|Part of the series on|
“”If God is [great], he is not good. If God is good, he is not [great].
The problem of evil has two branches. The logical problem of evil (LPOE) attempts to prove that the existence of any evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity. The evidential problem of evil (EPOE) attempts to prove that the existence of certain amounts and/or types of evil contradicts the existence of an entity that is, to some degree, potent and benevolent.
Of course, not all gods are believed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or either of the two. Many gods are morally flawed, actively evil, or merely indifferent, and many are not all-powerful. The logical problem of evil doesn't apply to these gods, though the evidential problem of evil may still apply. This agrees with the point of the problem of evil, that the existence of a flawed, evil, indifferent, or non-omnipotent entity would be compatible with reality, while the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity would not.
“”At some point, mankind is gonna have to shed this skin if he's gonna move forward. I do have a serious intellectual problem with it, and on another level, it just ticks me off - it's just the ultimate hustle. It's just; "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". I asked [the actor playing] Jesus, in Religulous, at Holy Land; why can't God just defeat the devil and get rid of evil? You know? And it's the same reason a comic book character can't get rid of his nemesis - then there's no story. If God gets rid of the devil - and he could, he's all powerful - well, then there's no fear, there's no reason to come to church, there's no reason to pass the plate, we're all out of a job...
The problem of evil is unusual in objections to religion in that many apologists accept that it is a persuasive and rational criticism of theism. As a result, the problem of evil is often regarded as one of the greatest threats to religious belief, causing many religious writers to scramble to find a wide variety of solutions.
Even so, other theists have rejected the validity of the argument outright, asserting that it involves a number of logical fallacies.
The problem of evil has many logical proofs, all of which attempt to show a contradiction between the existence of a benevolent entity and the existence of evil.
 Logical problem of evil
The logical problem of evil, or LPOE, attempts to show a contradiction between the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient entity and the existence of any evil.
- P1: If godn does exist, is omnipotent, is omniscient and is omnibenevolent, then evil does not exist.
- C1: (Contrapositive of P1) If evil does exist, then godn does not exist, is not omnipotent, omniscient, and/or is not omnibenevolent.
- P2: Evil does exist.
- C2: (From C1 and P2) Godn does not exist, is not omnipotent, omniscient and/or is not omnibenevolent.
 Evidential problem of evil
“”If a tenth part of the pains taken in finding signs of an all-powerful benevolent God had been employed in collecting evidence to blacken the creator's character, what scope would not have been found in the animal kingdom? It is divided into devourers and devoured, most creatures being lavishly fitted with instruments to torment their prey.
|—John Stuart Mill|
The evidential problem of evil, or EPOE, attempts to show a contradiction between the existence of an omnibenevolent entity (sometimes omnipotent, sometimes merely potent) and certain types and/or certain amounts of evil. Because an EPOE accepts an apologist's argument that some types or amounts of evil aren't disproof of an omnibenevolent entity, there are specific responses to apologist claims. In general, any EPOE will follow the format:
- P1: If godn does exist, is potent to degree x, and is benevolent to degree y, then evil of type z does not exist.
- C1: (Contrapositive of P1) If evil of type z does exist, then godn does not exist, is not potent to degree x, and/or is not benevolent to degree y.
- P2: Evil of type z does exist.
- C2: (From C1 and P2) Godn does not exist, is not potent to degree x, and/or is not benevolent to degree y.
Where x would specify how powerful the god is, y how nice the god is, and z what kind of evil said god would not allow to exist.
Natural evil: Some apologists argue that human-caused evil (or "moral evil") is justified, because removing moral evil would remove free will. Even if we accept this, not all evil is caused by humans; earthquakes and hurricanes aren't products of human free will.
- If an OO entity exists, then no evil that isn't caused by human free will exists.
- Evil that isn't caused by human free will exists.
- An OO entity does not exist.
Unnecessary suffering: Some apologists argue that evil is justified, because some evil helps work towards a greater goal, like creating better souls or warning people of Hell. Even if we accept this, not all evil appears to help achieve any greater goals, such as the death of babies before they reach sentience or the death of innocents.
