trust

Frankly trust there is no evil in your garden, natural or otherwise. That evil is simply a confluence of events that result in a way of thinking. Albeit very different from my way of thinking.

"The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one". - Matthew 13:38. Of course it is not our job nor ability to judge the ultimate soul of anyone.

I would be upset if everyone thought the way I thought. We would never find the truth or come up with different ideas.

I have reached the following thought process. Of course feel free to disagree or agree to disagree.

1) Natural evil was a precursor to moral evil

2) Denying natural evil means that we deny moral evil

3) Natural evil is the desire for selfish DNA survival

4) The first signs of life on earth were possibly created by the debris of a star that came to earth and combined with other building blocks pre-existing on the earth

5) Life from this common ancestor developed to the point we are at now

6) The "devil" has been with us since this "beginning" of life (1 John 3:8) on earth. We are filled with his nature and it is this nature that causes us to sin

7) This world is not ours. "My Kingdom is not of this world...My Kingdom is not of this realm. (John 18:36) "I'm not asking you to take them out of this world, but to keep them from the evil one" (John 17:15)

8) The "mind" in humans and some other animals has now developed to the point where we can not only recognize the selfish DNA survival, but we can actually break away from the selfish DNA survival

9) Christ shows us this "mind" the best and how we can break away from the old selfish DNA surival. He shows a complete reversal of selfish DNA survival: "I am the Good Shepherd. I lay down my life for the sheep". "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me" (Matthew 16:24)

10) It is this dying to our selfish DNA reproduction based on our own free will that will lead us the promised land and the greater good for all of creation

11) "The wolf will live with the lamb" (Isaiah 11:6) and all of creation will follow the golden rule on earth as it is in heaven.

Maybe Jesus did believe in natural evil. I don't know as clearly I wasn't there. But even if he did, is it an issue?. I'm pretty comfortable accepting that not everything Jesus believed was neccessarily accurate.

When we take away the obvious forgeries and contradictions that made it into the much later written gospels, what are we left with? The most intelligent teaching the world has ever known. To me, the intelligence is beyond human. For someone to live at that time and get these concepts that we are just now understanding and still wrestling with is almost beyond belief to me.

There are certain fungal infections while not evil per se in any reasonable sense of the word, I would have no problem harming them even if they are part of creation.

Since these do not have a central nervous system to experience pain, and combining the fact that they do not have a brain to imagine yourself as, it is impossible to break the golden rule with them. There is no reason to believe that this would even be "harming" them. Insects of course have a brain (though it might be doubtful that most of them experience pain) so it is possible to start breaking the golden rule with them. Jump up to animals and that is of course where it becomes even more critical that we follow the golden rule. I think we can all agree that we should at least start thinking about others in creation, even if it only starts out with minimal consideration it hopefully turns into asking what we would want if we were them.

Thinking of natural evil when I look at my garden..... I see so many beautiful flowers, yet the weeds always draw my attention. Even plant life mimics our moral world. That first life had bad apples or weeds built in by design. Maybe I should just start focusing on the flowers.

Below is the most succinct explanation I have heard for the problem of evil (taken from here http://sguthrie.net/evil.htm). Point one below refers to the question at hand and while I initially thought this was not a good explanation, I am starting to think it is a better explanation than I originally thought.

IV. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INFERENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

Unlike the logical problem of evil' date=' the advocate of the inferential or probabilistic problem of evil only suggests that evil would be reduced more than what the actual world contains. Since the world does not contain minimized evil (for one can think of situations in which suffering is short-lived or reduced) then God probably does not exist. There are three main responses that philosophers have utilized in addressing this problem.

 

