Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustinian theodicy/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 15:52, 25 April 2012 [1].

Augustinian theodicy edit

Nominator(s): ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article in September 2011 and I think it is now ready to be considered. It was peer reviewed in Sepetmber, became a Good Article in December and was peer reviewed again at the start of this month. It has also received a copy edit from Accedie and was briefly reviewed recently by Quadell at his talk page. I now feel that it is ready for a Featured Article nomination, and am happy to make any necessary changes suggested. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No dead links, WebCited the four external links. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I've wanted to participate in a philosophical FAC for a while! Good work on nominating this. I've got a few suggestions, which probably aren't necessary changes (nor, of course, are they sufficient ).

Firstly, the grammar of the name. I haven't read the original sources, but the article currently talks of Augustinian theodicy (and the partnering article on Irenaean theodicy) in gramatically the same way one refers to, say, "Christian theology" or "French cheese". Except there's some inconsistency. In the first paragraph of the 'Outline' section, Hick is referred to differently from in the paragraph in the sub-section of Outline entitled 'Evidential problem of evil'. In this, it is referred to as "The Augustinian theodicy". A minor quibble, perhaps, but stylistically it reads a bit strangely and inconsistently. It is perhaps slightly odd, as the philosopher in me wants to say, "well, what is this thing exactly?" A theodicy is basically an argument, so perhaps, strictly logically it ought to be Augustine's theodicy, like, oh, Wittgenstein's private language argument or the Gettier problem. Perhaps they do things differently in theology, I don't know. Don't let me bully you in to my preference, go with what the sources say.
"Augustinian theodicy was first identified by John Hick" - I'm not sure identified is the right word here. As an argument, the first person we know identified the Augustinian theodicy was hopefully St Augustine. What exactly did Hick do? Clearly reconstruct the argument and identify it to Augustine? (In much the same way various arguments have been reconstructed in the form of, say, the form of modal logic and read back into the literature.)
"Augustinian theodicy can be distinguished by its attempt to maintain the goodness of God despite the occurrence of evil in the world" → distinguished from what?
"Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's nature of existence" → This could perhaps be better phrased. It doesn't call into question the nature of God's existence. I'm not sure what that means. The evidential problem of evil challenges theists to accept either that God doesn't exist or that the thing they call God doesn't all his divine attributes. If you are willing to concede some divine attributes, then you don't need to concede on existence; conceding to the evidential problem of evil doesn't necessarily require you to question the nature of God's existence—the atheist can say "well, if God exists, then he has the relevant attributes that theists say he has, but given the evidential problem of evil, I don't believe God exists because the evidence of evil makes me call into question the compatibility of those attributes." Omitting the words "nature of" might do it, but that doesn't really nail it, does it? You could say something like "Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's existence or God's nature", but that's a bit clumsy.
The discussion of Calvin in the lead might be a bit too much: noting that Calvin's view of soteriology differs from St Augustine isn't necessary for understanding the theodicy and probably ought to be omitted from the lead, even if it is an interesting thing to discuss later in the article.
"Scientific implications" → good name for the section? Not sure. It's really a scientifically-derived critique rather than a discussion of the scientific implications.
Is Augustinian theodicy taken up a plausible theodicy by non-Christian philosophers/theologians? To say that something is a Christian theodicy has two possible meanings: either that it is a theodicy only available to Christians (perhaps if a theodicy appealed specifically to specific doctrines of Christian faith) or that it has been primarily used by Christians. Often the Islamic philosophers reuse and extend philosophical arguments from those who went before: it'd be interesting to know if there is any development of Augustine's theodicy in the Islamic world.
There are some philosophical texts that are pretty well-respected on the problem of evil that are missing, but I don't know if that's because they are duplicating other sources. The work of MM Adams for one. Howard-Snyder's "The Evidential Problem of Evil". There's probably some other contemporary philosophical work that the article might be missing, but theodicy isn't my area of interest.
In the section on Plantinga, it might be useful to cite Plantinga directly and perhaps some of the contemporary literature on Plantinga's FWD even if Plantinga's FWD isn't a theodicy but a defense against the logical problem of evil. (My personal biases might be showing here: my Ph.D is on Plantinga's later work.)
In the references section, Michael Tooley's Stanford Encyclopedia article is included twice as separate references.
Otherwise the references look at first glance to be pretty good.

Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Tom. I'll reply in the order that you gave them.

Fixed - it now consistently uses 'the Augustinian theodicy'.
Reworded identification & added a little extra to clarify.
Clarified.
That was a mistake in the first place - it was supposed to be God's nature or existence; I've fixed that.
Renamed the section.
I had looked for non-Christian views and had found little. I will have another look and tell you what I find.
Thank you for the sources - I will have a look and include anything which can better source what's already there.
I'll have a look for something directly from Plantinga.
Tooley is referenced twice because the two references point to different sections on the page. What would you recommend here?

As I said, thank you very much for your comments. I'll get back to you on the last few things ASAP. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot find any non-Christian views; it seems to me that this is a Christian-only theodicy. Islam theology has alternative interpretations of The Fall, but nothing specifically related to Augustine's interpretation; most Jewish theodicy seems to be post-Holocaust, and Maimonides had little to do with Augustine, from what I can gather. I have found Howard-Snyder's work and used it and have directed referenced Plantinga, as you suggested. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed this at FAC and took a look. One thing instantly stands out to me: the lead looks disproportionately big for the article. The whole page is 3,000 words, but the lead alone is 500 of them. So a 500 word lead for 2,500 words of text is 1/5 of the size! I find it hard to believe the lead needs to be so long..? --Lobo (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll have a look at shortening it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've condensed the second two paragraphs of the lead, which were making it so long. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking much better, good work. --Lobo (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: I notice "Hell" is capitalised throughout, but "heaven" isn't. Since the two are opposites, shouldn't both be capitalised (or not)? Auree ^★★ 02:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I have capitalised Heaven where it occurs. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN 5 and similar: why omit Russell?
Green 2010 or 2011?
Generally encyclopedias, even if online, are italicized
Be consistent in whether Augustine's works are cited to Augustine of Hippo or simply Augustine
FN 41: page(s)?
Murphy & Ellis or Ellis & Murphy?
No citations to Bush 1991, Engel 2007. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of that, thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ on prose, no comment on comprehensiveness:

The lead is quite good. One query: "those who choose the salvation of Jesus Christ" Is "choose" the optimal choice of words here? It seems a bit odd in this context.
"The Augustinian theodicy was first distinguished as a form of theodicy by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love, written in 1966, in which he classified Augustine's theodicy and its subsequent developments as Augustinian." Not sure, but would it be better to put "Augustinian" between quotation marks, as it's introduced as a certain classification.
"Hick distinguished between Augustinian-style theodicy, which is based on free will, and Irenaean theodicy, which sees God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits." "Augustine-style" theodicy yet simply "Irenaean" theodicy?
"The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin, with the Augustinian theologians arguing that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings." With + noun + -ing constructions are generally depreciated: suggest "The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin; Augustinian theologians argue that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings."
"based on the writing of Saint Paul, as well as his interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis." Whose interpretation? Saint Paul's or Augustine's? Needs clarification
"Aquinas believed that evil is only acceptable because of the good that comes from it, and that it can only be justified when the occurrence of the good required the occurrence of the evil." required → requires? Also, you could lose the first "only".
"He argued that God's grace is irresistible and will consequently be accepted and persevered in by those he chooses to bestow with it." "persevered in by"? Also, you could lose the "consequently" here.
"Italian theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria criticised Augustine's conception of evil." "Conception"? Should that be "concept"?
"does everything within his power to bring about good" "bring about" seems like informal wording.
"He went on to propose that, even in a world where humans have significant free will, their actions may be predictable enough that God would be unable to create a world in which a significantly free agent would do something unpredictable." Could benefit from some tweaking for brevity and clarity.
"By simply arguing that the coexistence of God and evil are logically possible, Platinga did not present a theodicy, but a defence. He did not attempt to demonstrate that his proposition is true or plausible, just that it is logically possible. Consequently, Plantinga's argument is an answer to the logical problem of evil, whereas Augustine's attempt to show that the existence of God remains probable is a response to the evidential problem of evil with which he dealt." This reads as editorial opinion to me... needs attribution.
I've made some (mostly minor) edits myself, please check.
Watch out for redundancies such as "therefore", "moreover", "consequently", "subsequently", and "thus": most of these are no more than cumbersome supplements to the text and are generally unneeded. I removed some but others remain. Auree ^★★ 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "choose" to "choose to accept".
I've put quotation marks around the second mention of Augustinian, where it is a direct quote.
I've changed "Augustinian-style" to "Augustinian".
I've made the change you suggest.
Swapped the two round to remove ambiguity.
Fixed.
Removed "consequently" and changed the order of the sentence.
Done.
Changed to "achieve".
Rephrased for brevity.
Reworded to attribute the opinion to the source.
Your changes look ok, thank you.
I've removed the redundancies I could find.

