Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Brent Silby (talk · contribs) 16:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MediaKyle (talk · contribs) 13:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Brent Silby, thank you for your patience, and for your work on this article. I'll be starting this review today. Please respond to each suggestion with a separate inline comment. During the course of a review, I'll typically read through an article in its entirety numerous times, each time focusing on a different element of the GA criteria. I'll continue adding to each section of this review until we reach the end. Because this is such a long article, dealing with some rather in-depth subjects, once I complete my part of the review I'll likely invite someone smarter than I am to provide a second opinion. Let me know if you have any questions. MediaKyle (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MediaKyle! Thanks for taking your time to review the article. I have acted upon all of your suggestions. I have also included incline comments under every one of your suggestions. Brent Silby (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @MediaKyle. I have successfully fixed every single one of the issues that you have raised :) Brent Silby (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, the article is looking good. I'm going to give it another read now. MediaKyle (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brent Silby. I'm a little confused about something, likely just because I don't usually delve this deep into theology. Under the evidential problem of evil, it provides a version from Paul Draper. Draper is associated with Skeptical theism, which seems to act as a defense of theistic approaches to the problem of evil, and this topic isn't mentioned. Could you give me a brief rundown of how all this fits together? I must be missing something here. MediaKyle (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MediaKyle! Sure, I'd be happy to explain. Draper was the person who originated the phrase "skeptical theism" to demarcate theists whose response to the problem of evil is to say that we don't know enough about God and God's attribute to be able to correctly predict what he would and would not do and what motivations he would have. However, Draper, despite coming up with the name for this group of people actually thinks this response fails to defuse the evidential problem of evil. As far as I know he is an agnostic. Brent Silby (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, now it makes sense. Do you think it would be worth writing a passage about this under the section "Evidential problem of evil"? After all, given the article is about religious responses to the problem of evil, in terms of breadth it seems appropriate to include this view and a brief explanation of Draper coining the term. MediaKyle (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably advise against it because it's very hard to consider it a religious response. It really is a philosophical response. In fact, I am aware of some troubles that this response faces with reconciling itself with a personal God of major Abrahamic religions. In addition to that, I have pulled up Draper's revised evidential problem of evil (which is stronger than the original one). Classical skeptical theist response targets the original problem, so including it would potentially cause confusion. Brent Silby (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, that makes sense. I trust your judgement. MediaKyle (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another observation that doesn't fit neatly into any of the other sections. I noticed that Hinduism is a subheader under "Other religions", despite actually being quite a bit longer than the section on Islam. Now I understand why this was done; I imagine it was formatted in this way to preserve a neat and alphabetical ordering, to keep the Abrahamic religions together while not allowing for any ambiguity on why they're ordered in the way they are. However, in doing so, I feel as though it gives the impression that the Abrahamic religions are the "main ones", whereas Buddhism and Hinduism are simply "other religions." What do you think? MediaKyle (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I can make Hinduism and Buddhism into separate sections, but then that would require making greek paganism into a separate section, which would probably be giving it too much weight. I do think that (at least in theory) putting all these religions into the "other" section can be justified. Problem of evil is only a problem for religions who claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism (and Greek paganism) don't necessarily do it.

So whereas the problem of evil is the problem for mainstream formulations of Abrahamic religions, it is only threat to minority positions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Brent Silby (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, when you put it that way, it does make sense that these would be grouped together. The rationale for keeping it that way is such that I'm not concerned of any possible perception of bias. MediaKyle (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Under "Christianity":
  • There is general agreement among Bible scholars
  • There is general agreement among biblical scholars
    • Y Changed Bible scholars to biblical scholars as you have requested.
  • I didn't notice this on my first go-over, but I think these sentences should be rewritten in your own words rather than using a quote. It seems a little ironic to say that there's "general agreement among scholars" only to source one book, as well - if there's general agreement, surely there's plenty of scholars saying this.
    • Y Removed that entire claim. It is unnecessary for the general meaning of the section. Thanks for noticing!