1. Since God's methodology in permitting evil is inscrutable, then one cannot object to God's existence in the presence of evil. Many have taken the position that the world we live in is far too complex and delicately balanced for it to be any other way. If one event were to be altered, then such a disturbed consequence may preclude this world from having the same amount of good in it with a minimum amount of evil . So suggesting why God would allow evil is viewed as similar to suggesting why God would choose to part the Red Sea for Moses instead of simply evaporating it. Both accomplish the same task of allowing the Israelites to pass through the Red Sea. But if God were to fulfill another part of His plan by destroying the Egyptian pursuers in the collapse of the parted Red Sea waters, then evaporation would not be the preferred choice. Thus God's decision to choose parting the Red Sea instead of evaporating would be considered inscrutable. God is said to be inscrutable when no direct knowledge is ascertained as to why God would permit or cause a specific event. (10) When considering a scenario that such inscrutability envisages, it seems as though one really cannot begin to find a way in which a possible world, one with the same amount of good in it but with no or little evil, is even feasible. Now this seems to show that the non-theist goes beyond what is known or can be known in order to reject the existence of God on the basis of evil. Consider the claim that non-theists usually make when they say that God could create the same effects that exist in our world currently but with good causes in place of evil ones. I do not think that we can make this sort of conjecture for reasons exemplified in our physical laws. Our universe is interwoven with a delicate balance of interrelated causal chains. If we were to disturb one link in any causal chain, whether it be through time, space, or both, then serious repercussions would result. For example, chaos theory suggests that if a butterfly were to flutter its wings then certain weather conditions may be altered in another part of the world. This is called the butterfly effect. (11) Given such a sensitive and delicate relation between two (or more) events, perhaps the causal chains that exist are far too complex to hypothesize an alternate world in which evil events do not contribute to good ones. Since no one can speculate how to have a better world than the actual one then the inferential problem of evil loses its probability.

 

2. The presence of evil may actually contribute to the goodness of the whole of creation. Although this was capitalized on in addressing the logical problem of evil above, there are further reasons to consider evil as a possible link in the chain of maximally good events. And the only reason why God would want to allow evil in His plan of creation is if He had an overriding desire. Typically, theists affirm that God has such an overriding desire, namely that people are brought to a point of spiritual well-being or salvation. With respect to this as God's primary motivation, the existence of evil is not so problematic. In fact, it seems to be quite instrumental given that there seems to be a correlation between immense suffering and pain and belief in God. If suffering yields up more believers in God for their spiritual well-being then it should not at all seem dubious that God would permit evil. Moreover, the presence of evil may actually have a spiritually therapeutic effect. Certainly everyone has said or has heard a parent say to a child, "I spanked you because I love you." In the same way evil may be seen as an instrument of God to "correct, purify, and instruct." (12) Thus God may use evil as a way to advance someone's ability to do good. If a child is disciplined then perhaps she will refrain from committing the same "evil" again. Likewise, a morally irresponsible person develops moral responsibility through the evil inflicted as a consequence of doing morally irresponsible things. Such notable theists as Irenaeus and contemporary philosopher of religion, John Hick, utilize this particular theodicy. Hick says that "in removing all occurrences of pain and suffering, and hence all challenge and all need for mutual care, we should have converted the world from a person-making into a static environment, which could not elicit moral growth." (13)

The usual comeback by critics generally revolves around a possible world in which a causally linked chain of events does not include evil ones. After all, if God is omniscient (all-knowing) then He would know how to construct a world in which the same good events occur but without the evil antecedents. This leads us to the final objection to the inferential problem of evil we have to consider.

 

3. A world without evil may not be a feasible world for individuals who possess free will (the Free Will Defense). Perhaps the most debated issue on the question of evil is whether or not evil is a necessary precondition for individuals who possess free will. Such notable figures as St. Augustine have taken such an approach to the problem of evil. (14) Others have taken a more effective approach. Professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, Alvin Plantinga, suggests that "there may be a very different kind of good that God can't bring about without permitting evil. These are good states of affairs that do not include evil . . . nonetheless God Himself can't bring them about without permitting evil." (15) This is called the Free Will Defense. Critics suggest that perhaps God could have created a possible world without evil and without infringing upon free will by constituting people to always freely choose the good. After all, this is a possible world. But is this a feasible world for God to create? Consider what this suggests:

 

(3) Everyone always freely chooses to do good acts.

 

(4) God constitutes everyone to freely choose good acts.

 

(5) Free will exists.

 

(6) God exists.

 

But surely there is something wrong with statement (4) for it entails that no one can do otherwise but to always choose the good. But if no one can choose otherwise then no ability to choose really exists. Therefore, free will does not exist here. True freedom of the will in regard to moral decision-making entails that the agent must be able to choose otherwise. If God constitutes everyone to always choose the good then the act is ultimately brought about by God directly. The second problem of eliminating evil in the equation of moral decision-making is that justice is not being served. Would it make sense to send a Jeffrey Dahmer to prison if his acts were orchestrated by a mind chip? It seems that the faculty of free will is required. But with free will comes the possibility of bad choices (evil ones). This ultimately leads to a full freedom of the agent to genuinely decide between two palpable options: good and evil. Moreover,

 

 

(7) It is possible that God could not have actualized a world containing moral good without one that also contained moral evil. (16)

 

The theist could rightly argue that because statement (7) is possible then there is no reason to think that God could create a world such that all persons freely choose to do only good.

