my description of creation and judgement being the same be made in the main body of the page; it would be lovely if someone could please put it there. (I had wanted it to be in the introduction - and that was the issue, or was it? was it in fact taken off because of bias?). Here's what I said: " I have been blocked. And I am considering the policies and guidelines. I would appreciate it if the following paragraph could be included in the responses and theodicies section of The Problem of Evil (by anyone reading this or yourself Andy): "These include the explanation that God's act of creation and God's act of judgment are the same act.www.predestinedfreedom.me.uk God's condemnation of evil is believed to be executed and expressed in his created world; a judgement that is unstoppable due to God's all powerful will; a constant and eternal judgement that becomes announced and communicated to other people on Judgment Day. In this explanation, God's judgement of evil is declared to be a good judgement." Many thanks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.22.235 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of the Free Will Section
The last paragraph of the free will section is poorly written and appears to be original research. I'd remove it myself, but the article is semi-protected. For clarity, I'm referring to the paragraph that compares free will to a video game. The sentence, "That is to say that like how one could choose to think..." in particular just kills me. 130.126.255.113 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No mention of William Lane Craig
How can you have an article regarding the Problem of Evil, and not mention perhaps the second foremost scholar in the field (after Alvin Plantinga), Dr. William Lane Craig? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-evil It's at the very top of the Google search too 58.110.216.164 (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Craig may be a top scholar of philosophy of religion, and he should surely be included in any article on the cosmological argument, but what original contributions has he made to the problem of evil? If none, then why should he be cited? 118.92.186.109 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll let 680 citations speak for itself (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22william+lane+craig%22+%22problem+of+evil%22) 58.110.216.164 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless those 680 citations are to an original contribution on the problem of evil, I don't agree that he *has* to be included. Bertrand Russell has over twice the number of citations and is not included(http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22+%22problem+of+evil%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5), correctly I believe, because he did not make an original contribution to the subject. 118.92.186.109 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please include one more religions view
Please include the religous view of the Latter - Day Saints! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.22 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The standard answer to this kind of a request is "wp:so fix it"; you can either discuss in more detail here on the talk page what you think needs to be added, or you can yourself add that content to the article. — Asterisk *  Splat → 15:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The LDS section has some good things, but lots of irrelevant stuff that bury the two salient points (e.g. nuances of the LDS definition of "omnipotent" are different, and the LDS variant of Irenaean theodicy). Will summarize soon. Yasashiku (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Problem of evil
Cyberbot II has detected links on Problem of evil which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaWisdom_Literature.htm
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Footnote 13 to Chad Meister
This is what Chad Meister writes in his Introducing Philosophy of Religion (p. 134): "Currently, however, most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil." The article as it now stands is misquoting him claiming that "some philosophers agree." I changed this already once, but it's back again. Please edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalimit (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , Welcome to wikipedia. While your quote from Meister is correct, the context is more nuanced. Plantinga addresses the inconsistency aspect of the logical problem of evil, by explaining that [1] "superhuman spirits and fallen angels" create tornados, earthquakes, etc, and the natural evil/suffering that so results, and [2] with free will arguments for moral evil. But neither the quote you provide, nor these two support the version, "It is now widely accepted that Plantinga shows that God and evil are logically compatible". This is implying a new conclusion. We should also not limit ourselves to Meister, see WP:NPOV for reasons. I suggest we include views from 1 (particularly Plantinga sections) and 2 (this is a book co-authored by Alvin Plantinga, see chapters 2 and 4 by Michael Tooley, but if you have time see chapters 1 and 3 too as they provide the context). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thank you. Semantics aside, the claim that "some philosophers agree..." is nevertheless misleading. It is a half-truth. The article as it stands now is not objective, and it should be corrected. English is not my native language so I think it would be better that someone else do the editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalimit (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem of Altrusim
There is a section at the end entitled "Problem of Good". It's rather confusing to read. I think that the author was more interested in sounding clever than in being clear and comprehensible.

Perhaps Problem of Altruism should be a separate section. It is a huge philosophical topic in evolution. You can find tons of links with a simple google. I don't have the time to figure out which references are worth including here, but references should be added to the article. There is also an "altruism" wikipage as well as an "altruism (biology)" one. Perhaps we should link to those too. Thanks! Lehasa (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Lehasa: Indeed, that Problem of Good is an old section that needs some work. A brief summary of the Problem of Altruism would improve this article. Please feel welcome to revise and add. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Lehasa: Indeed, that Problem of Good is an old section that needs some work. A brief summary of the Problem of Altruism would improve this article. Please feel welcome to revise and add. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeated removal of scholarly sourced content
Please do not remove scholarly sources and their summary, and insert content based on email-lists or non-WP:RS as you did here. Please also do not delete the same scholarly sources by replacing it with content from a non-peer reviewed / WP:SPS book and without citing the page number as you did here. Further, please keep WP:Primary in mind. What are your concerns with the WP:RS you keep deleting, and what evidence is there that this book you cite without page number meets WP:RS guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

-

The page numbers in the reference book "Brahma Sutra Bhasya Of Shankaracharya" by Swami Gambhirananda are: 362-365.

