Talk:Theodicy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Theodicy and omnipotence

I don't get it:

Theodicy is unnecessary if one rejects the view that God is omnipotent. ... God is said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion.

How is acting through persuasion a rejection of omnipotence?

Take, for example a hypothetical on-line community ruled by an all-knowing, all-powerful benevolent dictator called Gumbo. While he may be very tolerant of ethics violations by contributors, Gumbo can revert any edit and even exile a contributor at any time.

Just because Gumbo declines to _exercise_ his supreme power, doesn't mean he doesn't _have_ it.

We still must ask, why does Gumbo allow contributors to write with colored chalk (which is clearly evil)? Does he not review Recent Changes? Does he not care? Is Gumbo not really omnipotent?

I think the quoted text begs the question. I'm inclined to delete it or modify it heavily -- and I pray that the Great Wailing Gumbo doesn't zap me for it! --Ed Poor

Ed, I think you make an important point about the second clause, but you may misunderstand it -- I do not think the sentence means to claim that God is not all powerful because He acts through persuasion, but rather that IF God is not omnipotent, He can act only through persuasion. In other words, I do not really agree with your critique, but I do think you are right that the sentence is not that clear. To your comments I would add this: I can understand why one might think that the belief that God is not omnipotent renders theodicy unnecessary. But I ask: isn't the claim that God is not omnipotent itself a "theodicy?" --Slrubenstein

SR, if the claim that God is not omnipotent qualifies as a theodicy, then the article needs to be revised, since at present it says just the opposite. (I honestly don't know what the technical definition of 'theodicy' is or ought to be.) Ed, the claim that God is not omnipotent is made in order to "excuse" God for not preventing all evil, not to preserve free will. That position also preserves free will as a side effect. As you point out, free will can also be preserved if God is omnipotent but chooses to allow us free will. Is that any clearer? --Wesley 17:59 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)

No, LOL, due to "the idiocy" of the reader (me)! --Ed Poor

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with this sentence: "In short, in order to guarantee that humanity has free will, God is not omnipotent". That implies that theologies which reject omnipotence do so solely in order to dissolve the problem of theodicy, whereas it is possible that the theodicy question is resolved only as a byproduct of the rejection of omnipotence. In Kushner's case, I might believe that he rejects omnipotence to rescue God from the problem of evil, but I'm not sure that the same can be said of process theology, where there is a whole complex metaphysics involved which just happens to have a non-omnipotent God. --soulpatch

The first sentence of the paragraph states: "Theodicy is unnecessary if one rejects the view that God is omnipotent." This thought is then carried forward in the second sentence that Ed quotes. I guess to me the second sentence follows from the first, and I'm not sure I see the problem. The point of process theology is not that God chooses not to intervene directly in the world, but that God cannot intervene in the world because God does not have that power. That is a good question, though, if saying that God is not omnipotent is itself a theodicy. But the entire problem of evil evaporates if God is not omnipotent, so I guess the question is whether a "theodicy" inherently assumes that the problem of evil exists because of divine attributes and must be worked around, or is simply any solution that might be offered to it, including one that eliminates one of the divine attributes. All the other "theodicies" traditionally assume that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, don't they? Or do they? --soulpatch

Thanks, soulpatch. You said what I had on the tip of my tongue but due to theo-idiocy could not articulate. :-) I'm trying to distinguish between:

1. God is omnipotent, and can stop bad things from happening but rarely does (except for a few miracles here and there): He chooses to rely on persuasion; or
2. God isn't omnipotent -- although He sure is strong! -- and cannot stop bad people from doing evil, even if He wanted to: He's forced to rely on persuasion.

--Ed Poor

Ed, I'm not sure that I would even use the word "strong" to describe God under process theology, but I think we are in essential agreement on the issues involved. I think the idea that God can stop bad things but rarely does is something that various theodicies try to explain (why does God choose to stop some things but not others). That is the whole point of theodicy. But theologies that reject omnipotence altogether don't need to address that question. --soulpatch

Just as an aside, changing other divine attributes leads to interesting variations. If we assume that God is omni-evil rather than omnibenevolent, than we have the "problem of good" rather than the "problem of evil". (If God is so evil, how come there's so much good in the world?) If we assume that God is not omniscient, then one could probably argue that God is also not omnipotent, since God's power could not be applied to any "blind spot" unknown to Him. Then the "problem of evil" also goes away. So speaking as a layman, it appears that the only "interesting" or at all involved theodicies have to explain evil assuming all three divine attributes; otherwise it's too easy to explain. :-) --Wesley 18:14 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)

I get this question from my students a lot. The problem lies in confusing God as self-limiting and God as limited. To say that God acts through persuasion rather then through coercion is to make a very strong claim about God (as Hartshorne, Griffin, Whitehead, and others do): God can't act through coercion. It's not that God can and chooses not to (self-limitation); it's that God cannot act through force, God is not omni-potent, does not have all power. Or, as it is often put, "God can do everything it is possible to do," though forcing another being to act contrary to its will simply isn't possible (without a gun, drugs, or Jedi mind powers). SO God is no omnipotent, and things happen all the time that God not only does not will, but would will to be otherwise if God could. Now, this may or may no be a view one likes, but make no mistake, those theologians (of which I am one) who claim that Platonic/Aristotelian concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience are deeply unbiblical and unChristian are, in fact, denying that God can act in this way. Your situation, wherein Gumbo can edit anytime he wants, is self-limitation, not lack of power. In the argument at hand, however, God doesn't have edit power over anything, though God is involved in every stroke that gets typed, and does all God can to persuade rather than coerce a good/virtuous/you-name-it outcome. Within the Christian tradition, on this rejection of omnipotence the Cross is interpreted as the supreme example of God "taking a loss" as it were, showing once and for all that powerlessness is at the heart of the Godhead, and making a way possible for human actors to join in this powerlessness and in so doing join in the act of God in the world - it's a radical redefinition of power, if you think about what the world today looks at as power, and hence it's no wonder it's not all that popular. This is what it means to say that God is not omniscient, as opposed to saying that God self-limits. The former says God can't - the latter, that God can but chooses not to. We find the former far more ethical (and more consistent with the biblically Jewish roots of the tradition, actually), but that's another debate altogether.Morgaledth 02:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nature of Theodicy

My knowledge of theodicy is limited to Jewish theology AND based on stuff I studied a long time ago -- so I hesitate to make changes to the article. BUT I have real problems with the definition given in this article:

A theodicy is a theory about why an omnipotent God allows evil to exist in the world. In other words, a theodicy contains speculations about God's actual purposes in allowing evil to exist in the world.

which strikes me as way too narrow. My understanding of theodicy is that it is concerned NOT with God's purpose in allowing evil to exist, but fundamentally concerned with the nature of God. Most theologies assert that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and good. How do we reconcile this with the existence of pain and suffering in the world? The approach of this article seems too limited -- to trying to justify evil in the world. But I thought theodicies deal with the other side of the equation, to question whether God is all-knowing + all+powerful + good. I do not believe that assuming that God is omnipotent is a precondition of theodicy (thus I do not think that claiming God is not omnipotent absolves us of the need of theodicy, to make this claim about God's nature is only possible if one takes theodicy seriously in the first place).