Therefore, it may not be feasible for God to create a possible world where only good actions exist. It may be that every time God chooses to create a possible world where only good exists, the free creatures rebel and introduce evil into the world. It is surely not the answer to suggest that God make all persons freely choose the good. Such a world eliminates what it truly means to be free to choose. (17) Thus the theist has a reasonable defense against the inferential problem of evil.

 

 

V. CONCLUSION

The problem of evil has been a plaguing issue for theists ever since the concept of God became an object of academic discourse. However, we have seen how two versions of the problem of evil do not sufficiently render theism either impossible or improbable. First, the logical problem of evil sought to diminish the possibility of God's existence via logical incompatibility. But it is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. So the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically incompatible after all. Secondly, the inferential/probabilistic problem of evil is more modest because it denies the probable existence of God given that there may be better solutions to the amount of evil in the actual world. However, there is no reason to think that God does not have overriding desires surpassing the protection of free creatures from harm. Therefore, the problem of evil remains to be an emotional issue because it is the impact of pain and suffering in each of our lives that truly casts doubt on the existence of God. I submit that upon closer inspection the existence of God fairs well against the problems evinced by evil.

[/Quote']

 

For me to accept number one above, the only thing I would need to accept is that God wanted to accomplish something specific. If all he wanted was to create people without much of a reason, obviously this would not suffice. But if I am correct in my belief that he wanted to create life so that "the wolf will live with the lamb" based on our own free will, then this could be a perfectly logical explanation. Is a team winning the World Series such a great thing because we call it the "World Series"? Or is it such a great thing because of the amount of effort it takes to get there? If God's purpose is for all of creation to be united in one, only after our free will decides we should be, then I see no reason why life should not be the way it is and there is so much effort necessary to reach it. If we all were simply created to love each other right off the bat, what reward would there be in that? To quote Christ, "If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Do not even the tax collectors do that?" We even know the basic mechanism by how we will get to the wolf living with the lamb http://www.hedweb.co...-predators.html If picking up our cross, following Christ and laying down our lives for our sheep was easy, what reward would there be for that?

I was watching the Big Bang Theory and slowed the intro down to a crawl to see all the pictures. You can actually see all of them here http://haraldkraft.d...ebigbangtheory/

This got me thinking about how the stars starting eating each other. When the the stars eat each other, there is no suffering. Yet there is suffering when we eat each other because of mind. This got me looking into theories on when life first started on earth. Something that was interesting was how it is possible that the building blocks of life came through comets to earth. Just as how the moon has craters from asteroids hitting its surface, the earth attracted other objects that could have been an ingredient in the begining of life on earth.

Another idea is that amino acids which were formed extraterrestrially arrived on Earth via comets. In 2009 it was announced by NASA that scientists had identified one of the fundamental chemical building blocks of life in a comet for the first time: glycine' date=' an amino acid, was detected in the material ejected from Comet Wild-2 in 2004 and grabbed by NASA's Stardust probe. Tiny grains, just a few thousandths of a millimetre in size, were collected from the comet and returned to Earth in 2006 in a sealed capsule, and distributed among the world's leading astro-biology labs. NASA said in a statement that it took some time for the investigating team, led by Dr Jamie Elsila, to convince itself that the glycine signature found in Stardust's sample bay was genuine and not just Earthly contamination. Glycine has been detected in meteorites before and there are also observations in interstellar gas clouds claimed for telescopes, but the Stardust find is described as a first in cometary material. Isotope analysis indicates that the Late Heavy Bombardment included cometary impacts after the Earth coalesced but before life evolved.[125'] Dr. Carl Pilcher, who leads NASA's Astrobiology Institute commented that "The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the Universe may be common rather than rare."[126]

 

Based on computer model studies, the complex organic molecules necessary for life may have formed in the protoplanetary disk of dust grains surrounding the Sun before the formation of the Earth.[127] According to the computer studies, this same process may also occur around other stars that acquire planets.[127] (Also see Cosmic dust/Earth.)

 

Recent observations suggests that the majority of organic compounds introduced on Earth by interstellar dust particles are considered principal agents in the formation of complex molecules, thanks to their peculiar surface-catalytic activities.[128][129] Studies reported in 2008, based on 12C/13C isotopic ratios of organic compounds found in the Murchison meteorite, suggested that the RNA component uracil and related molecules, including xanthine, were formed extraterrestrially.[130][131] On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting DNA components (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) were made in outer space.[128][132][133][134] More recently, scientists found that the cosmic dust permeating the universe contains complex organic matter ("amorphous organic solids with a mixed aromatic-aliphatic structure") that could be created naturally, and rapidly, by stars.[135][136][137] As one of the scientists noted, "Coal and kerogen are products of life and it took a long time for them to form ... How do stars make such complicated organics under seemingly unfavorable conditions and [do] it so rapidly?"[135] Further, the scientist suggested that these compounds may have been related to the development of life on earth and said that, "If this is the case, life on Earth may have had an easier time getting started as these organics can serve as basic ingredients for life."