Here are (some of) the problems with the previous version:

1) The quote provided by the previous version, "For that would lead to the possibility of partiality and cruelty..." is actually part of what is known as "Purva Paksha" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purva_paksha ), which is the OPPONENT'S view that is going to be REFUTED! To state this as the conclusion is simply ABSURD!

2) The statement in the previous version, "verses 2.1.34 through 2.1.36 aphoristically mention a version of the problem of suffering and evil in the context of the abstract metaphysical Hindu concept of Brahman" - is simply WRONG, as the reference verses from 2.1.34 to 2.1.36 do not even contain the word "Brahman" (or "Brahma")! This has been inserted by someone with no knowledge of the text!

3) Another statement in the previous version, "In other words, in the Brahma Sutras, the formulation of problem of evil is considered a metaphysical construct, but not a moral issue." is again WRONG! The commentary of Sankara on 2.1.34 contains the following statement:

dharma-adharma-avapekShata iti vadaamaH.

"We say that these are Dharma (Morality) and Adharma (Immorality)."

The word "Dharma" is the best translation that exists for Morality, so the claim that this is not a moral issue is borderline stupid! If that were the case, why call it "Problem of EVIL" at all?? The commentator Sankara clearly sees it as involving Dharma (Morality) and Adharma (Immorality)!

4) FYI: The Brahma Sutra 2.1.34 also contains the statement:

saapekSho hiishvaro viShamaaM sRRiShTiM nirmimiite.

"...for God ("Ishvara") makes this unequal creation by taking the help of other factors."

The word "God" can be either "Brahman" or "Ishvara" in Hinduism, the former being Impersonal and the latter Personal. Sankara evidently takes "Ishvara" to be the causal force involving the Problem of Injustice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishvara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartik.jayan (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You did not quote sources, but provided your own analysis and interpretation of a WP:Primary text. Therefore, this is all OR, your personal opinion / prejudice / wisdom which we cannot use or rely upon. You have linked to wikipedia articles, but we cannot use wikipedia as source. We must rely on scholarly, peer reviewed secondary or tertiary sources for interpretation, but unfortunately that is what you are removing. I am fluent with Sanskrit, Brahmasutra is aphoristic, and your assertions are strange/mistaken (yes, I know about Purva Paksha). You are wrong about (2) above, just read the page 363 of cited source in the article after that sentence, and you will see "Brahman" word. Our goal here is to summarize the verifiable sources. You have also not provided a evidence of peer review or rationale as to why Gambhirananda's book qualifies as WP:RS. Wikipedia is not Gambhirananda-pedia. Please see WP:RS, identify any that verifiably support what you write, and we can integrate that in into this article. But, please do not delete summary or sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kartik.jayan: you allege in (4) above: "The Brahma Sutra 2.1.34 also contains the statement: saapekSho hiishvaro viShamaaM sRRiShTiM nirmimiite". That is simply not true, not verifiable. The Brahma Sutra 2.1.34 is "लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम्", which is not even close to your claim, it is very different than what you allege. You claim "God can be... in Hinduism", but that is again your OR/wish/opinion/prejudice/wisdom. We must ignore such OR. We must rely on scholarly publication to interpret all this, just focus on summarizing the WP:RS on all this, as best as we can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

-

The book that I quoted was Swami Gambhirananda's. There is no Original Research being done by me here! I'm simply quoting a 50-year old English translation of a famous work in Hinduism!

Let me be even clearer here.

1) The previous version contains the QUOTE: "For that would lead to the possibility of partiality and cruelty. For it can be reasonably concluded that God has passion and hatred like some ignoble persons... Hence there will be a nullification of God's nature of extreme purity, (unchangeability), etc., [...] And owing to infliction of misery and destruction on all creatures, God will be open to the charge of pitilessness and extreme cruelty, abhorred even by a villain. Thus on account of the possibility of partiality and cruelty, God is not an agent. — Adi Shankara, Translated by Arvind Sharma"

Guess what Swami Gambhirananda starts the quote with? "OPPONENT SAYS:" - so the above quote that is claimed to Adi Sankara's is actually the OPPONENT'S view that Sankara REFUTES!

2) I stand by my statement that neither Swami Gambhirananda's translation NOR the Sanskrit original of Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras on 2.1.34 to 2.1.36 contains the word "Brahman". The Sanskrit word that Sankara uses in this context is "Ishvara", which Swami Gambhirananda translates as "GOD"! Please consult the Brahma Sutra Supersite at the following link:

https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/bs_home

3) The word "Dharma" (as also "Adharma") repeatedly in Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras 2.1.34! It makes absolutely NO sense to claim that, "In other words, in the Brahma Sutras, the formulation of problem of evil is considered a metaphysical construct, but not a moral issue." Because the word "Dharma" in Hinduism DOES indicate a MORAL issue!

4) The only change I make here is that SANKARA'S COMMENTARY on the Brahma Sutra 2.1.34 also contains the statement:

saapekSho hiishvaro viShamaaM sRRiShTiM nirmimiite.