This is an extended answer to Wesley's question concerning my initial comment. But it also clarifies a more basic problem I have with the article. PLEASE, can people out there who have actually studied theodicies either correct me, or the article? --Slrubenstein

You are correct in your definition of theodicy. It is more commonly defined by the question "Why does a good God allow evil to exist?" At the heart of this question are fundamental struggles as to the nature of God; is he omnipotent, omnipresent, and even good? Theodicy is not about defining why evil can exist in the world - this result is a byproduct of the concerted search into the nature of God.

God's omnipotence is a fundamental requirement of theodicy, since lacking this component allows for the simplest answer to the problem of evil. If good does not have absolute power, then he may simply not be able to control evil. A bigger question to ask is how does human free will play into the concept of theodicy and how this interacts with concepts of omnipotence and goodness. The answers to this particular question are very dependent on religious ideology.

--DaBrov

I'm not completely certain myself, but I've heard a better definition from elsewhere - a theodicy is a defense of a theist [or an atheist] argument which implies the knowledge of the divine when one cannot proffer it. --casual reviewer from the outside

okaaay, in what way is that definition better? And who coined it? And what does it mean? As general clean-up of this article, I suggest the traditional definition be used and that accepted definition is how does one explain evil if one believe God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Majority space should be given to formulas that hold those 2 beliefs to be true. Minority space can be given to formulas that deny one or both statements. Everything else should go to another article. NPOV will be ruthlessly enforced and apologies in advance to all who disagree with my idea of what is NPOV or encyclopedic. Remember, reversals are only a click away! If anyone disagrees with above clean-up plan, please say so quickly. This article has been on the Cleanup backlog since August 2005. Caroline1008 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism

I'd like to offer the following comment on the point of view of the current article. The writer says:

"These explanations [theodicies] are themselves contradictory and hypocritical, and require their own further explanations, none of which is particularly satisfying. Hence the compounded tower."

The article seems to imply that some combinaton of reason, sensory experience, and scientific method may be free of such contradictions and hypocracies. But I think that the writer underestimates the power of skepticism.

David Hume, who is cited in the article, argued persuasively that reason and sensory experience are as vulnerable to doubt as the existence of God. Scientific method rests on assumptions that are no more provable or self-evident than the existence of God. And the Epicurean argument rests on being able to define good and evil, a task which is not noticably easier to do without contradictions in an atheistic or agnostic framework.

If theodicy is, as the article says, tarnished, so are most world views, short of a nihilism that would leave nothing to tarnish. --Anonymous

POV on perceived hypocrisy

God's nature can be deciphered indirectly from his words and deeds. A God that says "thou shalt not kill" and then orders the conquest and annihilation of the inhabitants of a land God says belongs to "his people," a God that punishes people not for being evil but merely for failing to adore him "appropriately," a God (in essence) who says one thing and does another in a flagrant hypocritical fashion yet claims to be the source of all morality, cannot be deemed a "good" God by any stretch of the imagination. Much of the effort associated with theodicy is employed in the service of "making God good" despite all this, because that's the belief they want to "prove." Needless to say, this is not an honest rigorous approach to analyzing the nature of God.

While I'm inclined to agree, I don't think this is quite neutral in tone. :-) --Evercat 23:02, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is the lack of neutral POV the issue with this paragraph? How can we make this statement in a way that complies with neutral POV? Perhaps the following (rough draft):

Part of the problem of theodicy is in deciphering what God's nature really is. Some say God is ineffable, and thus the problem becomes unsolvable. Others cite documentation of God's nature from their religious texts, and present a picture of God as benevolent from these texts. Still others note a level of hypocrisy in these very texts, questioning whether a God that (for example) says "thou shalt not kill" and then orders the conquest and annihilation of the inhabitants of a land God says belongs to "his people," that punishes people not for being evil but merely for failing to adore him "appropriately," a God (in essence) who says one thing and does another, can be deemed "good".

The very question of theodicy implies that there is a contradiction in place: to our eyes, it makes no sense that a truly benevolent omnipotent God would allow evil, hence we try to figure why it would be the case that he does. To some degree, much of the effort associated with theodicy is employed in the service working backwards from the desired conclusion that God is good to "prove" that he is.

--Craig zimmerman 16:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Existence of God ...

At this point ... the article is almost entirely composed of a very detailed account of the history of arguments for the existence of God. As of this morning, however, the article did not contain a single theodicy. I would like to propose moving all the arguments about the existence of God to the appropriate page, leave a general summary hear, and then allow this page to focus on its proper title -- THEODICY -- any objections? --Ungtss 21:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strange paragraph

I was just a bit bothered by the obvious bias of the article. I didn't look this up to get the writer's judgment of theodicy, but rather to understand the concept of theodicy. Telling me that it is all about "making up" reasons that God could be omnipotent is remarkably presumptive and a tad righteous. Regardless, I don't think it's relevant. Tell me what theodicy is. Tell me the arguments and ideas surrounding it. Don't give me your opinions or declare the concept somehow invalid. It's a waste of everyone's time. --Anonymous

I'd best correct myself. I've noticed, upon further inspection, a distinct change in writing style in the offending paragraph. It does not invalidate the article that an angry person decided to throw in his two cents. I don't care for the paragraph, for it contributes nothing, but I don't feel comfortable editing the article myself. --Anonymous

Looks like you changed your mind about editing the article. I'd have made the change myself if I'd noticed that paragraph - thanks for doing it. Name-calling does not an NPOV article make. By the way, it is helpful if you sign your posts on talk pages by adding -~~~~ to the end of them. --Seth Mahoney 22:16, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Note regarding source

This is just a note to record that the public domain material is from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Theodicy", copyrighted in 1912 and now in the public domain. --Anonymous

Benevolent

I've just replaced all the occurrences of 'omnibenevolent' with 'benevolent' (the term that has always been used in the literature of both philosophy & theology, and that's perfectly adequate). I'm not sure where 'omnibenevolent' crept in from; all my students started using it a few years ago, and I checked at the time but found no mention in any of the reading. It's presumably used because people feel that, after all the other omnis, 'benevolent' on its own looks bare. I haven't looked, but I'm sure that Google's full of it (in two senses). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your point is wholly pedantic, but since my sources are split on the issue, I won't change it back. --Franc28 21:33, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