[/Quote]

A universal common ancestor is at least 102860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors

[/Quote]

 

I find it interesting that the essential building blocks could have come from the stars if the above theory is correct.

Sorry I meant to say above I have not read any of this philosophy that you are referencing. Obviously I have read a limited amount of philosophy.

So where do we stand? We don't know why natural evil was allowed? It was necessary to create moral evil? Natural evil does not exist in the first place? Natural evil is simply the lack of God similar to how cold (absolute zero temperature) does not actually exist? It could be any number of reasons but we are unsure which one(s)? etc.

Natural evolution has built in us a desire to reproduce with as many others as possible, to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. to get what we want at any cost and survive. Every single moral evil can be traced to the precursor of natural evil. It is only recently that we have developed the moral and emotional intelligence to know when this is wrong. We can now follow the golden rule of doing to others what we would want done to ourselves if we were them. It is the choices of the heart that Christ talked about.

 

According to the Gospel of John, Christ says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

 

Job says:

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone

while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels shouted for joy?"

According to this, there were angels in the early beginning.

 

Later on, Christ says, "Simon, Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers."

 

I can't help but think that according to the Gospels, Christ believed that natural evil from the beginning was a result of the evil one who had free will. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one".

Since I have never read any philosophy, you seem to be going over my head Going back to my quote from Christ, I have three options

1) Christ is literal in his discussion of the devil. This seems rather unlikely considering our current knowledge of life.

2) The devil is simply ego. When the devil (aka "ego") takes Christ on a forty day journey, this is simply Christ's own ego tempting him. This makes perfect sense in the realization that we all have a inner demon tha tempts us, yet at the same time is a complete manifestation of something completely separate from reality. This does not really explain why ego existed before the fall in animals. Are animals only rarely capable of exhibiting non-ego?

3) This is simply, in my opinion, a fable based on the tens of years the gospel was written after the fact. The incredible teaching of Christ in seen in the gospels such as the Sermon on the Mount becomes almost defiled by this "devil" or "unclean spirit" talk that we know is without any scientific reasoning of our current knowledge. However, to ignore the sheer genius of Christ would be an even greater mistake than to believe Christ actually taught we should handle snakes and drink deadly poison or believe in a physical devil.

“You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.”

It seems that life is designed to be this way. As soon as we judge or condemn anyone, we have also condemned ourselves. If I am correct in my belief that life was designed to be centered around Christ, then suffering is a pre-requisite for us to become Christ-like.

All of these can be traced back to natural evil

How so?

 

George

Natural evolution has built in us a desire to reproduce with as many others as possible, to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. to get what we want at any cost and survive. Every single moral evil can be traced to the precursor of natural evil. It is only recently that we have developed the moral and emotional intelligence to know when this is wrong. We can now follow the golden rule of doing to others what we would want done to ourselves if we were them. It is the choices of the heart that Christ talked about.

According to the Gospel of John, Christ says "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Job says:

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone

while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels shouted for joy?"

According to this, there were angels in the early beginning.

Later on, Christ says, "Simon, Simon! Listen! Satan has received permission to test all of you, to separate the good from the bad, as a farmer separates the wheat from the chaff. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you turn back to me, you must strengthen your brothers."

I can't help but think that according to the Gospels, Christ believed that natural evil from the beginning was a result of the evil one who had free will. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one".

Obviously it would be terrible to divide the world into saints and sinners. I don't even like applying personal blame. But ignoring acts of evil will not stop it. It is just going to let it flourish.

When Christ says that when we lust after others we have already committed adultery in our hearts, should we ignore this teaching because it teaches us to think in terms of good and evil? Whether we like it or not, knowledge of good and evil is here to stay on earth.

Two hundred years ago, we claimed that whites are obviously meant to be free and blacks are meant to be slaves. Blacks are, after all, just three-fifths of a person. Racism like this was eventually recognized as an evil and this type of evil is being eradicated. Today we claim that cats and dogs are obviously meant to be loved on as pets and other animals are meant to go through factory farms and be killed. Farm animals are, after all, just not quite animals. Specism like this is being recognized as an evil and will be eradicated. Ignoring these types of acts, whether they are Jews suffering in the Holocaust, blacks being forced to be slaves, or animals screaming behind factory farm doors, we must recognize them for what they are: Evil.