- If an OO entity exists, then evil that does not achieve a greater purpose does not exist.
- Evil that does not achieve a greater purpose exists.
- An OO entity does not exist.
 Different gods
“”Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
|—Epicurus, ca 300 BCE|
One way to avoid the POE is to believe in a god that is unable and/or unwilling stop evil.
 Able, Willing
If a god is able and willing to prevent evil, then evil should not exist. It does.
 Unable, Willing
This solves the logical problem of evil, but does not solve the evidential problem of evil. While a god of this nature might exist, it must be weaker than all of the suffering present in the universe, as it is clearly unable to stop it. This leaves a believer either with a god too weak to stop murders (much less create a universe or life) or a god that won't solve the problem of evil, both of which believers usually will not accept.
 Able, Unwilling
This answer is far more disturbing, as it promotes that an all-powerful being wanted inhabitants of the universe to suffer, or at least didn't care enough to stop said suffering (One notable example of a being that won't stop evil would be an omnimalevolent god, who would have its own Problem of Good). A god who has intentionally stepped back from the material universe would also be compatible with deism but also with the ideas of maltheism and dystheism, which questions the whole "goodness" of God and ascribes certain evil properties to God.
 Unable, Unwilling
If a god is unable and unwilling to prevent evil, then said god isn't much of a god.
This god does avoid the problem of evil.
However, not only does this god not have any real power, but it's also kind of an asshat.
“”I think that if there were a God, there would be less evil on this earth. I believe that if evil exists here below, then either it was willed by God or it was beyond His powers to prevent it. Now I cannot bring myself to fear a God who is either spiteful or weak. I defy Him without fear and care not a fig for his thunderbolts.
|—Marquis de Sade[wp]|
The problem of evil has been given an entire branch of theology called theodicy, which attempts to respond to the problem of evil. Related to theodicy are anthropodicy — the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the evils it has caused — and cosmodicy — the attempt to justify the universe despite the evils it contains.
A theist's typical response to the problem of evil is to challenge the existence of unnecessary evil by explaining that God has purposes for every instance of evil and suffering, be it to punish sinners, to test the faithful, or to make a point about something. This, however, does not explain god's tendency to punish innocents as well as sometimes killing Christians instead of trying to prove a point to them, and god's tendency to not punish evildoers. A more extreme view suggests everything is the result of sin, whether the original one or the ones later added.
Another interesting theist response is that God, although all-loving and all-knowing, is not omnipotent in himself (or herself), but relies on humanity to get things done. This leads to the question of whether that god is worthy of worship at all, if mankind can get their things done on their own anyway. The all-lovingness of said god can also be doubted with the paragraph above.
A third response is to suggest that while "night" is the lack of light, so "evil" is the lack of God. This simply rewords the issue, as it does not explain why God would allow Himself to be absent from a situation to such a degree that suffering occurs.
When challenged about specific cases, they will often say that the God has a plan for everyone and everything, but his ways are mysterious and his reasons may be unclear to us (or words to that effect). This does not resolve the problem of evil; it only tells us that we do not understand, therefore shifting the focus from logic to faith.
 Sinners get screwed theodicy
“”Why did he not answer the prayers of the imprisoned, of the helpless? And when he heard the lash upon the naked back of the slave, why did he not also hear the prayer of the slave? And when children were sold from the breasts of mothers, why was he deaf to the mother's cry?
|—Robert G. Ingersoll|
In the Old Testament period, there was an attempt to create a tight one-for-one relationship between sin and death, righteousness and life. Unfortunately, this rarely panned out. The wicked often flourished, became rich and lived long, happy lives while the virtuous and poor often fell sick and were cut short from the blessings of life. This flawed theodicy was applied on the national scale regarding Israel. When the nation failed in battle with the Canaanites or was conquered by the Assyrians and Babylonians and Greeks, prophets arose to offer an explanation in terms of a failure to correctly observe the Law. Jeremiah even said the Jews were exiled to allow the land to observe the sabbaths for 70 years to make up for their collective failure to keep the sabbaths. When you get out to the Shoah of the 1930's and 40s, or the Holocaust, with six million Jews slain, the people began to wonder if maybe Yahweh was a little bit too focused on how his sabbaths were to be observed (yet some Orthodox Jews have still blamed this on failure to keep the Jewish law, usually in regard to kosher diet nowadays).