'Benevolent' sounds better and is more generally accepted/understood anyway. --maru 17:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

its not pedantry. a completely benevolent God could not allow any suffering whatsoever. Everything would exist in its own, personal state of heaven, or nirvana from its creation or cause or whatever. if God were omni-benevolent, and all-knowing, and all-powerful, He simply wouldn't be capable of allowing any beneficiary to suffer. it is assumed that every existent thing is one of God's beneficiaries. here, pain and suffering become permissable only in terms of "God's plan" or "pre-established harmonies". an omni-benevolent God couldn't just do the best thing "over all" (a merely benevolent one can), an omni-benevolent God would have to use any power and knowledge He had to correct injustices and give the greatest advantage to his beneficiaries, He can't favour one over the other. so cannot allow the abuse or exploitation of one by the other, clearly this happens, hence the necessity of theodicy, and the almost universal, not-quite-inherent interest of humanity in what the future holds, and how to make it brighter and how better to understand the universe and "where" it's going. An omni-benevolent God cannot allow any suffering or pain to that which He is benevolent (i.e. everything existent). He cannot even allow those beneficiaries to conflict with each other, unless that is to their best advantage. perhaps it is, but why would He make us feel "bad" and suffer while we were achieving that best advantage? there is a radical difference between a "good" or benevolent being, and a being taht can do no wrong by anything (implied by omni-benevolence). at least, that's what i think. to the best of my knowledge this contain's no copyright infringement, but i'm not claiming any originality of thought. ev

Theodicy Definition

In light of the fact that Merriam-Webster defines theodicy as "defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil," and with the data that there are about 4248 words in this article that are dedicated to either attacking or weakening God, and only about 2501 that are dedicated to defending God (see definition of theodicy) I think this article is rather biased, and could use a major overhaul.

Since theodicy is a form of apologetics, that should be the main thrust of this article, I believe. Instead, it comes across as strongly against theodicy and God, which I don't think is a standard tone for an encyclopedic article to take. I think the goal should be to educate the reader on the major approaches, not present a long litany of antitheistic bias. Also, I think it's possible to present the main approaches in an unemotional manner, and still give a sense of the major opposing viewpoints. But this article does not do that. How can one write an article on theodicy, and barely even mention Augustine? Somehow, more words are spent on relational logic than on Augustine(?)

According to the Catholic encyclopedia, "The first and most important task of theodicy is to prove the existence of God." This article seems to be attempting the reverse. I think most of the antitheistic material should be broken off into a separate, but related article, maybe listed under the Evidential Arguments from Evil. Alternatively, it needs to be fleshed out with a lot more positive content, because it does not even mention or discuss some of the well-known arguments. There is far too much negative bias to call this an article about the "justification of God." --Anonymous

So basically you're asking for a biased religious analysis of the subject, based on a loading of the word specifically promoted by theologians. Somehow, I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It also seems to me that attempting to philosophically justify genocide and mass murder is rather offensive, and also not in accordance with Wikipedia policies. --Franc28 02:16, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the existence of God is the orthodox opinion. So it makes sense that more time would be spent delineating criticisms of orthodoxy than in defending it. --maru 17:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed the following paragraph:

``Perhaps a better analogy is that of a prison warden, call him Bill, who hires a guard, Chuck, to execute a condemned rapist and murderer, Spike. Now suppose that Chuck derives some perverse pleasure from killing Spike, and Bill knows this. Does this involve Bill in the evil of Chuck's action? Not unless either the action of killing Spike is evil in itself (which it is not), or Bill shares the same purpose as Chuck (gratification of some perverse desire) in killing Spike (which he does not). In fact Bill's choice to hire Chuck might even be quite moral in certain circumstances, e.g., if Chuck and his family would starve without the job.``

I do not think it is really appropriate to describe the death penalty as "not evil in itself". Since this is only used as an example (and does not constitute an argument on the goodness or evilness of the acts in question), I think it's a good idea to stick to examples that everyone will agree upon. Anyway, this paragraph really repeats the point that was made in the previous one. --UnHoly 18:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed personal essay

I've removed the following essay from this article and from Problem of evil, and placed it on both Talk pages. It contains much in the way of editorial comment, would need copy-editing, and over-emphasises one fairly minor contribution to the debate, but it contains material that could be incorporated into one or the other article:

One Solution in Modern Philosophy

One solution to the conclusion that evil provides a basis for the rejection of the existence of a theistic God that can be found in modern philosophy runs as follows. Nelson Pike in his essay entitled Hume on Evil makes an extremely incisive observation, namely that the ‘Problem of Evil’, as it is normally posited, is a poorly formulated. He asserts that in fact the Epicurian statement is not in fact logically inconsistent; and therefore that it is not inconceivable that evil could exist alongside the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent deity. Pike gives the example of a parents giving a child a bitter medicine in order to better the health as an instance where it could be conceived that the child’s suffering (and therefore by analogy ‘evil’) could be understood as morally justifiable. Therefore rendering the ‘evil’ itself viable for a benevolent God on account of the fact that this benevolence is in fact maintained in the long run, if it could be asserted that there was a morally sufficient reason for this evil to have come about. The Epicurian formulation (or in Pike’s case, Hume’s restatement of it) thus needs to have a further premise added to it in order for it to be set of logically inconsistent. This Pike concludes is that a being who is omnipotent and omniscient would have no morally sufficient reason for allowing instances of evil. The newly understood problem would thus read.

(I) The world is a creation of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good.

(II) The world contains evil.

(III) A Being who is omnipotent and omniscient would have no morally sufficient reason for allowing instances of evil.

These three statements, when held together, Pike concludes are logically inconsistent. Furthermore if one of the premises is removed then the other to can be held to be true. Pike therefore importantly asserts that in order for the problem of evil to really pose a threat to the theist (who presumably accepts (I) and (II)) then it will be necessary to prove the veracity of (III). Pike attests, however, that since (III) is seemingly impossible to prove for certain (given the limitations of our understanding of moral sufficiency at a cosmic level) so the problem of evil therefore ceases to become a real problem for the theist, who accepts on principle the first two statements. The problem of evil is therefore handed over to the atheist who is conscripted to prove the validity of (III) in order to attack the theistic position.

Although this is only one answer to this problem, and it has found its own critics, it is seemingly quite a robust solution which is at least able to allow for an agnostic verification. In order to understand the question entirely it is therefore necessary to take account of the numerous so-called 'solutions' to this problem. For there exists a great number of variants of the problem of evil, including inductive variants, logical variants, evidential variants, soteriological variants, arguments from natural law, pain and pleasure, and so on. Many of these are discussed in the Wikipedia article on Theodicy.

Other Extended Perspectives

• A Course In Miracles tackles the issue of evil as one of the central ideas in its' teachings. It states that god is love, and that the opposite of love is fear. It goes on to state that god is all-encompassing, and what is all encompassing can have no opposite. It denies the true existence of evil and considers the universe and all the 'evil' in it to simply be an illusion or self-deception, much like a dream is not real. A Course in Miracles is largely based around explaining this as one of its' major concepts, suggesting that to understand the idea fully is to draw closer to enlightment.