"...for God ("Ishvara") makes this unequal creation by taking the help of other factors."

Again, please consult the Brahma Sutra Supersite: https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/bs_home

The word "God" can be either "Brahman" or "Ishvara" in Hinduism, the former being Impersonal and the latter Personal. Sankara evidently takes "Ishvara" to be the causal force involving the Problem of Injustice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishvara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartik.jayan (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kartik.jayan: I am not going to repeat myself, and neither do you need to. You may be a fan or follower of Gambhirananda / Ramakrishna Mission, but we must first establish whether his book is a WP:RS (I don't think so, because RKM publications are SPS and with no evidence of critical peer review). Ramakrishna Mission is a part of Hinduism, but it is not all there is to Hinduism, not even close. If you provide me with evidence that Ramakrishna Mission books are WP:RS, I will reconsider. You have yet to explain why you deleted WP:RS. Simply that you disagree with multiple WP:RS, is inappropriate reason to delete. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

God, not deity
I have changed the lead sentence to read God, because that is what both sources state. The Stanford Encyclopedia article, goes on to explain that problem of evil does not apply to "deity" because a deity is not necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It is WP:OR to make this switch, it changes the meaning, and it misrepresents what the sources are stating. The scholarship on "problem of evil" predominantly uses the word God. Let us stick with the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the Stanford Encyclopedia also uses "deity" when talking in very general terms. If we're referring to the problem of evil as applied to the Judeo-Christian god, then "God" is appropriate. If we're talking about the problem as applied to gods in general, then "deity" is correct. As a general rule, we're normally talking about the concept of God, so the bulk of the references will be wording accordingly. But we should still use "deity" where appropriate. - Bilby (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Bilby: Does it? Here is the first paragraph:
 * Quote: "The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God."
 * Then it moves to the first main section. No deity at all:
 * Quote from first part of Section 1.1: "The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there are metaphysical interpretations of the term: God is a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence. Or God is not one being among other beings—even a supremely great being—but, instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply."
 * The Stanford article is predominantly written with "God" wording (146 mentions), not deity (13 mentions). Later, as I noted above, it does mention deity, but as follows, "Is the situation different if one shifts to a deity who is not omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect? The answer depends on the details. Thus, if one considers a deity who is omniscient and morally perfect, but not omnipotent, then evil presumably would not pose a problem if such a deity were conceived of as too remote from Earth to prevent the evils we find here." Then the article identifies scenarios where, it adds, "But given a deity who falls considerably short of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, but who could intervene in our world to prevent many evils, and who knows of those evils, it would seem that an argument rather similar to the above could be formulated..." The old lead did not reflect this at all. Per, WP:NPOV, we must "fairly, proportionately" summarize reliable sources. The proportionate and fair term in our sources is "God", not deity. It is OR-Synthesis and misrepresentation of the sources to make the switch. "Could be" with deity implies potentiality, while with omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God concept, the problem of evil "is" a problem. Let us respect community guidelines and WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "without changing its meaning or implication".
 * Yes, the main article should discuss the "could be formulated" part, for deity, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and other sources, to be complete. I will do so in the coming days. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't OR to discuss whether the term deity or God is more appropriate in the article - my feeling is that your interpretation of OR is a little broad. :) With that said, the part in question is:
 * In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism)." An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.
 * Deity, in this case, seems to work better than God, because at this point we're looking at types of deity, rather than referring specifically to God. After this we narrow it down to "God", as the specific type of deity to which we are referring to. Stanford seems to be following a similar pattern - the only part where it uses deity, like our article, is where it is talking about types of deities, rather than committing to a particular type as it does in the rest of the article. - Bilby (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Bilby: Indeed, discussing here isn't OR. On the rest, are you implying [1] deity and God are synonymous; or [2] deity and God are not synonymous? Whatever your answer, do you see support for your answer in the Stanford source that we can use for this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * God is a type of deity. When discussing deities in general, we use deity. When discussing the particular deity that is God, we can use God. This is following the Standford approach. The question is whether or not the lead is discussing "deities" in how it is worded, or specifically God. My feeling is that the use in the first line, "the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent" is a reference to deities in general, rather than God in particular. - Bilby (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: Being a type, God is not synonymous with deity, in your opinion. Deity is a (limited) god, in sources such as tertiary sources published by Oxford University Press and others. But this article is not discussing deities in general, it is discussing the problem of evil. We need to stick to what the source is stating, and not imply what it is not. For a compromise, let us split the sentence into two, avoid conflating the two, and thus more faithfully summarize the sources.
 * Current: In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a God who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2]
 * Proposed: In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.[1][2] While generally discussed in terms of God, the problem of evil can possibly also be applied to a deity who falls considerably short of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, but who could intervene in our world to prevent many evils.[1][2]