 Free will theodicy
“”If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?
Under the Free Will Defense (FWD), an OO entity wouldn't remove all evil because the existence of free will is more valuable than the removal of all evil. The FWD is the most common theist response to the LPOE. It was first used by Augustine of Hippo, and later repackaged by Alvin Plantinga. Some theists claim that Plantinga's version of the FWD is the definitive and unrebutted answer to the LPOE, ignoring that Plantinga's arguments have been criticized by both philosophers and theologians, such as John Mackie, Antony Flew, David Lewis, and Michael Tooley, among many others.
The free will defense is as follows:
- Maintaining free will is more important than removing evil.
- Altering someone's ability to impact others, in any way, removes their free will.
- Thus, an OO entity cannot prevent evil without also removing free will.
One might question exactly what makes "free will" so good. Proponents of divine command theory might argue that free will is good because it is a part of God's nature or beliefs, while others might try to make the claim that total freedom really is good. One might wonder why most theists then support any attempts by people or governments to prevent the crimes which God apparently doesn't want to. If free will is so important, why does God allow brainwashing? This should also count for those who believe in demonic possession, especially if the demons doing the possessing have free will themselves. Why does the free will of the brainwasher or demonic possessor matter more than the free will of the victim? Furthermore, "free will" is merely the ability to choose among available options. The ability to have all options available is not free will but omnipotence. Humans are not able to kill each other by simply wishing it; does the lack of this ability mean that humans do not have free will? There are already restrictions on humans' ability to kill each other. So, is the current level of ability somehow "optimal"? Having free will to decide on accomplishing an action deemed evil is not the same as being able to accomplish it.
Furthermore, one may argue that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive:
- A truly all-knowing being will know everything that will ever occur in the future before it occurs.
- An all-knowing being's knowledge cannot be flawed.
- From Items 1 and 2, an all-knowing being will know, in advance, what decisions will be made before a decision is made. From Item 2, this knowledge must be true.
- From Item 3, all decisions have already been made in the all-knowing entity's knowledge before they occur.
- From Item 4, nobody can freely make a decision because its result is known in advance. Therefore, free will is mutually exclusive with an omniscient entity.
A moral flaw in Human Free Will and the Omniscience of an Omnibenevolent god coexisting, especially according to the Double predestination view, is that God knowingly paved the way for some humans to be born for the purpose of being eternally tortured for their predetermined choices.
Also, similar to the Omnipotence paradox problem, one could argue: how can a fully Omniscient deity itself have free will? If said deity already knows what its future actions are, how can it have free will to choose what to do? If it chooses to do something it didn't predict Will (Not Could) happen, its Omniscience becomes Null. If it only executes specific actions according to what it already knows will happen, it doesn't exactly have free will.
One of the more effective rebuttals to the argument of Free Will is to ask whether there is free will in heaven. If the answer is "yes", then the next logical question to ask would be "If God can create Heaven with free will AND no sin, why didn't he just do it with this life?" Which brings us back to questioning the theist idea of omnibenevolence. If the answer is "no", then naturally the question of "why then is free will so valuable?" gets raised.
 Soul-making theodicy
“”Injustice upon Earth renders the justice of heaven impossible.
|—Robert G. Ingersoll|
The soul-making or Irenaean theodicy is a lesser-known explanation which argues that Man cannot accept God without love, and Man cannot love without first feeling pain. These theists believe that the amount of evil in the world is exactly the amount necessary for the creation of human souls capable of going to heaven. This was once very popular, but in modern times has seldom been used in debate in part because two world wars, the Holocaust, and the threat of nuclear obliteration have made many skeptical that they would be soulless in a happier world. John Hick, an evangelical theologian who later became a Quaker, is a notable proponent of this theodicy. Modern neuroscience easily shows pain and pleasure and love have different origins in the brain and don't require each other.