What do other editors think? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is a personal essay, but it could totally be used as the basis of a more Wikipedia version. --Carl 08:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Reject. Essay limits itself to answering one type of PoE, forgetting the more rigorous forms which do not fall prey to the same ambiguity. Furthermore, references to A Course in Miracles is unwarranted in any case. Franc28 14:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Another (shorter) piece of original research

"Arguments for the problem of Hell (and, similarly, the problem of evil) often simultaneously state two incompatible views, such as the following: (1) God is omniscient and man is not, and therefore man cannot be expected to make the "right" choice of Heaven over Hell; and (2) man is perceptive enough to actually understand the mind of God, to pass judgment that the existence of Hell is unjust. Comparing these points, an omniscient god's existence cannot logically be brought into question by our (acceptedly non-omniscient) classification of evil or Hell as a "problem"."

I've removed the above as a original research, though it's also flawed reasoning. I didn't want simply to revert the edit, though, so I brought it here for general comment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The actual points (1) and (2) are drawn from the argument for the problems of evil and Hell ((1) directly; (2) by simple inference). It is not original research; just juxtaposition and logical analysis. The argument that is added (starting "Comparing...") makes a couple of leaps in logic, but points (1) and (2) really stand alone anyway, and even without explanation show that there is a hole in the reasoning of the "problem of.." arguments. Where are the flaws in this reasoning?

By the way, this was no more "original research" / "flawed reasoning" / a less objective view than the following point, chosen at random from the theodicy article:

Most atheists believe that statements about God are meaningless. Some atheists believe that the problem of evil can be used to prove that God does not exist by the method of reductio ad absurdum. However, as maltheists point out, this method does not prove that God does not exist, but rather that if he does exist he is not omnipotent or benevolent, as he and his followers might claim him to be. The logical error may also fall in other places: for example, that evil does not exist, or that God creating evil does not make God evil.

--LukeH 18:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC).

The passage that you quote doesn't make statements, it refers to what people believe, and what might be the case. This is a crucial point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

All of that is also true of the counterargument that you removed. It is simply a logical analysis of the points of the original argument, attempting to show an internal inconsistency in the reasoning. --LukeH 01:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC).

Can I get other editors' takes on this please? I don't believe the reasoning in the removed comment is flawed. I think it's important to acknowledge that if our understanding of God's will is insufficient to be able to reject Hell in favor of Heaven, then our understanding of God's will is also insufficient for us to comprehend God's reasons for the existence of Hell (or Heaven for that matter). This is not a new argument. There are any number of cases where people throw up their hands and just say, "Oh well, I guess I just don't know the mind of God." --LukeH 01:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC).

Saying "god moves in mysterious ways" isn't part of any theodicy; on the contrary, it's to say that a theodicy is both pointles and unnecessary, becaus we poor dim little creatures are just not up to understanding — we must simply accept. Ours is not to reason why, our is just to go to hell. The notion, incidentally, that people effectively choose hell over heaven because they're not omnisicent is pretty non-standard theology, to say the least, and raises far more problems than it solves; why did god make beings who were congenitally unable to make a rational choice, and then arrange eternal punishment for those who made the wrong choice? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts that could be incorporated (from a non-expert)

As a preface, this is from a non-scholar, though I am and have been studying the Bible as a Christian for some years now.

I think that it is imperitive that it be mentioned that our perception of Evil could be totally flawed from God's perspective, and the problem we have with evil is merely perception error. I apologize: that sounds awfully repetitive. What I mean is that evil might not be bad, or not all of it, rather, but that it may be consequences (but not always); it could be simply a part of God's will. According to the Christian Bible, God does not tempt us to sin; this frame of mind does not contradict itself if you think of tragedy or calamity, to any degree, as merely God working good in and for us, but moreso for Himself. James 1:2-4 says "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." Aside from the doctrine of perfection, this points out simply that 'calamity' is simply for edification of the spirit. So, in theory or as far as I understand it, some (and not all) 'evil' is really God presenting 'opportunity' to grow in faith.

I do not pretend to be knowledgeable or wise, I merely offer another viewpoint that I, not having read the entire article, believe is not addressed therein.

Humbly,

Matt Todd

07:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE:

Some thoughts just came:

Also, considering death as the result of evil, or what we interpret as evil, could be errant in that God could be finishing that person's work. It's simply a matter of whether God has Ultimate Authority (which I believe He does) and whether human life is at His mercy because of His Authority's plans. Therein, death is merely the end of our earthly works and if God chooses to let us die then so be it. However, if we are Christians and we believe God's promises of heaven, then death is really the end of the beginning, the period at the end of the last paragraph of the preface of a very long book, if you will.

Also, as far as Christianity and those who have never heard — that is not for me to argue. I'm almost nearly certain that if someone were to die before they ever heard the gospel (the truth), then they would go to heaven. This addresses the fact that some people may die in a large natural disaster, never hearing the Word of God by saying that God has given those people grace because He knew they would not hear of Him directly. Or, the doctrine could follow a different vein in that if God is pleased with the work He was able to perform through your life, He will grant you salvation. I cannot pretend to understand all of God's will and this is where I do not know well enough to adequately explain these thoughts. I simply hope that they will guide the author(s) to include more theories.

Matt Todd

08:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of things wrong with what you said, but the single simplest flaw is that you assume God exists and that there is some escape if only you twist everything enough, which is simply to say that "the PoE is wrong because I said so". That's circular reasoning. "God could" and "God has given" is your belief, not fact. Franc28 08:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

RE: 12:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, and that's why it is only a theory, because I actually believe that God exists. That's simply reasonable logic, given A, then B. And I'm not twisting anything, simple changing perspective, hopefully to the God's that I believe exists. Again, a God that I believe exists and, in which, means that if you don't believe in God then you probably wouldn't believe what I'm saying. I don't think I ever pulled a "because I said so." And no, circular reasoning is If A, then B, therefore A. I never did that. And also, please notice that, "God could" and "God has given" is in fact my belief, and that your belief is that there is no God. Nothing wrong with you believing that, but please don't condescendingly state that there factually is no God. I'm not opposed to good discussion, but mindless opposition is worthless.

Matt Todd

1. It's not a "theory". It's a hypothetical. A theory is an explanation of the underlying causes of a phenomena.

2. I don't have a "belief" that God doesn't exist. It's a scientific and logical fact, supported by extensive literature.