• Genesis 4:1–8 and the first murder suggest much suffering is the result of individual choices.
  • Sentence is unclear without prior context on "the first murder"
    • Y Changed "the first murder" into "the murder of Abel" with a link to the biblical story.

• Luke 22:31–34 says resist the fear and despair that accompany suffering, instead remember/believe God has the power to help.
  • Remember/believe, which one?
    • Y It's believe, the passage is talking about faith, not necessarily knowledge (gnosis). Removed the "remember".

• The writers of the Bible take the reality of a spiritual world beyond this world and its containment of hostile spiritual forces for granted. While the post-Enlightenment world does not, the "dark spiritual forces" can be seen as "symbols of the darkest recesses of human nature."
  • This whole passage should be rewritten to be more clear and concise. As it currently is, it might also border on an NPOV issue, but that could be debatable.
    • Y Removed the entire passage because: 1) It didn't have enough sources to justify saying what writers of the Bible take for granted. 2) It was very awkwardly written. 3) It didn't contribute much to the section.

• Under "Privation theory of evil":
  • St Augustine of Hippo
  • Saint Augustine of Hippo
    • Y Changed all instances of "St" into "Saint".

• First paragraph of "Tradition and philosophy" should be rewritten for clarity - will come back with suggestion
  • Y I removed it entirely. It seemed unnecessary to the general topic (and was only 2 sentences anyways). The section's flow is much more dynamic when it starts directly with a proposed theodicy.

• Under "Hinduism":
  • the 8th-century scholar Adi Shankara states that just because some people are happier than others and just because there is so much malice, cruelty, and pain in the world, some state that Brahman cannot be the cause of the world. - What?
    • Y Good catch! The sentence should read "the 8th-century scholar Adi Shankara states that because some people are happier than others and because there is so much malice, cruelty, and pain in the world, Brahman cannot be the cause of the world."

• Under "Irenaean theodicy"
  • Starting with the second paragraph, this section directly quotes a numbered list for the first four key points, with the rest seeming to have been reworded, and it's not exactly made clear which is which. My suggestion for this part would be to remove the directly quoted list and replace it with your own prose; this would also make it flow a lot more nicely.
    • Y Followed all suggestions: deleted the list, replaced it with Hick's quote, made it easier to read and parse.
• For Augustine, humans were created perfect but fell and thereafter... - Fell from where? Perhaps different wording could be used here.
  • Y Reworded the sentence to make it clear that we are referring to the fall of man here.

• Under "Original sin theodicy"
  • Martin Luther saw evil and original sin as an inheritance from Adam and Eve, passed on to all humans from their conception, which God's just nature allowed as a consequence of their distrust, though God planned humanity's redemption through Jesus Christ. Ultimately, humans may not be able to understand and explain this plan. - That's a real mouthful, could probably be split into two separate sentences. The last sentence could also be reworded for NPOV.
    • Y Split the sentence into 2 parts and removed the last sentence entirely.

• 14: Quote on the article is not the same as the one in the source text
  • Y The reference was to the book that quoted Hume, but you do have a good point. I replaced it with a direct reference of Hume.
    • What I meant by this was the quote in the text doesn't exactly match up with the quote in the source. The exact wording as seen in the book preview is "Epicurus's old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able ? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing ? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil ?". The original quote is a little less clear, which is likely why the wording was changed, but if we're quoting someone I'd say it's inappropriate to modify what they said. Maybe this would be another case in which rather than directly quoting the source, you could explain it in your own words? ** ****Y I have been able to found Hume's quote that's pretty clear and straightforward. It uses the word such as "impotent" and "malevolent", which is nice, since it doesn't feel like a repetition of the general formulation listed below.
• 16: Source appears to verify the text
• 23: Is there a source available discussing this interpretation, rather than directly citing Corinthians? This probably isn't a big deal, but it would be nice.
  • Y Yep, added 3 sources that discuss the meaning of Paul's suffering.
• 27: Source verifies the text
• 30: Source verifies the text.
• 56: Source verifies the text.
• 82: Could there be additional sources for this information than just The Iliad? If you think this is sufficient, let me know, just seemed like somewhere that could use a couple more citations.
  • Y Yep, added reference to an in-depth analysis of greek gods in particular and mythology in general. It is a great book, despite being written quite a while ago it has a good prose.