 Love of particular persons theodicy
“”How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
This explanation argues that, although people in general could exist without evil, the particular people who now exist could not and even an omnipotent God could not create them. The lives of all who now live are so deeply entwined with the evils of the past, that without all of those evils, or the bulk of them, everyone now alive would never have existed. If God loves people in general, the best thing she could have done for people in general would have been to create a perfect world for them to live in. But if God loves particular people — the particular people who now exist — the best thing she could have done for those particular people is to create a world filled with all the evils necessary for their existence — in other worlds, the best thing God could do for us is to create the very world which now exists. God could have done better; but God could not have done better for us, only for other people. (God certainly could have made the world differently so one particular person's life was better, and almost everyone else's the same — but God cannot create a world in which all of our lives are better, for in such a world none of us would have ever been born.) So, in other words, this kind of god has no problems with allowing wars, genocides and plagues to ravage humanity, as long as the end product is just right for his or her tastes.
This can be seen in a sense as a Nietzschean theodicy, in that it is an application to theodicy of what Nietzsche says in Thus Spake Zarathustra:
Have you ever said Yes to a single joy? O my friends, then you have said Yes too to all woe. All things are entangled, ensnared, enamored; if ever you wanted one thing twice, if ever you said, 'You please me, happiness! Abide moment!' then you wanted all back. All anew, all eternally, all entangled, ensnared, enamored—oh then you loved the world. Eternal ones, love it eternally and evermore; and to woe too, you say: go, but return! For all joy wants—eternity.
Another version of this objection might be that we as created creatures really have no right to complain about God creating evil, for without evil we would not exist — in other words, when we are complaining about God creating evil, what we are really objecting to is our own existence, for the evil God creates is necessary to our own existence. In this view, we ought to be thankful to God for all the evil that he has ever made.
Of course, this kind of theodicy still has trouble to account for the fact that an omnipotent god could have simply created a set of humans in exactly the way he or she wanted them to be, without exposing past generations to needless suffering. And if past evils were necessary for our existence, no human would have a right to complain about any injustice that might benefit future generations - after all, it's just as likely that the set of humans god really wants to exist is not the current generation, but some future one. This formulation of theodicy also runs into some problems when it comes to daily application by anyone other than God. When you steal someone's television, it does no good to tell them that you only did it because you have a special love for the person he would be without a television.
 Warning theodicy
“”Why do earthquakes, forest fires, hurricanes, tsunamis exist? Surely an all-powerful God could have created a nice Earth for his 'precious creations' without all this nonsense going on. Without God creating the United States Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans would still be going strong. Did God have something against New Orleans?
According to the warning theodicy, evil exists because God is being nice and warning us about hell, as the esteemed philosopher Ray Comfort articulates. Despite being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, God is apparently unable or unwilling to give a clear warning. Instead, he just continuously hurts random people in cute little ways, like toe stubbings and mass shootings, and hopes we get the message about the even worse suffering he will inflict later.
 Evil being the absence of God
“”Now, the classic defense of God against the problem of evil is that it’s not logically possible to have free will and no possibility of moral evil. ... Built into the situation of God deciding to create human beings is the chance of evil and, consequently, the suffering that results. ... The source of evil is not God’s power but mankind’s freedom. ... The overwhelming majority of pain in the world is caused by our choices to kill, to slander to be selfish, to stray sexually, to break our promises, to be reckless.