I suggest this change in the lead would go with a better discussion of the second part in the main article. Your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not regard God and deity as synonymous, which is why there is an issue with wording. If they were synonymous, then this wouldn't be a problem. :) The current lead refers to "a God", which was changed by you from the previous "a deity". This seems incorrect. The wording refers to deities in general, and talks about the criteria that a deity would need to possess for the problem of evil to apply. An example of such a deity is "God", which is the specific deity to which the Problem of Evil generally refers, but theoretically there could be a different deity which would also possess these attributes, and therefore would face the problem of evil.
 * The approach being used here is to start from the general - what sort of deity does the problem of evil apply to (one that is all powerful, etc) and then moves to the specific - how does the problem of evil relate to God.
 * If I understand this correctly, you are equating "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent" with God - am I correct in reading that you see any being which is "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent" as being a God, and not a deity? - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Bilby: If you "do not regard God and deity as synonymous", then we "should not write deity when the source states God" either in this article. But, let us avoid forum-y discussion here on this article's talk page, per WP:TPNO. We just need to summarize what Stanford source and others are stating. What are your thoughts about the proposed language, with an update to the main? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that you are missing what I'm trying to say. Because "God" and "deity" are not synonymous, when we discuss "God" in the article, we should use "God", and when we discuss deities in general we should use "deity". In the lead, I read the first line as referring to deities in general, not God in specific. Therefore the correct language is "deity". When we refer to the specific deity (or class of deities, if you see any all powerful, all knowing and all good deity as a God), we should use the specific term. This is in keeping with other sources.
 * Accordingly, what I am curious about is if the line:
 * "... the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a [something] who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent".
 * Is that a reference to deities in general, gods in general, or a specific God. My reading is that it refers to deities in general, and then later the article moves to God in specific. That is how it was worded before your change. Do you feel that that sentence s referring only to a specific God? As that seems to be the effect of your change. - Bilby (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Bilby: There are two sides to this. One side: God is general, deities are a type that general concept. Second side: Deities are general, monotheistic God is a type of that general concept. In the mainstream scholarship, deity is a God. See, for example, page 50 of this, and page 12 of this. With reference to your curiosity, a "God in relative terms" is nothing but a deity, while a "God in absolute terms" is the monotheistic God that the article discusses at length. So, the [something] in your line should be God. Yet, I feel you have a good concern, and we should attempt to clarify that the problem of evil applies both to monotheistic God that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent; as well it possibly could apply to a deity who is not. I have proposed, above, the use of two sentences. There is no harm in using two sentences, only more clarity. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the Problem of Evil does not apply to a deity which does not meet the criteria of being God, so I don't see much value in the line you are proposing. Yes, there is still a question as to why a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and non-omnibenevolent deity does not prevent evil, but it is not a logical problem. What makes the Problem of Evil significant is that it is argued that it is logically impossible for evil to exist in a world where there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity, thus leading to the conclusion that such a being cannot exist.
 * Based on the idea that you clarified above, I'm left still thinking that the correct word is "deity". This is especially the case in an article where we discuss Hinduism, Buddhism, Pandeism, Greek mythology, ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. The article explores more than just a God, but also discusses other deities. Which is why I greatly prefer the generic "deity" in the lead. That said, it seems we will not resolve this through the current process. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: We need to stick with the sources. The problem of evil, in Stanford Encyclopedia source, is predominantly described with the term "God", and it mentions in the passing that the problem "could be formulated" for a deity who falls considerably short of being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. The two sentences I proposed above are thus supported by the Stanford Encyclopedia source. The main article, right now, has 200+ mentions of the word God, just 4 mentions of deity/deities in the main article and that too in a unsourced disputed section. So, technically per WP:LEAD, it would be wrong to summarize and insert deity suddenly into the lead sentence, in addition to being WP:OR and non-WP:V. I suggest we take a day or two off, reflect on it, suggest alternate wording, and work together to improve both the main and the lead section. The DRN process is time consuming, best avoided, best only when collaboration has failed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the Stanford Encyclopedia isn't the only source discussing this, and isn't the only manner by which we can determine the wording. We are not copying the Stanford encyclopaedia - doing so would be a copyright violation - and accordingly we need to make decisions as to how we word aspects of the article, in keeping with what the sources say. It is not WP:OR to use "deity" when discussing deities in general, and "God" when discussing a specific type of deity - that is a decision we need to make based on what we say in the piece. The aside Tooley is making in Stanford is not a typical part of the Problem of Evil - he is referring to a similar article in a very, very small subset of situations, not an example of the problem being discussed.
 * At any rate, this is not a method of making progress. I'll be in a better situation to explore sources soon, and I'll see what I can find to expand the article then. - Bilby (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed sources aside, with "God" is the acknowledgement of indwelling, conspicuously absent the "deity". 4musatov (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem of evil according to Judaism
People have free-choice between good and bad. They can choose whatever they want, what will heppen to them next (hell for instance) that's a different thing. But there is no problem in the examples given like - the holcaust (so the Nazis chose to do evil things). Or in a kid dying from cancer (that can be a punishment for reincarnation, what same soul did in previous life. Also, that can be a punishment for the sins of the parents.) There is no problem in any of the examples in the article according to Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole "problem" concept is wrong
I think the problem is that God is viewed as a "guard", who should prevent evil. God created human-beings and they can choose wheater to do good or bad. There is evil because people choose to do bad things sometimes. (in the end of the day, God will judge the people. But there is no problem in the *existance* of evil.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that article talk pages are not forums (WP:NOTFORUM). Therefore, they are not for discussing the topic but to suggest specific article improvements.  There also appears to be confusion: reincarnation and hell are not really Judaism concepts.  As for "the whole concept is wrong", the problem of evil is one of the main logical arguments to demonstrate that traditional deity concepts are probably erroneous.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Serious Concerns
I have been reading this extensive and generally wonderful article and got to the Monotheisms section, and the Bible, and stopped. I believe this section makes some inaccurate claims, and it apparently does so using invalid references. The "Holman Concise Bible Dictionary"--(which is a poor choice as a source in the first place in my experience)--is referenced as defining evil as "all that is "opposed to God and His purposes" (i.e., sin) or that which, from the human perspective, is "harmful and nonproductive" (i.e., suffering)". Pages 207, 252, and 584 are given as the location of these concepts--except I cannot locate any of it. I cannot locate anything that can even be synopsized as making such a claim. I am troubled by it especially since it contradicts other sources on these subjects. For example, "Pathways in Theodicy: An Introduction to the Problem of Evil", By Mark S. M. Scott (you can find it using the isbn, 978-1-4514-6470-2) says on page 27 that there is no singular definition of evil in the Bible, that the Bible authors portray evil in a wide variety of ways, that they all avoid ontology (and would therefore never give a definition of this type); in the Bible evil is moral and spiritual, not metaphysical or syllogistic.