3. All this has nothing to do with the fact that your reasoning is circular, and therefore illogical. You can't assume that God exists in order to prove that God exists. Franc28 13:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

1. You're right that it's not a theory in the normal scientific, philosophical, etc., sense of the word (though it is in a more everyday usage).
2. You're definitely wrong, though, that the non-existence of god is a scientific and logical fact. I don't know of any reputable (or even disreputable) philosopher of religion or scientist who would agree with your claim (the Web site to which you refer us appears to be the work of one person, and is in any case not very good, I'm afraid; it makes a number of important unargued assumptions, not least about the nature of meaning and truth).
3. I understood Matt Todd to be arguing about the problem of evil, not arguing for god's existence. I agree that his arguments are fallacious, but not for the reasons you give (in so far as you've given reasons rather than a simple denial). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"the Web site to which you refer us appears to be the work of one person"

What, you think this is some sort of conspiracy theory, and Michael Martin, George Smith, and those other philosophers who wrote the books in the References section I gave are all the same person ? All these arguments were made by one person, and the references are fake, even the web sites they link to ? And every single argument is wrong, even the scientific ones ? You are a crackpot. Franc28 19:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks (insults in edit summaries are particularly deprecated); also, read what other editors write more carefully before reacting. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

RE: 19:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, I rather think you have it right — that is, I think you're being quite civilized about disagreement.

I found one verse that supports my belief of my theory (which, alternatively, means abstract thought or speculation). This verse would be Romans 8:28 and 29 which says 'And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his porpose.' (As a side note, I've not included contextual references because the verse stands equally well with or without its context.)

Alas, I'm in no way prepared to prove to you the existence of God. However, assuming that this is true (the existence of God, that is), I think that this theory could be true. I was rather just thinking about it and the idea struck me so I thought that I'd share it. Didn't know I'd cause a stir.

Thanks for being civilized Mel Eitits. Good work, by the way.

Matt Todd

Definition

Theod (thiod) Is a pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon word for "faith of our fathers" and describes heathen beliefs. Is it coincidence that this term could be a root word for a Judeo/Christian conundrum?

This edit is personal supposition, hence it's introduction in the talk pages.

Suppose God was all encompassing, all powerful, all knowing, and chose to be all good - before he was the father of all creation. That God's first act beyond reflection was choice would explain it's importance.

Suppose a being of God's creation was tempted by the powers of evil God chose to turn away from.

Suppose that being has been using those powers to corrupt and mutate God's righteous creation ever since because it lusted dominion and lacked the righteous power of creation.

Suppose God had decided destruction, force, or domination were not powers of goodness.

Suppose we are created in God's image. Could not God eventually take those who chose not to embrace evil powers beyond the evil one's understanding? Leaving the rest in a hell of their own making to be ultimately consumed by evil stronger than themselves until the snake completely swallows it's tail. --Robt.D.McKenzie 21:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I take the first attempt to change the definition to have been made in good faith, so I left an edit summary; SS seems simply to be trolling as usual, so I just rolled it back. This question isn't open for debate; the definition of "theodicy" isn't something that we can decide, it's just a fact. It's not about reconciling beliefs, it's about reconciling the existence of a benevolent, onnipotent, omniscient (, creator) god with the existence of evil. If you don't believe in and aren't interested in god, then you won't need or be interested in theodicies; if you don't believe in the existence of evil, then again, you won't need or be interested in theodicies. None of that affects the meaning of "theodicy", which is a moral and metaphysical, not an epistemological issue.

Please don't make personal attacks, Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, and don't tell others what is and is not open for debate.

This is what is being debated. When you say "the meaning of "theodicy", ...is a moral and metaphysical, not an epistemological issue" you are correct. That is why the article should be discussing belief, rather than existance, since those who are interested in theodicy do not always believe God is good, nor do they always believe in evil. Indeed saying God is not good, and/or that evil does not exist, is perhaps the most ready answer to proposed contridictions based on God and evil. Existance isn't a factor at all, since the discussion of theodicy presupposes a God. If you want to say there is no God, then their isn't much point discussing theodicy (as you allude to in your comment above). ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I made no personal attack; I said what I thought you were doing.
2. I repeat: it's not a matter for debate but of accuracy. Whatever you might like "theodicy" to mean, it has a definition; for example (and I can add many more if you want):
   1. "theodicy The part of theology concerned with defending the goodness and omnipotence of God in the face of the suffering and evil of the world." (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Blackburn)
   2. "theodicy. Attempts to 'justify the ways of God to men' by solving the problem that evil presents to the theist. [...] Given that a perfect and omnipotent Being must have created 'the best of all possible worlds', how can one reconcile this with both the visible facts of this world and traditional beliefs about a next?" (A Dictionary of Philosophy, edd Flew & Priest)
   3. "A theodicy, however, seeks to provide a true and reasonable theistic explanation of why God allows evil." (Reason & Religious Belief, Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger; p.100)
3. Denying that god is good isn't part of a theodicy, but of a defence against the problem of evil; a theodicy isn't just any defence, but a specific kind of response; as Peterson, et al., put it: "A defense is designed to establish that a given formulation of the problem of evil fails to thow theism to be inconsistent or improbable." (loc. cit.) It could even be argued that the denial of god's goodness isnt even a defence, but an admission that the problem of evil does show standard theism to be inconsistent, hence the need to change part of it.
4. Talking about belief simply makes no sense; we seem not even to be in the realm of epistemology, in fact, but of psychology. The fact that the discussion of theodicy presupposes the existence of god is precisely why it makes no sense to say that it's about reconciling beliefs. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of trolling on a article talk page (rather than on their talk page or an applicable policy page is a personal attack. In the future, assume good faith], or at least Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. That said, you seem to be right that Theodicy presupposes both the goodness of God, and the existance of evil, and so your version of the intro is likely the better, in hindsight. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem of Evil

This article keeps referring to evil as a problem. This is a little naive of a statement because one must realize that without evil we would not know what good was and more importantly we would not need a god in order for one to become "good." So it must be understood that evil is not necessarily a problem. It is also what makes us able to distinguish between good and evil.

Good Point. I was just about to make this point. I feel that this point should be a part of the article. To me the problem of evil lies not in the fact that evil exists, but in the fact that that in this world at least, some people seem to get more than their fair share of pain and suffering. -Adam H~~ May 7, 2006

These statements are newer the less excately answers to the problem of evil, and in their own way display the problem. Is evil the absense of goodnes or is evil necessary in order for the good to be? And with regards to the latter does this mean that we must accept evil? From one point of view it may seem to be an apology for the suffering of the innocent (lets be bold and mention Auschwitz, should evil in this case be understandable as necessary? By the victims?).

• Good doesn't need evil in order to be good. That would imply that God Himself was not completely God before evil came about. (And it was certainly not always around, otherwise one would have to embrace dualism, and God would not truly be omnipotent). God has always been complete, and needs no-one and nothing in order for him to be. In my opinion, evil is not an absence of goodness, but a twisting of goodness (the worst evil is always a distortion of the best good).77.107.204.156 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Theodicy and History

"Theodicy is a specific philosophy of history, which may be considered as a branch of theology insofar that it considers that a transcendent principle (a Being or God) guides history."

