Talk:Problem of evil

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject icon Christianity : Theology Mid‐importance

This article is substantially duplicated in one or more external publications. Since these publication(s) copied Wikipedia, rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Lian Li Bora Digital Installation (2021), omnibenevolent omnipotent, omniscient 2021 Additional comments The article listed above was published in 2021. This article was begun on Wikipedia in 2001. Please note this article retains WP's citation numbers and forms without including any of the actual references.

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Protest Atheism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Protest Atheism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

A recent addition to the lead claims that most scholars believe the problem of evil has been "fully rebutted" by Plantinga; but none of the sources support this wording. The only one that really says anything close is Meister, who uses "sufficiently rebutted" instead (and the wording is extremely central to his argument, since he specifically says that the existence of doubt is enough to undercut it; "fully rebutted" misuses him as a source.) The other two sources are even worse; Howard-Snyder and O'Leary-Hawthorne note that Plantinga has been well-received, but say nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as it being a accepted as a "full rebuttal" (indeed, they go on to critique it!) And Alston mentions Plantinga only in passing, in a way that could not possibly be interpreted the way it's said here; furthermore, his basic thesis (which, again, is not about Plantinga at all and therefore could not be used to cite the glowing reception of Plantinga asserted here) directly contradicts it, saying that It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt, but the inductive argument is still very much alive and kicking (emphasis mine.) Meister alone is obviously not leadworthy, and collectively these sources don't support the idea of any sort of unity on the topic. It seems to me like these sources have been repeatedly reused and the language slowly made more severe over time by people who didn't actually take the time to verify them. --Aquillion (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All I care is that the sources are well-represented. Thanks for taking a second look at them. Remsense .. 论 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The lead doesn't say Plantinga? He's certainly one of the popular ones, sure, but the lead doesn't say that. Also, Alston does broadly support that statement with: "It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt". The inductive problem is irrelevant, because the sentence at issue explicitly says "most philosophers see the logical problem of evil (aka, not the inductive/evidential) as having been generally rebutted by various defenses." I agree that the body statement is a little Plantinga-specific though. Just10A (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I adjusted the wording to better reflect the sources. As for Snyder/Hawthorne, literally the first sentence of the paper is "It used to be widely held by philosophers that God and evil are incompatible. Not any longer." and immediately quotes another that says "it is fair to say Plantinga has solved this problem." The fact that they offer their own critique is not relevant here (unless we want to include their own attributed opinion) because they acknowledge from the get-go that they are in the minority and what the broad consensus seems to be, and that's what the sentence is concerned with. The solution here is certainly just to minorly adjust the wording to better suit the sources as opposed to just removing it wholesale. Just10A (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"Widely held and isn't any longer" doesn't paraphrase to generally rebutted, it translates to "the issue is now questionable." And it's misusing Alston as a source to directly cut a sentence from him in half and paraphrase only half of it - why do you consider only half of that sentence to be worth noting? Likewise, the text in the body, which you restored, inaccurately said that Alston credited Plantinga; neither does it make sense to say that two sources state the logical part was rebutted at the top of the criticism section, since it isn't criticism, so I'm unclear as to why you want to move it back into the criticism section. Either way, the numerous problems (Snyder/Hawthorne completely failing to reflect the text you added to the lead in any reasonable way, and Alston being misused by directly cutting a sentence in half and only using half of it) obviously leave the one remaining source undue for the lead. You saw something inaccurate in the body that you thought was leadworthy; now that the problems with its sourcing have been pointed out, the thing to do is to slow down and reconsider its place and prominence in the body, not to immediately rush to put it back into the lead again. Especially given that numerous people have objected to your addition to the lead on multiple grounds, including @Micahtchi:, who added a tag you removed without properly verifying the underlying issue; @Daveparslow: and @Zefr:, who reasonably objected to the language but didn't think to check the sources to note that they failed to support it, and multiple IPs. You've reverted your poorly-sourced addition back into the lead four times ([1] [2] [3] [4]) in addition to removing the tags; it's time to actually slow down and talk to the people who object before restoring it again. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You fundamentally misunderstand multiple aspects:

1.) "Likewise, the text in the body, which you restored, inaccurately said that Alston credited Plantinga; neither does it make sense to say that two sources state the logical part was rebutted at the top of the criticism section, since it isn't criticism, so I'm unclear as to why you want to move it back into the criticism section. This is just showing you didn't even look at the page. It's not in the "criticism" section (which I believe you mean "critique section," because there is no "criticism section" there. Again, clearly not even looking at the page). The section was renamed "Discussion" to better represent the content, so it doesn't need to be moved. Additionally, your edit didn't even move all of the "non-criticisms" out, some still remained, which is what made it a better fix. Again, I agreed the body text was overly Plantinga specific, and that can be addressed.

2.) "And it's misusing Alston as a source to directly cut a sentence from him in half and paraphrase only half of it - why do you consider only half of that sentence to be worth noting? No it's not. The sentence in the lead is about the logical problem, and Alston's statement supports it. As for his commentary on the inductive problem, there's nothing wrong with including that as well. We can, but that's a separate issue. But the idea that his statement doesn't support the text regarding the logical problem is so crazy it that would legitimately borderWP:CIR issues.

3.) I'm one of the pages only editors, I followed tag procedure for the tag and addressed any issues and made changes as they were raised, as in here. Nor am I the only editor who's restored/supported that language. This page is sprawling and far from perfect, it can certainly be improved. But your changes of removing it completely is simply not supported by the sources. The statement is clearly supported by all 3 (now that fully was removed).