Page 207 is not available for viewing, either on Google books or Amazon, but according to the contents it is in the section on Job, and there is no such definition of evil in Job. Grace Ko in "Theodicy in Habakkuk" in chapter three discusses theodicies such as Job saying: "The author of Job seeks to expand the understanding of divine justice ...beyond mere retribution, to include a system of divine sovereignty [showing] the King has the right to test His subject's loyalty... The book of Job corrects the rigid and overly simplistic doctrine of retribution in attributing suffering to sin and punishment."

Page 252 (sin) is also not available for view but the Table of Contents say this page is in the discussion of the Song of Songs-- which also does not have a definition of sin (or evil or suffering) in it. The discussion of Song of Songs in Holman does begin on page 252, but "meaning and message" is found on page 255, where Holman says it is a song of "love and affirmation"--"..it neither condemns sexual love ...nor elevates it to the status of religious act." That seemingly has nothing to do with the statement here in this article.

Page 584, which is listed as the reference for suffering, which--surprise, surprise--is also not available for viewing--is in the discussion of Philippians. When searching the book for these terms these pages do not come up as having these terms on those pages--or any discussion that could be said to include what this paragraph claims. For example, There are two discussions of suffering in Philippians: one on page 583 where it says a sanctified life requires sharing in Christ's sufferings, and two, on page 585 where Paul says of the suffering of his imprisonment: "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." (verse 18).

Any discussion of suffering as evil in the Bible is problematic in the first place because it is one thing where Old Testament views and New Testament views dramatically divide. Jacob H. Friesenhahn in "The Trinity and Theodicy" says "Through the vicarious suffering of Christ, the nature of suffering itself is transformed." Denis O. Lamoureux claims in Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution that Jesus rejected the idea that physical suffering was caused by sin (page 314). Suffering is repeatedly portrayed in the NT as having value, purpose--as character forming and for learning wisdom and deepening faith--which is contrary to the claim made here that suffering is "harmful and nonproductive".