Theodicy as traditionally concieved is NOT a historical philosophy at all; theodicy is the area of theology which defends theism from the argument from evil. That it may be "a branch of theology insofar that it considers that a transcendent principle...guides history" is simply not correct. If one does not believe in such a "principle," then there is no need for theodicy at all.

This whole article is wrought with personal opinions. We should shut it down.

The Biblical Explaination of the problem of evil

There are two major factors to consider concerning the problem of evil. The first factor is the issue of God's Sovereignty. God has the right to rule over His creations, as stated at Psalms 24:1 and Revelation 4:11. Early in human history God's Sovereignty was challanged. How? God commanded the first man, Adam, not to eat From "the tree of knowledge of good and bad." - Genesis 2:16, 17.

The significance of "the tree of knowledge of good and bad" and the restriction placed on it's fruit has often been viewed incorrectly as relating to the sexual act between the first human pair. This view is condradicted by God's plain command to the as male and female "to be fruitful and become many and full the earth." - Genesis 1:28

By representing "the knowledge of good and bad" and by God's pronouncement decreeing it to be out-of-bounds for the human pair the tree became a symbol of God's right to determine or set the standards for humankind as to what is "good" (appoved by God) and what is "bad" (condemned by God) Therefore, to violate the boundries of the prohibited area by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree would be an invasion of or revolt agaist God's domain and authority (God's Sovereignty).

God's command to Adam and his wife, Eve worked no hardship. Adam and Eve were both free moral agents capable of making any choice they desired. However, since God is Almighty, The Soveregn Ruler Of The Universe, and the Creator of all things, He alone has absolute, unlimited freedom.(Genesis 17:1; Jeremiah 10:7,10; Daniel 4:34,35; Revelation 4:11) All others must move within the limitation of ability given them and subject themselves to his universal laws. (Isaiah 45:9; Romans 9;20,21) For example consider gravity, and the laws governing chemical reactions, influence of the sun, and growth; the moral law; the actions of others that influence one's freedom. The freedom od all God's Creatures is therefore a relative freedom.

There is a destinction between limited freedom and bondage. To illustrate Imagine a city with no traffic laws. No driver's licence or driving test is required. People can drive anyway they like, even intoxicated, with no need to worry about speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, one-way streets, or pedestrian crossing's. Would such "freedom" be desirable? The Result would be chaos, confusion, and catastrophe. Though traffic laws restrict peoples freedom, we understand that these laws protect both drivers and pedestrians.

God stated to Adam that if he ate from the forbidden tree the consequence would be death. (Genesis 2:17) Adam thus had the freedom to choose to obey God and refrain from eating from "the tree of knowledge of good and bad" or to eat it and suffer the concequence. Eve was also aware of this law and had the same free choice. (Genesis 3:2,3) Nevertheless, Satan (A spirit creature of God also a free moral agent) convinced Eve that God was being unduly restrictive. Satan outright lied to her, telling her, she would be like God able to set her own standard of "good" and "bad", and that she would not die. (Genesis 3:1-5) Satan implied not only that God withheld vital information from Eve but also that God lied to her. Satan was careful not to question the "fact" of God's Sovereignty. But he did challange the rightfulness, deservedness, and the righteousness of it. In other words Satan claimed that God was not exersising His Sovereignty in a just and upright way and in the best interests of His subjects.

Subsequently, both Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree. Their disobedience put them in line to recieve the punishment of death, just as God decreed. The consequence was complete discontinued existance or everlasting non-existance. (Genesis 3:19) Satan raised some important questions. Does God truly have the right to rule humankind, or should humans rule themselves? Does God exersise His Sovereignty in the best possible way? God could have used his Almighty power to destroy the rebels right then and there. But the questions raised pertained to God's rulership not His power. So eliminating Adam, Eve, and Satan would not have affermed the righteousness of God's rule. If anything, it may have called his rulership into question even further. The only way to determine whether humans could successfully rule themselves, independent of God, was to allow time to pass. God knew from the beginning that humankind's independence, or self rule would result in much suffering. Was it unjust of God to allow the inevitable to run its course? By allowing humankind and all His intelligent free willed creatures to see the bad result produced by rebellion the issue could be settled "pemanently", for all eternity.

Now we have come to the other factor of this matter. In challanging the rightfulness and righteousness of God's rule, not only has Satan slandered God with regards to His sovereignty; he has also slandered God's servants concerning their integrity. Note the example of Job (Job 1:10,11) Satan asserted that God was using His protective power to buy Job's devotion. (Job 1:8) This implied that job's integrity was a mere sham, that he worshiped God only for what he could get in return. Thus If satan could break Job's integrity what would that say about the rest of humankind. Satan was really questioning the loyalty of all those who want to serve God. (Job 2:4) Here the statement is general and not specific to Job.

Therefore, the scriptures of the bible provide a justified solution to the problem of evil and a reasonable answer to the question of Epicurus. God has not caused evil, nor does He approve of it(James 4:17; Galations 5:19-21), nor will He allow it to continue forever.(Exodus 34:6,7) He invites repentance and gives forgiveness. (Ezekiel 33:11) God Hates injustice and will act in behalf of those He approves as His worthy servants. (Zachariah 14:3; Romans 12:19; Revelation 16:14,16) All are accountable to God those living by His ways and those living alienated for Him. (Romans 14:11,14) Finally, God will remove all evil forever. (Revelation 20:10,14; 21:8) God will reverse the damage done by evil. (Micah 4:3; Revelation 21:3,4)

In conclusion the bible reveals that God can ablolish evil, God really wants to do it, and God will. The Bible explains how evil came to be, Why it exists, what it is, and how it will be removed. Thereby, exonerating God and revealing the real situation. Truth-Seeker 21:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think that the biblical views of Theodicy, particularly those in the Book of Job (bad things happening to good people) and perhaps Jonah (good things happening to bad people, ie: the Assyrians) belongs in the main article. Valley2city 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for the Bible at all, but I have taken numerous seminars in philosophy of religion and theodicy, and I must agree that a discussion of Job would be particularly appropriate. But only if one could curb the whole "Bible as Absolute Truth" thing. That doesn't seem very encyclopedic--especially if you are citing to the Bible as proof that a statement is true.71.192.127.216 07:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean-Up plan

This article is one of the oldest on the Cleanup Taskforce backlog but if you Google "theodicy", it's #1. It's time to fix this baby and like a fool going where angels fear to thread, I propose the following plan.