I'm reverting both your and my recent edits per basic WP:NOCON and WP:QUO procedure, in addition to just removing "fully" as that seems to not be in contention. We can discuss better statements here if need be. Just10A (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The "Evil" subsection in the "Definitions" section seems to be written with the intent to restrict the definition of "evil" to only certain acts of "moral agents", but it does so without sufficient justification. It suggests a false dichotomy where the definition of evil is considered to be either all pain and suffering, or otherwise restricted only to acts by moral agents. Even if one accepts that some pain or suffering is necessary, that does not mean that all pain and suffering caused outside of the actions of moral agents is necessary.

The example used to eliminate the so-called "broadest" definition, the apparent fact that pain aids survival, fails in multiple ways. First, it incorrectly presupposes that pain is necessary for survival. An omnipotent and omniscient deity could reasonably be expected to have the ability to intervene to prevent harm in all cases where pain would otherwise be necessary. Furthermore, some pain does nothing to prevent death or in any way lessen other forms of suffering. In such cases an omnipotent and omniscient deity could reasonably be expected to have the ability to intervene to prevent such pain. Finally, the existence of maladaptive pain responses means that pain can sometimes cause additional harm, rather than prevent it or reduce it.

The other justification for a narrower definition of "evil" is the cited quote stating that contemporary philosophers are concerned with evil in "a narrower sense". It then improperly cites a different source from a different author to claim that this "narrower sense" applies only to moral agents. It is not at all clear that the restrictions considered by both authors are identical. I also see no particular reason to restrict definitions based on the interests of contemporary philosophers, as the audience for this article is likely not only those interested in contemporary philosophical debate.

I suggest the removal of any attempt to restrict the definition of "evil" in this section. It should be sufficient to note that multiple definitions have been used and to provide some of the more notable definitions with proper citations. If some "broadest" definition defines a set for which all other definitions define subsets, then this should be mentioned as well.

If a particular response to the problem of evil relies on a particular restriction of the definition of "evil", then this should be mentioned as a premise to that response. Perhaps a separate section focusing on arguments for and against a particular restriction of the definition of "evil" is warranted to simplify other sections. Smoclon (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"An omnipotent and omniscient deity...to intervene to prevent harm" Omnipotent and omniscient does not mean that the deity is benevolent or concerned with the well-being of others. To borrow a theme from the genre of Lovecraftian horror: "Here horror derives from the realization that human interests, desires, laws and morality have no meaning or significance in the universe-at-large." Most of the alien entities/deities in the genre are not evil, but they are not at all concerned whether humanity survives or not. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Some theologians frame this is the "problem of unnecessary suffering." Hyperbolick (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Indeed, one response to the problem of evil is to reject the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. My main concern is in improving the article. Specifically, I came here to learn about various responses to this problem and found that the article seems to make unnecessary restrictions for poor reasons. Before making major changes to the definitions section, I decided to make a comment in the talk page to see if anyone would object, although I probably should have been more clear about this. I will probably change it when I find some time.Smoclon (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We go off of what sources say. Our personal analyses are, unfortunately, irrelevant. You would need to provide better sourcing that provides a different definition/framework regarding the problem of evil. Just10A (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Just10A: The William C. Lane article already cited on the page provides such a broader example, fanously using the illustration of a fawn caught in a forest fire as an example of the unnecessary suffering which calls into question divine benevolence. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) I take no issue with any of the sourced claims. In fact, any rewrite could easily keep most of the section's content. (削除ここまで) (Edit: I take that back. The very first cited source in that section completely contradicts the current formulation of the section by stating "Evil in the broad sense... tends to be the sort of evil referenced in theological contexts, such as in discussions of the problem of evil." The section will probably need more major revisions than I anticipated.)

The errors I mention are made here on Wikipedia, not in the reference material. I was only trying to determine if there was any particular reason that it was written this way before I make changes that significantly alter the implications in this section. I don't believe I've seen anything in that regard, so I'll make those changes. Rest assured that I do not intend to include my personal analysis within the article. Any personal analysis was only to demonstrate the flaws in the article as it's currently written.Smoclon (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it is an extreme oversimplification to say that Jews in general believe G-d to be omnibenevolent. Jewish mysticism, which has been a major influence in Jewish philosophy since the middle ages and especially since becoming mainstream because of organizations like Chabad would not all describe G-d as omnibenevolent, as that would limit Him. In the Zohar* (oops I meant Sefer Yetzirah) for example, G-d is described as "a depth of good" AND "a depth of evil" (ie, encompassing the entire moral compass, because He is G-d and isn't confined to one attribute).

In general, it is better to assume that there is not a consensus (2 Jews 3 opinions) on a Jewish topic (as there usually isn't) and very bad practice to haphazardly lump Jewish opinion in with other monotheistic religions without doing the appropriate research from Jewish sources. Haplodiploid75 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The very first source of the page references the Jewish view, and the source next to the sentence you're referring to includes Judaism. I suppose if you found sources regarding the PoE that echoed what you said it could be adjusted, but overall this isn't a huge issue for the article. The article mainly focuses on the philosophical commentary of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, as that is what's common. Which religions or minority sects that commentary applies to is barely talked about in the article in the first place. If there are sources that say the PoE isn't relevant to Judaism though, that could be inclusion-worthy. The sentence is speaking very broadly though so it's mostly a non-issue imo. Just10A (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There's also more commentary about the Jewish perspective here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_responses_to_the_problem_of_evil#Judaism. Just10A (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Non-identity theodicy is a key (and more recently developed) theodicy that is currently missing. It employs Kripkean metaphysics and has been defended and espoused by Scott Hill and Vince Vitale. GreenRedGreen (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]