All of these can be traced back to natural evil. Christ taught us that there is no slave and there is no master when he kneeled down and washed the feet of the disciples. This was unheard of for someone in power to do this. Christ tells us that he longs to gather us together, as a mother hen gathers her chicks under wings, but we were not willing. Christ is relating himself to a chicken. A freakin chicken. This was at a time when people barely even considered that animals feel pain. This was unheard of. In all instances, Christ actually takes on the role of the abused. God is supposed to conquer his enemies, not take on the role of the oppressed and suffer with them. Racism, specism, and sexism are all created in our hearts. Without natural evil though, none of these moral evils would exist. I see no logical reason why we should only try to eradicate moral evil without eradicating natural evil. Should we just stand around while a tornado kills our neighbors? Why not stop all natural evil? One thing is clear, ignoring evil will not just make it go away.

I am not looking to place blame or judgment. I am looking for understanding. For the same measure I use to judge God, God will also use to judge me.

Yet some of them taste so good, Trust

Yes, they do. Which is a result of natural evil. I suspect that 99% of the public would agree that factory farms are disgusting. Yet we put 99% of the animals we eat through factory farms. I am hoping that something like cultured meat (real meat, just without the suffering) or changes in the human heart will eradicate this natural evil and replace it with the wolf living with the lamb.

Trust,

We are indeed curious creatures. You can continue to ask the question but it seems to me the question is still a conundrum. To me , the answer is unanswerable except to say... Evolution is as designed and the question i think we should focus on is... what can i, and what am i, willing to do to help the suffering of the world? This seems to me to be a more constructive question.

Joseph

I think this is certainly a good outlook until I find an answer to the question.

Trust,

To summarize a bit ..................

The term 'natural evil' is being attributed by you to natural processes of nature. Since there is no moral agent, the "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected that perceive it as an affliction rather than just a natural disaster or cause. Examples include cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. Therefore the reality of such a term as 'natural evil' can only be in the mind of the afflicted and to the one who insists on labeling it so. To me and from reading the opinions/posts of some others here, it seems to many to have no reality of its own as "evil"

This mostly summarizes it. You make a good point about evil being defined from the perspective of those affected. But no matter what we call it, suffering is still suffering. Why is there suffering allowed to take place that is not the result of free will?

You also say in post 15, "The suffering of others is too intense for me to be at peace with it." Why choose that? You can do what you can to help alevaite suffering in the world and still be at peace with nature. In post #16 you identify what you call 'natural evil' as a problem. It seems to me, it is only a problem to the one who chooses it to be a problem. Reality is what it is.

I would say again, by all means, do what you can to allevaite suffering in the world but it seems to me there is no need to make a problem or "evil" of what is identified by you, as natural.

Just some of my own observations,

Joseph

I think we agree here. I am simply stressing the importance of not accepting the status quo more since I know things can be changed. This just comes at the expense of some tough and uncomfortable questions. I like where you are coming from though.

I don't normally talk about this with others because it's something that's embarrassing to me but I have a chronic skin disease called psoriasis. it causes my skin to inflamme and sometimes will start bleeding. It first appeared on my arms but has now spread to my feet, my stomach, and now it's going after my hands, too. Its causes are genetic and not contagious and while there's treatments that can help, there's no known cure for it. While it's not as bad as some other diseases out there, it does cause me a lot of embarrassment and it can be painful sometimes when my skin starts stinging and bleeding. Some bible scholars also think the disease condemned in the OT that is typically referred to as leprosy was a broad term that includes other skin diseases such as psoriasis. So if natural "evil" is somehow a necessary part of life and serves some sort of greater good in God's grand design, what is necessary about my psoriasis and what greater good does it serve God's grand design?

I think everyone has to deal with things like this. I know I certainly have things like this I have to work through. Though we tend to only pay attention to the things that effect ourselves. This is a natural part of life. And there can even be human reasons for needing to overcome things like this.

I know your question is rhetorical Neon, but it's the same question that many have been asking over the ages - what point is there to suffering?

There are those who believe suffering is somehow required to 'build one up' or that it makes us stronger (God will only give you as much as you can bear) and other such nonsen......er, beliefs.

But when you see suffering that does nothing but destroy families (e.g. famine in Ethiopia) and people who commit suicide because God has given them too much to bear, then suffering as a tool for improvement seems pretty ridiculous.