Thanks for your comments. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are great, thanks. This was a very interesting and educational read to me, but I know very little about the subject matter. As such I'm afraid I cannot go beyond reviewing the prose -- which, in my opinion, now meets the FA criterion, so I'll switch to support on that. Nice work and good luck! Auree ^★★ 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Alright, I've been meaning to review this for a while, have finally started reading it. I took a couple classes on Augustine back in my college days so I have a passing familiarity with him, but otherwise I'll be focusing mostly on prose. The article is pretty well written.
I suggest breaking up the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead into two sentences.
You might want to note that Hick and Plantinga are contemporary philosophers.
Is the John Hick mentioned here the John Hick we have an article on? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a preference, but I'd avoid {{Quote}} in favor of a regular quote in the prose (the City of God quote).
Any notable differences between Augustine's theodicy in Confessions and City of God (seeing they were written a decade or so apart)?
General prose comment: if you can make it flow, it's usually better to use the "X's Y" construction instead of "the Y of X".
"Aquinas supported Augustine's view that evil is a privation of goodness, maintaining that evil is a real privation, intrinsically found in good." What is meant by "real privation" here?
"and that it can only be justified when the occurrence of the good requires the occurrence of the evil." Could this be clarified a bit?
Try to standardize how you write centuries: "Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century scholastic philosopher", "John Calvin, a 16th-century French theologian", "vividly depicted in this 12th-century painting", and "and by eighteenth century theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria". Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the last sentence of the John Calvin section is really needed.
"Fortunatus proposed that Augustine was reducing the scope of evil only to what is committed by humans, though he finally conceded the debate, as he admitted that he could not defend his views on the origin of evil." This is based on Augustine's recollection though, right? Might want to note that.
Might want to note time periods in the reception section.
I see you go right from Fortunatus to Zaccaria, I take it there were no notable responses in the intervening time?
"Schleiermacher and Hick argued that the world's perfection lies in its capacity for human development." Is there a better word to use than "capacity" here?
Overall the article seems to be very well researched, I'm curious if you think Reinhold Niebuhr's take on Augustine's theodicy might be a good addition though [2]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Mark; I have made all of the changes you recommended. I have searched quite extensively for responses to Augustine in that time period but can find none. This may be because, as his theodicy was generally accepted and formed Cathloic doctrine up until Hick's objection in 1966, there has simply not been a great deal of criticism. If there is anything I have missed that you can point me to, I will add it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that explanation for the gap makes sense. Alright, I'm satisfied with your changes and am now content to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Good job! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just to let people know, I am away from between from the 17th to the 22nd March and will be unable to respond to any feedback regarding this nomintion until then. Once I am back, I will of course address any issues people have raised in my absence. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and can again respond to comments. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Do you have a source for the Landsberg caption?
File:Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg needs a US PD tag
File:Hortus_Deliciarum_-_Hell.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The latter have been tagged. What needs to be sourced in the Landsberg image - that it was painted by him? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposefor now. To me, there appear to be a number of logical contradictions in the article. Maybe that's because the sources don't agree with each other. I don't know, but I feel like that needs to be resolved.

