Talk:Problem of evil

"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)

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)

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.<ref name="larrimore">Mark Joseph Larrimore, (2001), ''The Problem of Evil'', pages xix-xxi. Wiley-Blackwell</ref> 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.<ref>Reinhold F. Glei, ''Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13,20-21'', in: ''Vigiliae Christianae'' 42 (1988), p. 47-58</ref>" -- 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.

Most people who read Job do not realize that the book as it has come down to us today is the product of at least two different authors, and that these different authors had different, and contradictory, understandings of why it is that people suffer. Most important, the way the story begins and ends–with the prose narrative of the righteous suffering of Job, whose patient endurance unter duress is rewarded by God–stands at odds with the poetic dialogues that take up most of the book, in which Job is not patient but defiant and in which God does not reward the one he has made to suffer but overpowers him and grinds him into submission. These are two different views of suffering, and to understand the book we have to understand its two different messages.

— Bart D. Ehrman, God’s Problem. How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer, page 162-163

Moreover, the prose folktale indicates that God deals with his people according to their merit, whereas the entire point of the poetry is that he does not do that–and is not bound to do so. […] in the prose narrative, suffering comes as a test of faith …

— Bart D. Ehrman, God’s Problem. How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question –Why We Suffer, page 164

In the poetic dialogues, there are different answers for different figures involved: for Job’s so-called friends, suffering comes as a punishment for sin (this view appears to be rejected by the narrator). Job himself […] cannot figure out a reason for innocent suffering. And God, who appears at the end of the poetic exchanges, refuses to give a reason. It appears that for this author, the answer to innocent suffering is that there is no answer.

— Bart D. Ehrman, God’s Problem. How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question –Why We Suffer, page 172-173

-- 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)

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)

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)