|—Catholic apologist theologian Peter Kreeft|
 Mysterious ways theodicy
“”Now, let's take a case of someone who's been "dealt a bad hand". What about Fräulein Fritzl[wp], in Austria? Whose father, unwilling to get out of the way, kept her in a dungeon, where she didn't see daylight for 24 years. And came down most nights to rape and to sodomize her, often in front of the children who were the victims of the previous attacks and offenses. And it's only purely by accident that Herr Fritzl is now in custody. And it's a shame he's 76, because his life imprisonment isn't going to feel enough like that to him. I want you to just take a moment, since [religious apologists] are so interested in the downtrodden and the helpless - imagine how she must have begged Him. Imagine how she must have pleaded. Imagine for how long. Imagine how she must have prayed, every day - how she must have beseeched heaven. Imagine. For 24 years. And no, no answer at all - nothing, NOTHING! Imagine how those children must've felt. Imagine what they felt when they saw one of their number, the dead twin, being borne away from neglect, on top of everything else. Now, [religious apologists] say; "That's allright, that she went through that, because she'll get a better deal in another life?" Are you- I have to ask you if you can be morally or ethically serious and postulate such a question!? "No, that had to happen! And heaven did watch it with indifference, because it knows that that score will later be settled. So it was well worth her going through it, she'll have a better time next time." I don't see how you can look anyone, ANYONE in the face - or live with yourself - and say anything so hideously, wickedly immoral as that. Or even imply it.
Some theists argue that mankind is unable to comprehend God's infinite power and perspective, which works in a mysterious way after our deaths to somehow transform previous suffering. Specifically, they suggest that Heaven (or whatever flavour of salvation they ascribe to) is so radically transformative that our entire preceding existence (including experiences of suffering) is changed into a thing of wonder and beauty. This transformation of all our suffering that will ultimately occur is supposedly mirrored (though on a vastly different scale and magnitude) by the way some of our suffering is presently transformed; ie, by the way in which, even within our lifetimes, some of our present experiences of suffering, after the fact, are transformed into something fondly remembered and appreciated; we sometimes don't wish we had achieved some good end result without having had experienced the suffering to get there . . .
. . . We would advise adherents of this belief, when consoling a grieving parent, not to compare the suffering said parent is no doubt going through against the suffering experienced trying to complete a marathon or to learn algebra or to woo a spouse.
 Because I'm God, Darn it!
Some simplify this stance and just say humans are inferior beings and have no right to question God's acts. This is often a satisfactory answer for the doublethink required when trying to meld God's stated actions with His stated Commandments, but remains intellectually problematic when carried out to its logical conclusions. Consider the following neatly laid out set of points that you must think to accept the "mysterious ways" argument:
- Morality comes from God and God alone.
- This seems obvious, but it is essential in order for God to be the source of morality. Otherwise morality is actually higher power than even God, and God is reduced to being a messenger. If reduced to being a messenger, God ceases to be a supreme authority and is effectively removed as a requirement to be moral, becoming a redundant entity in people's lives. Naturally, theism as it is doesn't want this idea, so God must be the source of morality. Any violation of this concept must be detrimental.
- God's actions are therefore a reflection of the preached morality.
- If this wasn't true we'd violate the first premise here. Ignoring, for a moment, the tautology of "God is Good, and Good is to be like God," if God's behaviour and character didn't reflect the preached moral standards then these standards must be external to God.
- God is known to violate his own morality. However, any violations of God's commandments by God are just Him working in his mysterious ways.
- I.e., an action (such as killing) is "immoral" if performed by man, but "moral" if performed by God. It challenges us to know the mind of God in explaining discrepancies in practising what the Almighty preaches. (The contradiction that people say this on the one hand and then, with absolute certainty, declare God to be good, loving and caring on the other hand shouldn't need pointing out.)
However, the problem lies in the fact that third point violates the second pretty obviously. The justification is just some sort of "appeal to audacity" if such a fallacy exists. If we can judge God to be inconsistent with and within his own morality then he is not a reflection of that morality (point 2, which follows neatly from the essential point 1) and so that morality must be external to him. With this the first point is thrown out of the window and we're back to a case where a morality derived from God is either a) non-existent or b) arbitrary and meaningless.
The obvious response to this is to say that God is allowed to do this, because within his morality God is simply allowed to violate it himself. This is perhaps worse, as it is effectively forming the tautology that "God is Good, and Good is to be like God" - including suitable escape hatches for God to do whatever he wants. This conveys no special information, it is like saying "<insert name here> is Good, and Good is to be like <insert name here>." It is useless, and it is arbitrary.