• Many of these sources are books, which I cannot immediately access. While nothing stands out as being problematic, the sourcing will have to be gone over by someone more familiar with the literature.
  • As an addendum to this - upon further reflection, this is actually outside of the scope of a good article review. I'm satisfied with the quality of the sources, and if there was a specific book that was in fact problematic, I trust that the nominator would have picked it out. MediaKyle (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is overall written in an encyclopedic tone, but in some ways the neutrality of the article could probably be improved. There's a number of instances where the text seems to speak rather matter-of-factly, in regards to the specific religion it's discussing at the time. An example would be:
  • Buddhism accepts that there is evil in the world, as well as Dukkha (suffering), which is caused by evil or natural causes (aging, disease, rebirth). Evil is expressed in actions and states of mind, such as cruelty, murder, theft, and avarice, which are a result of the three poisons: greed, hatred, and delusion.
    • Y Changed the paragraph to make it clear that it refers to Buddhist teachings/beliefs of Buddhists, rather than beliefs of Wikipedia.
  • Parts like these should probably be rewritten to make it more clear that the article is relaying the views of these religions, rather than stating them in Wikipedia's voice.
• Hinduism is a complex religion with many different currents or religious beliefs. - What do you think about this sentence? I would agree from my Western point of view that Hinduism is a "complex" religion, but I'm not sure if one book from the 70s referring to it as complex is enough to use that language in the article. Maybe this could be expanded to provide more context about what exactly makes Hinduism more complex, rather than just overtly stating so.
  • Y I could do that, but reading this sentence again, I think that the word "complex" should probably be removed entirely rather than expanded. I would feel that no adherent of a given religion would want to have their faith called complex (which might be similar to "convoluted", which has some negative connotation from an NPOV perspective). I will rephrase the sentence entirely to avoid that.
    • Good thinking, I much prefer your solution. "Multifaceted" is a more neutral term. MediaKyle (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The second paragraph of the section "Islam" needs some similar adjustments to the part on Buddhism. For example,
  • This dialectical effort led to the formation of Mu'tazilah theodicy. So because Allah (God) is all-just and wise, it is impossible for Allah to do or carry out things that are contrary to reason.
  • This dialectical effort led to the formation of Mu'tazilah theodicy, which states that because Allah (God) is all-just and wise, it is impossible for Allah to do or carry out things that are contrary to reason.
  • The subsequent sentences in this paragraph also need to be adjusted in this way.
    • Y Yep, reformulated that section, as requested. It looks good now.
• Under "Judaism"
  • It is easier to rationalize suffering caused by theft or accidental injuries, but the physical, mental, and existential horrors of persistent events of repeated violence over long periods of time, such as the Holocaust, or an innocent child slowly suffering from the pain of cancer, cannot be rationalized by one-sided self-blame and belittling personhood. - This reads to me like a quote that wasn't put in quotation marks; nevertheless, this sentence and the following sentence should be rewritten for NPOV and clarity.
    • Y Removed this sentence entirely, it doesn't affect the meaning of the section in any way.

• This article is well illustrated. All images in the article are appropriately tagged with their licensing information, and are suitably captioned.

• Stable as can be, no edit wars or content disputes in sight.

• Earwig returned a couple of false positives in the "unlikely" range, likely due to the repetition of certain terms. No violations have been found, and the potential concern listed below has been resolved.
• Another examination reveals close paraphrasing in the second paragraph of Privation theory of evil from newadvent.org, some of the text being directly copied from this source.
  • Y Completely changed the paragraph.
    • Just as a note: I think this wasn't as much of a copyvio concern as it was simply a quote that wasn't attributed quite right. The website linked above seems to have been directly quoting the work of Saint Aquinas, which I'd venture a guess to say is probably public domain. The nominator has sufficiently addressed the concern nevertheless. MediaKyle (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]