I understand Wiki writers are not on a search for truth but only for what's verifiable. The claims here are not verifiable. Really, this whole section on the Bible is not verifiable--even the statement that "Christian theologians have generally forwarded two defenses " is not verifiable. It is referenced at the Gale University Library which is also inaccessible. The rest of the article is good but this section is bad. It needs a complete redo. [User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Jenhawk777, it sounds like you've found some flaws in the article that need fixing. Be WP:BOLD! I checked the Holman reference, and its article on Evil begins, "All opposed to God and His purposes or that which, defined from human perspectives, is harmful and nonproductive," which agrees with the text in the article. I added URLs to the reference so you can find the source more easily. Still, it sounds like you've found many and better sources to summarize. Happy editing! (BTW, we are on a search for truth; verifiability is a more stringent standard, needed to make a collaborative encyclopedia edited by amateurs work. See WP:TRUTH.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello BenKovitz! It's wonderful to meet you!  Thank you so much for responding!  Now I want to know how and why you could access those pages and I could not.  Are you magic?  :-)  Ben, I have been on Wiki for less than a year and have edited on some of the really controversial Bible articles and I have been seriously beaten over the head for using "Christian" sources like Holman.  I have been accused of bias, called incompetent, and generally told I wasn't very bright--no exaggeration.  Oh--and I have also been told Wikians do not look for truth--while wondering if that means we are supposed to be okay with publishing untruth so long as we can find it in a source!  Wiki is a bit of a CRAZY place! I am, needless to say, wary--however--I don't mind leaving Holman in if there can also be some alternate definitions included from other sources.  It would expand this section, but it probably needs it. Would you be okay with me doing that?  I have no problem being bold--but I have been bitten for that as well--so now I ask first! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm magic, but no more than anybody else. :) Seriously, might you have clicked on the Holman Concise Bible Commentary instead of the Holman Concise Bible Dictionary? (I made that mistake at first.) Anyway, sorry to hear you've had to endure personal abuse on Wikipedia. Sad to say, many editors skip WP:CIVILITY and don't heed the wisdom of WP:NPA. Some even use WP:V as a rationalization for rationalizing—referring selectively to any source that supports a preconceived conclusion rather than thoughtfully weighing sources as any real encyclopedia editor does, and as the guidelines clearly indicate. And how much editing have you seen that completely disregards WP:BALASPS? All that can make a little hard to WP:AGF, no?
 * It looks like you've been editing long enough to know all that I'm about to say, but it helps to hear it from another editor, so here goes. There is a common statement that Wikipedia only works in practice, not in theory, but that's false. The theory that begat Wikipedia is that it should work the way all other large-scale collaborations work: with never-ending contentiousness and imperfection. Different editors have differing opinions, so they fight a lot. Hopefully the common vision of an on-line encyclopedia, aided by a little "wiki magic", makes the result smarter and wiser than any one person alone could produce—most of the time, if not always, eventually, if not soon. Patience, tolerance, and acceptance of the inevitable imperfection are the only way to stay at it. Whenever possible, edit to incorporate what was good within a flawed contribution rather than revert. Often you find that the other editor did have something worthwhile to say, and it took a pause and a little effort to hear it. Bold edits are great, but know that bold edits often meet resistance, and rightly so—and WP:BRD shows how to handle it. It wouldn't work as well as it does without the fighting. Even knowing all these things, I've still occasionally gotten so irritated with other editors that I've taken a long break or given up completely on a page. (I've found that giving up quickly is best, but maybe that's just me.) Anyway, congratulations for sticking with it, and I hope the flaws and the jerks don't get you down.
 * —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! FWIW, I'm not well read in this subject, but based on my recent brief exposure to the Holman Concise Bible Dictionary, it looked mediocre—OK, but not a shining example of scholarship. Sometimes we have to make do with mediocre sources until someone finds a really good one, of course—or until someone writes one. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are my new best friend. I love you.  I am not at all overly dramatic.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge with theodicy
The problem of evil is called Theodicy in academic circles. You need to consider whether this article needs to be merged.PiCo (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Theodicy is a subtopic of this that would overwhelm the article. It needs its own extensive discussion. The article would be far too long with such a merger and would be focused on the Christian attempts to refute the problem, which are already discussed in this article. The articles are linked to each other very clearly. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Omnipotence and the problem of evil
The entire problem of evil can be reduced down to the question of whether God is omnipotent or not.

Evil exists. If God is omnipotent, then God can defy logic and make himself omniscient and omnibenevolent, even with the existence of evil. If God is not omnipotent, then you get process theology. Therefore, the problem of evil is solved. Q.E.D. 69.156.109.238 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding definition
Let me say up front that this is a good looking article. It's well organized, well written and cited, gives good coverage of the topic and I really like it. It's only missing one thing that I can see, and that's a discussion of the definition of evil. In the philosophy of religion, there are two generally used definitions: a broad definition and a narrow one. This article pretty much uses the broad definition. Christianity on the other hand uses the narrow one. There is no direct discussion of this and what it means to the argument. Evil cannot be defined simply as suffering. I would like to add a paragraph but I don't want to mess up this beautiful article and put in something objectionable or place it wrong.

I think I will write a paragraph, post it here on the talk page, and anyone who cares about this article can kibbitz about it here. Then we can agree if, or where, to put it so there won't be any problems. If anyone disagrees, just say so. We can work it out with cooperation I'm sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry it took so long. RL interfered. Here's what I've got so far. If no one objects I will probably put it in the article within this next week. Please read critically and make suggestions. Please have good sources. I enjoy collaboration but also ask that you please not waste my time arguing personal opinions.


 * Defining evil is complicated by its multiple, often ambiguous, common usages: evil is often used to describe the whole range of suffering, including that caused by nature, and it is also used to describe all human immorality from the "evil of genocide to the evil of malicious gossip". It is sometimes thought of as the generic opposite of good.  Marcus Singer asserts that these common connotations must be set aside as overgeneralized ideas that don't really describe the nature of evil.


 * In contemporary philosophy, there are two basic concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. A broad concept defines evil simply as any and all pain and suffering: "any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw". Evil in the broad sense is the sort of evil referenced in most discussions of the problem of evil, yet, it is also asserted that evil cannot be correctly understood "(as some of the utilitarians once thought) [on] a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus". Renowned orthopedist and missionary to lepers, Dr. Paul Brand explains that leprosy attacks the nerve cells that feel pain resulting in no more pain for the leper, which leads to ever increasing, often catastrophic, damage to the body of the leper. Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is a neurological disorder that prevents feeling pain. It "leads to ...bone fractures, multiple scars, osteomyelitis, joint deformities, and limb amputation... Mental retardation is common. Death from hyperpyrexia occurs within the first 3 years of life in almost 20% of the patients." Few with the disorder are able to live into adulthood.  Pain is necessary for survival.  Marcus Singer says: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".


