# Talk:Religious responses to the problem of evil

Content here is copied from Problem of evil which is being split because of length Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

2600:1012:b011:d0ca:41f9:ddd2:e205:6de (talk · contribs) You didn't eliminate dead links you eliminated red links which are articles that have not yet been written. Putting them in articles signals to other editors that these need writing.  [[1]] Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.  They should be restored accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The Individual opinions subsection under the Christianity section is empty. I did not delete the section altogether as I feel if expanded, could benefit the article. Not0nshoree (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Nvm I may be stupid

Saw this listed at WP:GAN. I was a bit surprised to find neither the problem of evil article nor the theodicy article linked in the WP:LEAD here. Both should probably be included. TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this! I edited the lead to incorporate both of your suggestions. Brent Silby (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)


### Religious responses to the problem of evil
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made significant contributions and would like to further improve its quality. As one of the primary contributor actively working on this page, I'm hoping someone can take the time to review it and offer constructive feedback.
Thanks, Brent Silby (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments from PJW
Hi User:Brent Silby,
With the article still fresh from a thorough GA review, my comments focus on general areas for possible improvement. Everything seems fine at the sentence-level. 
For better or worse, I found that I had more to say than I had expected. 
As you probably know, because this is a peer review, you are under no obligation to implement my suggestions, and there is no kind of grade assigned at the end. Please just ask if anything below is unclear (or if I maybe just made a mistake!).
Lead

Since the lead is a summary of the body, the body is the source for the article (see WP:CITELEAD). If anything is important enough to be in the lead that is not already supported in the body, it needs to be incorporated somewhere appropriate in body of the article. Aside from just looking nicer, imo, this would come up at FAC–most GA and FA articles have no citations in their leads (or infoboxes, for that matter).
For accessibility, would the first sentence be better with "all-powerful/knowing/&loving"? Even for articles on technical or otherwise complicated subjects, I do my best to keep the lead no higher than about a 7th-grade reading level.
When they are at least provisionally done with their work on the body, I also always advise editors to reread WP:LEAD all through to strengthen the current version. This is the only part of the article that many visitors will read.
Sections on evil

The article needs to provide a definition of evil. Include as many disclaimers and qualifications as you need: we are not looking for necessary and sufficient criteria here, but we need at least a loose working definition that distinguishes it from suffering, with which it is frequently conjoined throughout the article. I do see one sentence in the lead, but this should be covered in the body, almost certainly in the first section.
You might consider demoting the first two sections under another section, which could include a Definition in ahead of them. A section-lead could then be introduced as well. These are not required, but it would be a good place to cite a secondary overview or tertiary source to establish that what you are including here is supported by the literature, as opposed to just whatever most interests you and other page editors. This is particularly an issue because Rowe and Draper and primary sources on themselves, which is a problem. Justifying inclusion in this way is important at FAC. It's also nice to have a policy-based response to editors who want to add large amounts of material on marginal viewpoints.
Early Christian responses

The opening quote is a mess. Could this be restated in your own words or otherwise reworked to avoid the ellipses and bracketed terms?
The Plummer paragraph makes use of some rather poetic language that will be obscure to non-theologians. It also relies entirely on a primary source.
I think "fall of man" needs caps. I'd check with the folks at the MOS talk page, though, as I'm sure best practices for this sort of thing have been discussed. (There are a few more instances of this below.)
I'd rewrite the Hick blockquote in encyclopedic prose unless there is a strong reason for keeping it as is.
In this context, the title "Saint" is probably appropriate, but it might be a good idea to check.
For Augustine, evil, when it refers to God's material creation, refers to a privation, an absence of goodness "where goodness might have been." This leaves me wondering to what other things it refers. If it's not important, you could just cut the qualifier; if it maybe is but is also highly technical, I'd consider a footnote.
Recent Christian responses

I'd consider making this and the above their own top-level headers. As is, it's a long section, and breaking it in two might make the transition to the 20th century less jarring.
There look to be a few more primary source issues here. If these views are not held more broadly, they maybe don't belong in the article. Otherwise, rewriting without in-text attribution would at least help to ameliorate the issue—even if probably not up to FAC standards. Also, I think it's best practice to include a descriptor when mentioning names unlikely to be familiar to readers.
The Plantinga section is gives a lot of coverage to one philosopher. It also becomes a bit more technical than might be necessary. I also have concerns again about primary sources.
Contemporary post-Holocaust theodicy

I would consider breaking this out under its own top-level header to be treated on its own after the three Abrahamic religions. Another option would be to re-title it "Post-Holocaust Christian theodicy" to make space for a specifically Jewish section later.
The scant attention given to Jewish responses, which is alarming enough on its own, looks only worse when compared to the detailed discussion here. I probably would have raised this in a GA review, and it would definitely come up at FAC ("comprehensiveness of coverage").
I'd encourage you to review the section for technical language. There's some stuff that should probably be removed or defined in simpler terms. Many people will not know the meaning of "eschatology". I do not myself recognize the word "enestological".
As previously, check and be sure you don't use authors as sources on themselves, and summarize the blockquote if possible.
Islam and Judaism

These sections are conspicuously shorter. If this is because Muslims and Jews simply have much less interest in the question, this should be stated clearly at the top of their respective sections with brief explanations. Right now, this gives the article at least the appearance of issues with WP:DUE. There is also appears to be much less engagement with more recent contributions of theologians in those traditions. If this is just because there is much less work being done, that's an excellent justification for the disparity, but this should somehow be made clear in the article.
As I said above, Jewish responses to the Holocaust require more than a paragraph. One excellent scholar who has written about this extensively is Emil L. Fackenheim. Emmanuel Levinas is a major Jewish philosopher who has also written on post-Holocaust theodicy. It will not be difficult to find more.
Other religions

This is already in the lead, but I would explain again in a section-lead here (or however you prefer) why these other major world religions are here being lumped together as "Other".
Are you sure that the Ancient Greeks had a concept equivalent to our evil? The supporting citation of the most direct claim that they do goes to an entire book. Lack of page numbers appears to be an issue throughout the section.
Just overall, this looks like it could be OR. I might be totally wrong, but the sourcing needs work either way.
The treatment of Buddhism and Hinduism look good. No notes on them.
References

I did not look at these closely, but did notice some inconsistencies with capitalization. FAC is the only place anyone would care about this though.
I hope you find these comments helpful! I'm following the page, but feel free to ping me if it looks like I missed a query.
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh thanks for the peer-review! I need your advice. I am currently working on the section names. As you have suggested, for the Christianity section, the two good names are "Early responses" and "recent response". However, we kind of stumble into a problem here. Technically speaking, free will defense and evolutionary theodicy are also "post-Holocaust responses". But if I just lump them into one big "Recent responses" section, then it would appear to be too big. What would you suggest? Brent Silby (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. What about just "Responses to the Holocaust" for stuff that is framed in this way? I'd avoid "recent" because the MOS discourages relative terms like that (although you can use "contemporary" for people who are still alive or only recently deceased). "Later 20th and 21st century" might also work. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ireneaus3p.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)