 Satandidit theodicy
Many believers will assert that it isn't God who causes evil, but Satan. This is ridiculous. In mainstream theology, Satan is not omnipotent, while God is. If God is omnipotent, then they should easily be able to either destroy Satan or at least overpower him and bring about a totally good universe. Thus, if evil exists, then either God chooses to allow Satan to exist at least in the short term (and appears not fully good) or cannot overpower Satan (and is not omnipotent). And if not Satan, then where does evil come from? Fortunately, Isaiah informs us on that point... (see below).
 Goddidit theodicy
“”I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
|—Isaiah 45:7, KJV|
Some believers hold that God is inherently good and so whatever God does is inherently good. If God created the universe as it is, then the universe as it is is good.
Or, as one contributor put it - together, John Joseph Haldane's Wittgenstinian-Thomistic account of concept formation and Martin Heidegger's observation of temporality's thrown nature imply that God's act of creation and God's act of judgment are the same act. God's condemnation of evil is subsequently believed to be executed and expressed in his created world; a judgement that is unstoppable due to God's all powerful will; a constant and eternal judgement that becomes announced and communicated to other people on Judgment Day. In this explanation, God's condemnation of evil is declared to be a good judgement.
This argument falls to the Euthyphro dilemma. If what God does is good simply because God did it, then "good" is arbitrary and not worth following. If what God does is good because certain things are "good" externally to God's actions, then what God does isn't inherently moral.
 See also
- Omnipotence paradox
- Ontological argument
- José Saramago's 1994 novel The Gospel According to Jesus Christ.
- All Possible Worlds, The problem of evil
- Ex-christian explains the Problem of Evil and why it made him leave Christianity
- "Problem of evil" by the Iron Chariots Wiki
- "Why doesn't an all-good God prevent evil?" by ReligiousTolerance.org
- Even now, Sithrak oils the spit.
- SMBC has two comics related to God's "Mysterious ways" http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=668 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2292
- Case and point.
- PHILOSOPHY - Religion: The Problem of Evil
- The Problem of Evil in film
- ↑ From his play, J.B.
- ↑ Larry King: Bill Maher On His Movie Religulous (7:15)
- ↑ See Dr. Kreeft's argument here.
- ↑ Groothius, Douglas. "Addressing the Problem of Evil". The Christian Research Institute. n.d. Web. 11 April 2014.
- ↑ Responses to the Problem of Evil. All About God.
- ↑ William Lane Craig's justification
- ↑ Some of the most common are here.
- ↑ Amley, J. D., "What Does Evil Prove about God?", Maitland: Xulon, 2014.
- ↑ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens, page 78.
- ↑ See the Wikipedia article on Problem_of_evil#Epicurus.
- ↑ WikiQuote on Marquis de Sade
- ↑ J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", Theological studies, 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870—902 — In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?
- ↑ http://www.amazon.com/Reality-God-Problem-Evil/dp/082649241X
- ↑ Robert Ingersoll, 1899
- ↑ See also determinism.
- ↑ See his The Happy Life; Answer to Sceptics; Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil, Soliloquies
- ↑ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Section: 4c 2
- ↑ This can be defended through reduction to absurdity; if an omniscient entity's knowledge is flawed, it could "know" falsehoods like 1 + 1 = 4, where all the symbols retain their common meanings.
- ↑ IEP: 4c 1
- ↑ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woody_Allen
- ↑ http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/responses/comfort-suffering.html
- ↑ Christopher Hitchens on the immorality of Christianity
- ↑ No comment yet from the Angels, who are being reduced to the messengers of the messenger.
- ↑ See the six web pages of www.predestinedfreedom.me.uk.
- ↑ J.J. Haldane Atheism & Theism,(Second Edition, 2003) pp 102-105
- ↑ Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time, Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, 1962, reprint 2003, Blackwell Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, pp426-427 (H 374) and pp458-472 (H406-421)