 * The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, therefore it is ascribed only to moral agents and their actions. This eliminates natural disasters and animal suffering from consideration as evil: according to Claudia Card, "When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Their "agency" routinely produces consequences vital to some forms of life and lethal to others". The narrow definition of evil "picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc. Evil [in this sense] … is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable”.  Eve Garrard suggests that evil describes "particularly horrifying kinds of action which we feel are to be contrasted with more ordinary kinds of wrongdoing, as when for example we might say 'that action wasn't just wrong, it was positively evil'. The implication is that there is a qualitative, and not merely quantitative, difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality".  In this context, the concept of evil is one element in the whole nexus of moral concepts.


 * Okay, no one seems to care enough to respond here, or they simply don't object, so I am publishing these changes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. The lead now needs adjustment. Other aspects may as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Problem with the "problem of evil"
The article claims that the argument is logically valid. I contend that this is actually a logical fallacy. How? It fails to take into account that evil is a moral or religious standard. A moral standard cannot exist without a source, that being God (or some higher intelligence). It is merely a thought in the mind of naturalistic human minds. If indeed evil could be more than just a thought and was something that could be quantified by a measuring unit or law of the universe, then my point would be wrong. If we are defining evil by our own standards, then we could be wrong if the source has another definition of evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.186.178 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree the "Problem of Evil" is a logical fallacy. A logically valid argument must be qualitatively definable and universal in respect to the truth of its claim(s).
 * (Example: the "Problem of Dogs" is sometimes dogs bark and disturb humans.) There is no disputing the qualities of barking dogs and the truth of their disturbance. Yet there is no universal quality of "Evil". The only arguable consistency of evil is it is universally sought to be agreed upon as "undesirable". Let us be sure of our standards before we make any claim of their morality. A reinforcing statement such as, "a moral standard can only originate from a judgmental source", is applicable. 4musatov (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing how to edit the article page, not for airing your personal views on the topic; please see WP:TALK. If you're proposing that the article should be amended to say that the problem of evil is a logical fallacy because different people might define 'evil' differently, you may want to check the leading sources on the topic; you might find that the topic is not what you think it is. As always, remember that all we do here is summarize authoritative sources; see WP:TRUTH. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well the article ignores sources which point out that evil is actually NOT often defined by theism especially monotheism. Theism only cares about topics of alliance or in the case of monotheism its a matter of obedience (e.g. classically when Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son on the altar). Because of course issues of theism are supposed to be above judgement by human understanding.
 * So add at least one section that cites authorities discussing that "evil" actually means opposition to key principles of a given social system -- especially that social system which is currently in power locally. Thus war between two nations holding similar religion can and does occur with judgements of evil cast back and forth. Valid accusations from each relative position because in fact the societies do oppose key social principles of each other...because religion only shapes part of how and why a society forms.
 * Further link to theistic philosophy and (limited) supporting script that points that life (and good) might literally depend on the existence of evil similar to the physical universe in which physical life cannot exist without entropy (without entropy the universe becomes a lifeless still photography or endless unvarying time loop).
 * Attempting conclusive arguments about evil solely from Judaism-Christianity-Islam core text is a particularly depressing bootstrap argument. And its not much better with Hindu-Buddahism which is mostly "karma (doing good/evil) may take many lifetimes to show an effect". If Wikipedia insists on confining the topic to core religious material, at least bring in American Indian thinking as it adds some amusing observations to a generally depressing atheist discussion of "why can't everyone get what they want" and "if I was God at least I would get what I want and decide who gets screwed".

70.114.157.140 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitions do matter. I have now added a definition that is solely secular and represents the contemporary scholarly discussion with due weight.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Groguyoda is blocked from editing
According to his talk page, is blocked from editing WP. Thank you to and to  and to  for keeping a vigilant eye on all those who would hijack our encyclopedia for their own ends. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