Personally, I think there is no evil but rather suffering simply is what it is. We are organisms evolving on a lump of rock billions of years old. Along with the 'good' comes the 'bad'. Everything doesn't roll our way, and all we can do is makes the most of it and continue on.

We can choose to help our fellow humans to make the most of our time alive, or we can choose to wish it away waiting for 'better days' somewhere else, that quite possibly may never come.

Have you ever noticed that when we refer to helping others, we only refer to helping other humans? I know this is obviously just what we are used to saying and has nothing to do with much of anything, but I do hope we as a society can start encompassing all of creation. It seems they have been given the shaft throughout much of history. Regardless of them being slightly less evolved than us.

'Evil' is what it is, and frankly I don't think there is evil. There's life in all its pros and cons. Here's hoping the pros in your life (and everyone's) outweigh the cons.

While I certainly think there is evil based on our choices, I am not sure what to make of the suffering before human choice. We can def. agree on hoping that the pros outweigh the cons.

First, this assumes we are in a position to make a determination about the nature of God. I don't think we are.

Second, this assumes 'good' is some objective status. But, 'good,' IMO, is relative to the perspective of the describer.

Third, this represents a very anthropocentric point of view. This assumes we humans are the purpose and center of the universe. I am not convinced that this is true.

So, I have trouble ascribing any human devised descriptive to a cosmic level of which we can only see a small, limited portion (in time and space).

George

I agree that good can be relative to the perspective of the describer. That is why we need to try to look at this from as unbiased a viewpoint as possible.

I also agree that we have a very human centered viewpoint. All throughout history we have just assumed that we are the center of everything. We have fought, sometimes violently, to prove that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is the center of the Universe. We are needing to re-evaluate whether we are the whole picture or simply a piece of the puzzle. Our ego has become inflated because of what privileges God has given us.

It seems to me you second guess the mind of God asking why God would create the world as it is apparently designed. You seem to me to be doing this based on a human assumption that it is somehow a 'natural evil' because there is pain and your perception of suffering involved. You seem to equate the death of an animal by another as evil without knowing what is 'the greater good' or purpose. To me your question of why is flawed in that your initial assumption is that it is actually somehow evil. We can certainly talk about life and what is natural and pain and suffering and food involved in survival without putting a label of evil on it. Unless of course we know the mind of God in such things. Do we? And will calling such 'natural evil' make it so as if it is somehow a negative in God's eye?

I am not so much second guessing the mind of God as I am simply trying to understand. If I never find out the reason for natural evil, then so be it. I have already given God the benefit of the doubt. I already know the end of the story where the wolf lives with the lamb and I even know the mechanism for how we will reach that here on earth. What I do not understand is the beginning and why natural evil exists. I would like to try to find out the answer though.

When cancer comes and attacks a small child, what do you call it? Suffering is suffering. I have no doubt in my mind that there was a reason for it just like there is a reason for moral evil. At the same time I don't want to act like it is some wonderful thing when anyone suffers, because it is not.

Do you also speak for the wolf and the lamb? Is what we imagine we would want if we were either one based on reality? Do you have experience as a wolf or a lamb or know their mind? Can a wolf be unethical? Just because you can think of a world without carnivores, does that make what is natural of the animal kingdom evil?

Some some thoughts in regard to your responses,

Joseph

Anyone who has spent some time around animals knows that they experience pain and suffer just like we do. Sure, we could claim that their screams are simply mechanistic reactions, but we could also claim the same about other humans. We have no way to prove that others humans are not simply robots. We can say with 99.9% certainty that animals and humans experience pain. That is enough for me.

My wife and I had two cats and a rabbit. One of the cats would protect the rabbit from the other cat. The other cat didn't really try to intentionally harm the rabbit as much as he tried to play a little too rough with him. The rabbit and one of the cats has since passed on. Yesterday, my wife was driving to work and she saw a cat in the middle of the road with something in its mouth. So she stopped the car in the middle of the road and ran out to try to help whatever was in its mouth. It turned out it was a rabbit and she could hear it sheeking. So she chased the cat until he dropped the rabbit and the rabbit ran off. In our world, we can sense when we are causing pain to others. Cats are carnivores and need to cause pain to others to live. I am trying to understand why God would do this. It is easy for us to try to ignore the suffering of the animals. But a grave mistake.

Trust

Evil requires intention. Nature has no intention. Nature needs no explanation as far as purpose or significance is concerned. However we suffer I have no need to find meaning. If knowledge about its cause could prevent a repetition then that is useful. But meaning and purpose are not.