"Thomas Aquinas, influenced by Augustine, proposed a similar theodicy based on the view that God is perfectly good and can contain no evil" Isn't a theodicy always based on the assumption that God is perfectly good. Then most of that sentence is redundant.
"Some criticisms have also been derived from science, as the Augustinian theodicy runs contrary to scientific consensus on the development of the world." The end of that sentence is rather vague.
I'm not sure why Sharma, Murphy, and Ellis belong in the "Scientifically derived critique" section. Is Sharma's critique derived science just because he assumes natural disasters to in fact be a result of nature rather than God's punishment? And I certainly don't get how Murphy's and Ellis's critique is derived from science.
"Hick distinguished between the Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, which casts God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits.[1] The Augustinian theodicy is distinguished from other forms of theodicy (specifically Irenaean) by its attempt to maintain the goodness of God despite the occurrence of evil in the world.[2]" Those two sentences appear illogical to me. The first appears to say that the Irenean theodicy claims that God is omnibenevolent but that He has to allow for the existence of evil for some purpose. The second appears to say that God isn't actually omnibenevolent. I thought the whole point of a theodicy was to reconcile God's goodness with the existence of evil.
"Evil is believed to be just punishment for the Fall of Man" That sounds a lot like the article's description of the Irenean theodicy - evil being the necessary means to punish mankind.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Carabinieri; here is what I've done.

Clarified that sentence to emphasise God not being responsible.
Rewritten the end of the sentence.
Clarified how arguments are derived from science, based on the sources.
Rewritten the end of the second sentence to highlight God not being responsible.
The Irenaean theodicy teaches that God is responsible for evil but justified because of the benefits evil has to human development. I have made that clearer in the article.

I think that's all. Let me know if there's anything else that needs improving, or if I've not quite dealt with any of your issues. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I think the distinction between the Augustinian and the Irenaean theodicies is definitely a lot clearer now. Now, it looks like Murphy and Ellis are basically just saying the same thing as Hick. I'd suggest moving those two sentences next to each other, possibly even merging them.
I also stumbled over the fact that the Development section seems to repeat a lot of things from the Outline section. That's not very surprising. Though I wouldn't insist on it, I'd suggest the following: An outline really belongs in the lede and it appears that most of the information in the Outline section is already in the lede. So I'd do away with that section and present the arguments that form the theodicy in the context of who came up with them in the Development section. Like I said, it's just a suggestion, but I do think that it might improve the article's coherence.
When you say that Thomas Aquinas agreed with Augustine on certain points, does that mean that he directly mentioned Augustine? Or is it just that scholars since have made the determination that their views coincide? Maybe that should be made clearer in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.

I've merged the sentences, as you suggested.
I added the outline section after someone suggested that I did (either on this article or Irenaean theodicy, I forget) in order to present the argument clearly, before going into different variations. If you really think it should be removed, I will remove it, but that is why it is there. What do you think?
Clarified (and referenced). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good job on the article, by the way. I learned a lot by reading and critiquing it.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose

I'm generally very impressed by the article, and I am pleased to see a philosophical article at FAC, in between the hurricanes and the pop songs. Here are some prose niggles:

Check throughout for hyphenation of compound adjectives: When a century functions as an adjective, it should be hyphenated; hence, "Eighteenth-century theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria" and not "Eighteenth century theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria".

This is only a personal preference, but I prefer a few more grammatical articles than are at present used in the article. Also, to the best of my recollection, the style guide of The Guardian prescribes the use of a definite article before occupations like "Twentieth century philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr". Similarly, I would like to see an indef article before "punishment" in "Augustine believed in the existence of a physical Hell as punishment for sin"; however, I'm not a native speaker of English, so you do not have to care to much about this bullet point.

"Augustine also influenced John Calvin, who supported Augustine's view that evil is the result of free will and that humans have a natural tendency to sin, though held a different position on salvation." – what is the antecedent of "held"? I do understand the sentence, but, if I'm playing unkind, I could maintain that Augustine held a different position, or that humans held it. You could try something like: "Augustine also influenced John Calvin, who, despite holding a different position on salvation, supported Augustine's view that evil is the result of free will and that humans have a natural tendency to sin." OR: "Influenced by Augustine, John Calvin supported Augustine's view – although held a different position on salvation – that evil is the result of free will and that humans have a natural tendency to sin."

Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 12:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have made all the changes you suggested. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a systematic criticism of the article, just one sentence, so hopefully easy to address (but I don't know how myself). Please see talk:Augustinian theodicy#Free will is a punishment?. The problem is in a very prominent location and is puzzling to the reader, so it should certainly be addressed before promotion. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.