POV Flag
I put a POV flag on the article. The article has numerous POV problems. Namely several sections spend more time arguing against the point than they do describing it. Really they just give a basic overview of the point, and then go into depths arguing why that is wrong. I tried to change a couple simple cases with simple fixes, but got reverted each time. Looking at the recent edit history, it seems there is a pattern of new edits being immediately reverted, so it is obvious the problem is deeper than just a few bad sections.Parmenides475 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening the discussion. In the edit I reverted, "some" was substituted for "most" when the source clearly said "most".  As for the other change, it seemed to introduce false balance (WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YESPOV, we usually don't present the mainstream view of scholars or tertiary reliable sources as only personal opinion).  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your logic is identical to this: "our source says one plus one equals three, so since our source says it, you can't change that, and the article must continue to say one plus one equals three although you are free to find another source that says something else so we can add to the article that other people say one plus one equals two." "Most" scholars don't say that same thing about that point. "Most" scholars haven't commented at all on this topic, so "Most scholars who have commented on this topic" would be a less inaccurate way to say it, but even then, "most scholars who have commented on this topic" would not agree with what the statement says, let alone would have repeated it. We don't even know that the source being cited says "most scholars" say this, and if it does, we don't know the context or if there is some other mitigating factor to what the source was saying. Even if there wasn't, a source that says something false cannot be quoted and cited on an article here. But I know that when editors are automatically reverting everything, any edit is pointless. The systemic problems on this article, along with my experience and the fact that the norm here appears to be that other editors get automatically reverted, means that this is a bigger problem. This article is filled with far greater problems than what I tried to fix, and since it is obvious that I, or the other editors who have come here will not be allowed to fix the article, I put up the pov flag.Parmenides475 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which experience? You appear to only have made your first edit a few days ago.  Wikipedia cannot be used for original research or synthesis (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, so we can't ourselves start reviewing the literature).  Because of this we use reliable sources which already did (secondary or tertiary), and summarize those.  When two prominent sources or scholars disagree, we can of course summarize both one after the other.  If they disagree because of history (developments in a field), then a historical section can summarize the topic's history as well, of course.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding: since noone else replied since, if you still disagree we could request a third opinion or open a thread at a public noticeboard like WP:NPOVN. Consensus is of course not a two-editors thing...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about original research? For one, we don't even know what the actual source says. I checked it out, and it is an online book behind a paywall. If you have access to the pages in this book that are used to cite this, please, show us exactly what it says. So one obvious issue is that some editor at some point in the past claimed something and added a citation for that. We don't know what the source said, what the context was, etc. So you are claiming that we just can't challenge secondary sources, but we aren't even to that point yet since we don't know what this particular secondary source says. Secondly, whatever it says, this particular claim is manifestly false. Most scholars I have read on the topic, and I have read many, take the view that this section says "most scholars" disagree with. Maybe that doesn't mean "most" take the view I have usually seen, but it certainly does mean "most" don't take the opposite view. The problem with the word "most" is that it makes a very substantial point that, but then this is easy to disprove by showing more than a fringe group disagrees. "Some" or perhaps even "many" wouldn't be so absurd, but then that is what my edits were that got automatically reverted multiple times. Whatever the source says, saying something that is manifestly false makes the statement here invalid. But again, I doubt the source even says what the words say that claim the source supports. But then this gets to the larger problem with this article. It is largely a series of polemics against the series of arguments it claims to describe. At best, these sections look like a debate section. Though in many cases the criticisms of the points are longer and more detailed than what the sections are trying to describe. Really, it is POV, with the article trying to tell us why these points are wrong, and not doing what the article should be doing, describing the points. Criticisms should be reserved for a criticism section. The fact that the history of this article has serial reversions of most minor edits that are made over a long period of time involving many editors means that the problem with this article is more systemic, and what I am pointing to is only the tip of the iceberg. The fact that such minor changes triggered such an immediate backlash for me, and for many other editors, means that this problem is more than something I can fix myself. Parmenides475 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I just listened to the entire article read out loud with an ear toward POV issues. Overall it seems relatively neutral, so I removed the POV tag from the whole article. However, I agree that some of the specific issued raised by Parmenides475 above are legitimate POV questions. Most scholars criticize the skeptical theism defense as "devaluing the suffering" is a.) a bit weird in that it appears to attribute the same words to a lot of different people and b.) dangling on the edge of a POV with "most scholars", which without further elaboration implies that these scholars should simply be believed because the others are not even worth mentioning. Given the depth of discussion on the topic, there must be some scholars that have a response to that criticism, and that should be explained here, too. I tagged this as request quotation because I agree it would be a good idea to start with assessing what the cited source actually says; it might not be making such a problematic claim. Even better would be if we can attribute this view to specific named scholars.

The phrase This explanation does not completely address the problem of evil, is clearly Wikipedia taking a position that this criticism is valid, which is definitely POV. This should be attributed; is it Michael Lacewing who holds this view, perhaps among others? Actually, this criticism is repeated (without qualification or attribution) further down in this section, so I think with a little rearranging I can just eliminate the problematic sentence. The next paragraph is also out of logical order. -- Beland (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fixing the order of things let me fix the POV problem. Now I think we just need a quote from the tagged source for verification of that. -- Beland (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am deleting this sentence which has been tagged as dubious: Most scholars agree that Plantinga's free will of human and non-human spirits (demons) argument successfully solves the logical problem of evil, proving that God and evil are logically compatible. It is sourced to page 163 of this book. I have read the page, and it contains absolutely no mention of spirits or demons.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * starship .paint  Looks like someone put it back.  This whole section is kind of like that - a pitiful explanation of Plantinga's actual philosophy - so I am redoing it. I will keep the arguments against it that are valid, add one more I think, and hopefully describe the actual argument with more accuracy, clarity and RS. It will take me a couple of days. Plantinga's pretty dense reading. I've waded through it before but I'll take a deeper plunge this time.  I'll be back with something I hope you will feel good about signing off on! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - I don't see where it has been added back? Anyway I actually know very little about this topic, I just happened to check a dubious claim as flagged in the article.  starship .paint  (exalt) 01:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)