I think the following questions fail to understand the process and power of evolution.

Shouldn't the basic question be why does an organism need nourishment? Don't tell me that a carnivore is somehow worse because of its diet. Why does any organism need nourishment. Why does it take supernova (death of star on a scale that makes a carnivore look like virus) to create all the elements for carbon based life forms?

If something didn't die we wouldn't live. It can't be any simpler or have less meaning.

Dutch

I believe in God. I believe that God allowed natural evil for some reason. I am trying to find out what that reason is.

The question is not, "Why does an organism need nourishment". The question is, "Why did God not design the world so that organisms can get nourishment without causing suffering to others"? You see on one hand that it is possible for humans to live without causing suffering to others. On the other hand, it is probably not possible to live without causing at least some death to others. However, I see this abused by people. The argument boils down to, "If we can't stop all suffering, why stop any suffering?" Which is obviously a terrible argument. Our goal should always be to cause the least amount of suffering to others as possible. Although I unfortunately do not do this myself, if we all ate plants, we would be able to only cause 0.4 (accidental) animal deaths a year. After we take the time to actually prevent small animals from getting in the crop fields, that number would drop even more. At the end of the day though, we would still be responsible for causing an innocent death because we lived. Why is life setup this way? Why must others die for us to live? And why do we think that this automatically gives us a license to then go on and continue to cause suffering to others?

Trust,

I offered a metaphorical connection between your view and mine. That seems to have been missed.

 

For the last 20-30 years I have been prophesying, whenever I am asked for an answer, that the answer is "37 true." People keep denying that that answer is relevant to their question. Are you also going to deny that the answer is "37 true". As long as we deny "37 true" we are gravitating toward a very human centered perspective.

Likewise I deny any meaning to "Natural Evil". I have already made my arguments.

It is nonsensical to me to include the story of Adam and Eve in the evolutionary history of the universe.

Did it happen before or after homo sapiens evolved?

Were Adam and Eve part of the first but unsuccessful move of homo sapiens into the Levant?

Did Adam and Eve live before Neanderthals?

Since many of us have a small amount of Neanderthal genetic material the answer seems yes.

So maybe Adam and Eve lived 500,000 years ago.

Good, Love and empathy were evolving before this so how far back would we have to put the Garden of Eden so it made sense in the ongoing history of the evolution of the universe.

It is a powerful story. To force it into evolutionary history deflates it.

Dutch

Can you put in laymen's terms why natural evil does not exist? Whether we call it by a different name does not really matter to me. Either way we put it, we see suffering that does not have an immediate explanation. Why create a carnivore? What is the purpose?

The only reason I mentioned Adam and Eve is to say that the original explanation for suffering we see in the world is traced to Adam and Eve. I reject this explanation in general since we know based on God's actual evidence that suffering and death existed for millions of years before this supposed Adam and Eve story. To me it is simply a story about how our choices matter and can be detrimental. Not a story explaining ALL evil.

Can evolution as designed by God with its infinite possibilities really be considered error whether in potential or growth? I think not in reality except in the conceptual and highly subjective mind of man who feels he/she must differentiate by arbitrarily choosing a point along a continuum where there is none. Where does that leave understanding?

Joseph

Evolution does not really have infinite possibilities since it is restricted by the laws of nature. This is probably a discussion for another thread but I never understood why Einstein would claim that "God does not play dice", or rather, why Einstein would think there is such a thing as "dice" to God in the first place. Einstein is much smarter than me so I must be missing something. Even if everything is proven to be completely random without an underlying mechanism, God would still be able to simply create the world however he wanted while still including free will. When looking at the big bang, he could have thought, "Meh. I don't like that outcome at this current time x. Let's go for x + 14040.5466 seconds where the story works out just how I want it". Time could really be any variable. Randomness is only what we see. Anyhow this is getting off track.

I think the question of whether there is such a thing as natural evil or not is a red herring and irrelevant to the problem of evil. The problem with the traditional theistic god is not whether you can say a natural disaster is evil or not, but that a god that chooses to save some people from natural disasters but chooses not to save other people is either an incompetent god or an evil god. This is best summed up by Epicurus

This in itself does not present a problem for me as there are plenty of explanations why this would be so. I already know God to be a Utilitarian so personally this has no hold on me. The problem for me is why create a carnivore in the first place? For us, we have a choice. We can eat plants which do not have a brain to imagine yourself as or a central nervous system to experience pain. To the carnivore, they have no choice and either cause suffering to others, or they die. That is not much of a choice.