1. Opening Paragraph: Use the accepted definition which is how to explain evil if God is omnipotent & omnibenevolent. I know some people dis the term 'omnibenevolent' but the idea is all powerful and all good. Benevolent which is better stylistically is not nuanced enough (and there can never be enough nuance for philosopher/theologians. Benevolent is the kindly uncle who is basically harmless. Omnibenevolent is one who is all good and does all good all the time.
2. Main body: State facts about all developed and published theodicies, hopefully by people respected in the field. This will be a large section as different formulatons of Free Will (compatibilist, libertarian, Molinist middle knowledge etc. etc.) changes the theodicy. Ex. a Calvinist with a compatibilist understanding of free will will have a different theodicy from William Craig who is a Calvinist but a leading proponent of middle knowledge and counterfactuals. And who is very different from Gregory Boyd who is Open Theist and middle knowledge who is also different from Open Theist and libertrarian. etc. etc. etc.
   • NPOV will be ruthlessly pushed. All statements about what the theodicy is will be accepted. All statements about why it is better than others will be removed.
   • This will be heavily Judeo-Christian as theodicy is doctrine developed by people who believe God is all powerful and all good.
   • Only stuff that has references/citations will be kept. All weasel statements will be ruthlessly purged.
3. 3rd section: for 'theodicies' that deny either God is almight and/or all good. In most reference works, these would not be under the heading of theodicy but in the in the spirit of wikipedia, these minority views will be expressed although IMHO, theodicy is only interesting because philosophers like Platinga, Barth or Sanders are trying to explain evil given that God is almighty and all good. If he isn't then.... what's the point? ;) As above, NPOV will be ruthlessly pushed and all weasel statements eliminated.

If you want what you wrote to stay, please cite full reference. I'll accept statements like C.S. Lewis said xyz in Problem of Pain and Platinga said but would prefer title, pg # and ISBN or website + date retrieved.

Cleanup is by nature ruthless and people's toes are gonna be stepped on. Apologies in advance to all and sundry. You can always revert what is written. And you can always voice your concerns here.

Cleanup will commence shortly unless there is a howl of protest. Caroline1008 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was going over the cleanup list in general. I have a couple of suggestions for this article: it's too long, consider breaking it up, at least use more sub-headings. It also needs references. I was....shocked....that such a well-worded technical article is basically referenceless. Good luck! -THB 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the sentence

"Some have argued that the predetermined goal of theodicy (that of justifying the existence of God with the existence of evil) tarnishes any aspirations it might have to be a serious philosophical discipline, because an intellectual pursuit having a predefined goal and preassumed conclusions cannot be deemed in any reasonable way to be methodical, scientific, or rational."

be rewritten so it does not sound quite so critical of the validity of reasoning with a pre-defined goal.

This is because reasoning with a pre-defined goal is an everyday occurrence for true scientists. Explanation: Once a scientist has collected data and from that data formed a hypothesis as to what they believe is true, their next step will often be to attempt to prove this hypothesis. That step is precisely analogous to a theodicist's attempting to reconcile the existence of a benevolent god/God with the existence of evil. The best example of this is when the scientist is a pure mathematician, whose proof would, like the theodicist's, consists solely of reasoning.

The difference is that if a true scientist, in the act of trying to prove a pre-conceived hypothesis, repeatedly encounters serious obstacles, then the true scientist will go back and reconsider whether the hypothesis is viable; by contrast the theodicist is, by definition, trying to prove a fixed hypothesis. (Of course, there is a real possibility that a theodicist, after enough failed attempts to reconcile an omnipotent and perfectly benevolent supreme being with the existence of evil, may become a non-theodicist -- i.e., abandon the central hypothesis of theodicy.)

My suggestion is that the last clause

"cannot be deemed in any reasonable way to be methodical, scientific, or rational."

be replaced with

"calls into question the integrity of its commitment to scientific method." Daqu 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This page severely needs a clean-up...chunks from different theodicies are just shoved in all over the place. May I suggest actually bringing these theodicies together to form the whole argument rather than just having: "Resolutions to the problem of evil generally entail one of the following:", far better would be:

"Key examples of theodices include:"

With each theodicy under the appropriate heading i.e.

Augustinian Theodicy:

• God made the world free of flaws
• Evil is not a substance but a deprivation, so God cannot be held responsible as it is unreasonable to suggest that He created a deprivation
• Evil comes from people and angels turning away from God
• Everything but God is susceptible to change
• etc....

I`m willing to write some stuff if nobody else can be bothered, though my knowledge isn`t exactly top-notch. Also, I don`t like people coming to my user page and slamming me for vandalising their beloved page, so feedback from someone or other would be much appreciated. Plebmonk 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but perhaps our problem is that theodicy is too braod a topic for an article of this size? Maybe we could shorten it to a brief definition, a short history of its development historically/chronologically by major religion (Juadiasm Christianity Islam Buddhism etc) list some famous works of theodicy (The probolem of Pain to take a modern example) and give the main schools of theodicy seperate shorter articles outlining their arguments and the objections to those arguments and putting those in the see also section? This would have the effect of making this article more encyclopedic in tome and make the topic more manageble by allowing us the users to focus on the schools (main branches) of theodicy for which we lack sources while leaving those we do have sources for intact. It would also remove any perception that this article is theist/atheist biased. -Cinlef

Citing References

For the life of me I cannot understand how to use footnotes. I am very frustrated about it. The two paragraphs I added about Richard Swinburne are from Is There a God?, copyright 1996 by Richard Swinburne, reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press in Philosophical Horizons: Introductory Readings, by Steven M. Chan and Maureen Eckert, copyright 2006 by Thomson Wadsworth, pages 58-63. I can give the page number for each separate quote if need be.

I'm new; please forgive me for my any ignorance of protocol and tell me how to correct it. -- Rayni Lee 07:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangled Text

Under the heading "Examples" near the beginning of the piece, the sentence following "Agnostics" has syntax too mangled to have a clear meaning. PatrickDShannon PatrickDShannon@juno.com

Original text has now been restored. GoldenMeadows 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question : Violation of Free Will as an evil act

If violation of free will is an evil act, (which is certainly would be in a human context (e.g. brain washing, psychological torture,MKULTRA, mind control)), then presumably this generally mediates strongly against violation of free will - even if the resulting consequences are also evil.

Similarly, wouldn't free will be severely constrained (or effectively eliminated) if the field of possible moral choice alternatives differed only to a trivial extent from one another ?

Moved from Article as this, being a 'question', belongs in the Discussion and not the article, where of course :) , we only have 'answers'. Mercury543210 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

God Template is obtrusive and distracting

It should be removed. 24.60.163.16 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the section Analysis of These Solutions belong in an encyclopedia?

I feel this section doesn't belong in an encyclopedia as it is inherently POV and thus should be removed. Please understand I don't feel that (all) the information it contains is unencyclopedic, (despite my own personal beliefs I fully appreciate the need for this article to show views critical of solutions to theodicy). However the style and tone is wrong and this is made infinitely worse by the lack of cited sources. For example on of the better sections is this one "God's divine plan is good — no theodicy is needed"

Since it does'nt analyze it PRESENTS THE ANALYSIS OF EXPERTS/AUTHORITIES/RELIGIONS (Kant and also mentions this is a view held by Orthodox Jews based on the Book of Job)

Contrast this to for example "The free will theodicy" which since it doesn't cite sources (and is riddled with weasel words)becomes NPOV since its whole style suggests that the Encyclopedia itself is engaging in the analysis and implies that this version is found wanting.(Whatever you believe on the matter Wikipedia shouldn't be preaching theology)

So the way I see it we either

A)Keep the section in its present form (bad in my opinion) but remove the weasel words and present only the analysis of philosophers and religious leaders prominent atheists (though prominent atheist and philosopher not mutually exclusive)showing clearly that it is in their opinion and not the opinion of Wikipedia that this solution is perfect and/or full of holes. OR B)We completely restructure the article making it more of a history of theodicy breaking it down by eras (or perhaps religions) and explaining chronologically how solutions arose and also citing criticism of those solutions.

I personally am waiting for some kind of consensus here before starting to edit this article both because A) I wish to avoid any perception of POV and B) while I am reasonably well informed on this matter IO like the time and the in depth knowledge of theodicy (especially none Christian theodicy) to fix this article without help So which option is more in keeping with Wikipedia function/style A or B? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinlef (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 August 2007

As an uninvolved editor, B looks good to me. The important thing is to cite sources to attribute the info. Excessive detail about sections can be put into sub-articles per WP:SUMMARY.. dave souza, talk 09:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The problems with The Problem of Evil

I made some pretty heavy changes to the third paragraph in this section. I'm unsure if people will think I was too heavy handed.

The old paragraph:

Others argue that theodicy, like all of science and reason, begins with a hypothesis, and then tests the hypothesis to see if the hypothesis can be reconciled with experience and reason. It is common for mathematicians to begin with a proposition that seems to be true (for example Fermat's last theorem) and then work to demonstrate the truth of that proposition through a series of rigorously logical steps. They assert that just as the existence of God may be reasonably doubted, it may also be reasonably believed, because the existence or non-existence of God is, by its very nature, beyond the realm of observable and verifiable phenomena with which science concerns itself. Therefore, since it is reasonable to believe that God may exist, theodicy is a reasonable attempt to reconcile the hypothesised existence of God with the perceived existence of evil. While theodicy cannot prove the existence of God, it can make belief in God reasonable, by showing that the existence of God is not necessarily incompatible with the existence of evil. On the other hand, unlike in mathematics, in a philosophical project like a theodicy it is difficult to say what precisely constitutes a valid logical step, and though one proponent of a theodicy may be convinced of its rigour, another person may find it logically weak or reject some of its assumptions. For this reason, theodicies tend to be controversial, even among theists.

And the new:

Others argue ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  that theodicy is more logical in nature. They assert that it begins with a hypothesis, and then tests that hypothesis to see if it can be reconciled with experience and reason. These Theodists assert that just as the existence of God may be reasonably doubted, it may also be reasonably believed, because the existence or non-existence of God is, by its very nature, beyond the realm of observable and verifiable phenomena with which science concerns itself. Therefore, since it is reasonable to believe that God may exist, theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the hypothesised existence of God with the perceived existence of evil. While theodicy cannot prove the existence of God, Theodists assert that it can make belief in God reasonable, by showing that the existence of God is not necessarily incompatible with the existence of evil. On the other hand, unlike in mathematics, in a philosophical project like a theodicy it is difficult to say what precisely constitutes a valid logical step. Though one proponent of a theodicy may be convinced of its rigour, another person may find it logically weak. For this reason, theodicies tend to be controversial, even among theists.

My rational is that the original paragraph seemed to be subtly asserting that Theodicy is a science. I changed it to more unambiguously state that it was a logical process, but I may be wrong in thinking that. For instance, the bit about Fermat's last theorem seems to me to be an irrelevant appeal to science when no example of logical thought was necessary. Some of the sentences also seemed to me to be arguing that Theodicy is reasonable when they should be stating unambiguously that some people would argue that. Do you agree/disagree with my changes? If you feel the need to change them back, then please not that I also removed some poor formatting and graffiti, so be careful when reverting.Blue Dinosaur Jr 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've made further changes, I removed a sentence that I feel was redundant and also put the {{Fact}} tag back that someone had removed. We need to find sources for this paragraph.

Here is the newest paragraph:

Others can argue ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  that theodicy is more logical in nature. They assert that it begins with a hypothesis, and then tests that hypothesis to see if it can be reconciled with experience and reason. These Theodists assert that just as the existence of God may be reasonably doubted, it may also be reasonably believed, because the existence or non-existence of God is, by its very nature, beyond the realm of observable and verifiable phenomena with which science concerns itself. While theodicy cannot prove the existence of God, Theodists assert that it can make belief in God reasonable, by showing that the existence of God is not necessarily incompatible with the existence of evil. On the other hand, unlike in mathematics, in a philosophical project like a theodicy it is difficult to say what precisely constitutes a valid logical step. Though one proponent of a theodicy may be convinced of its rigour, another person may find it logically weak. For this reason, theodicies tend to be controversial, even among theists.

Any comments? Blue Dinosaur Jr 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Malthus, Paley, Darwin and referencing

von Sydow, Momme (2005), "Darwin – A Christian Undermining Christianity? On Self-Undermining Dynamics of Ideas Between Belief and Science" (PDF), in Knight, David M.; Eddy, Matthew D. (eds.), Science and Beliefs: From Natural Philosophy to Natural Science, 1700–1900, Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 141–156, ISBN 0-7546-3996-7, retrieved 0-7546-3996-7 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) discusses the relationship of theodicy to the ideas of Malthus, Paley and Darwin, so that could well be a useful source. Since Harvard references would suit an article with a lot of references to books / particular page numbers it's probably best to start referencing the article per WP:CITE using Template:Citation (as used here) in a References section, with Template:Harvard citation no brackets inline citations in the text and {{reflist}} in a Notes section. Hope that helps, always willing to advise :) ... dave souza, talk 09:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Analysis Removed

Analysis of Solutions Section was a huge mess: no citations due to lack of citations violates the no original research rule. due to lack of citations unencyclopeidc riddled with weasel words and POV THe only way it was going to get fixed is to completly remove it and start over, if such as section is need Rather than starting a massve edit war I urge any one who thinks an analysis is nessecary to not restore the old one but to wirte a new one WITH SOURCES FROM BOTH SIDES CITED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.144.4 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Theodicy in other contexts

I've seen the concept of theodicy taken out of its theological context into more general philosophical contexts. Like on the subject of truth : i.e. talking about how contradicting truths can coexist, but the full truth be in the truth between them. If someone wants I can find a citation and put this in the article. brianshapiro Edit: OK, done.