One good explanation has been the idea that evil is simply the absence of God. Just like cold does not exist, cold is simply the absence of heat. Or how darkness does not exist and is merely the absence of light. This however still leaves us with needing to understand more. If the animals are simply a pawn in a game, then that itself would be evil just like if we were a pawn in a game. The animals must exist for their own reasons. What are those reasons?

Shouldn't we first establish the existence of something before we 'deal with it?' Why would you describe a hurricane as evil? What if it does no harm to a person? What if it also brings needed rain? What if it does both? I think it would be helpful if you defined 'evil.'

I personally think the notion of natural evil is a "human centered perspective." In fact, we have no other perspective to assert.

George

For this discussion, let's ignore moral evil since it does not present a tough theological question. Let's instead focus on natural evil and describe natural evil as anything that causes suffering that does not have a moral agent behind the suffering and does not have some greater good. This excludes small amounts of pain since pain is what keeps us alive and our hand away from the fire. What about the carnivorous animals though? Why create them when their only option is to cause suffering to others to live? Some suffering could have a greater good behind it or some suffering could have a moral agent behind it. But does a creating a carnivorous animal have that or some other explanation behind it?

NDEs are a form of lucid dreaming caused by increased activity in the left temporal lobe. If there's so much overwhelming proof of the existence of the afterlife and if being dead is so wonderful that we should praise it, why don't more Christians commit suicide so they can be with the Lord? Why continue living in life if heaven is so much better?

This does not take into account those who have flat-lined brain activity. Obviously killing yourself is against almost all religions beliefs but killing yourself would cause massive amounts of suffering to those left behind. It also would be ignoring that there is a reason for being here in the first place. Not to mention we have evolved to try to live.

Can you explain why it stands to reason?

We would agree that if God exists, God is all knowing right? You just think it does not apply to being good?

Is "good" a universal, objective state? When a wolf kills a lamb and feeds his family, is this "good" from the perspective of all? The wolf? The wolf's children? The lamb? An disinterested observer? Can we all say, "good!"

George

No, that is not good. To evaluate whether something is good, we simply follow the golden rule taking into account every individual in the situation. In other words, what would we want if we were the wolf. AND what would we want if we were the lamb? This is absolutely not good for the lamb to have to suffer. In a normal situation, we would say that the free will of the lamb is broken and the wolf killing the lamb is unethical. However, the wolf is not an ethical agent. But the more pressing question at hand is why the wolf was created as a carnivore in the first place. We can think of a world where carnivores do not exist at all or at least omniovores like us where we have a moral choice in the matter.

The problem of evil in regards to moral actions is easily shown to be no problem at all. Assuming we reject illogical logic (God cannot draw a square circle, therefore God is not all powerful), then it is easily shown why evil can exist similar to how Alvin Plantinga shows this. The problem of natural evil needs more discussion.

I would agree with the basis of this comment, however, I still wouldn't characterize it as "great." I certainly do not anticipate death with relish. There's too much I want to see and experience. I want to live life to the fullest, and live long enough to see my grandchildren grow up. In fact, I wish that I NEVER had to go. I enjoy life! Isn't this what theists are really after? Eternal life?

I don't share your optimism. In my experience, dead people remain dead. I think the evidence is more strongly in favor of nothing happening when we die. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, I would really like to see it! As I stated above, I would like to live forever.

Again, what evidence do you have to support this theory of loosed chains? How do you know that if there is an afterlife, that it will be idyllic? What if there were more chains in the afterlife than now?

On a practical level, I think that it stands to reason that if there is a God, that he is good. On a personal level, I believe in the ideas Christ talked about and a place where the wolf lives with the lamb as Isaiah says.

When we look at people who have near death experiences, there are just way too many people from way too many walks of life that report essentially the same death experiences for us to claim that they are lying (although some certainly are). I think it is difficult to deny the experience in general. These people have their entire lives transformed by these experiences that they know they experienced. Many atheists change their beliefs after NDE's so at the very least it is real enough for them to believe it. So the question comes down to whether that experience is the next life or still a part of this life. Personally I think this life is and always will be about us reaching out to God based on our own free will so I don't think we wil ever have "proof" one way or the other. That would negate one of the main reasons for this life.

To the theist, the mere fact that we are here, we are conscious, and we have a conscience is enough to make one at the very least an agnostic. There are a million other reasons to make one a theist. For the atheist, the odds of there being more than this are too low and they therefore do not believe. This is probably the sole question we cannot reason through. We must simply agree to disagree. Just about every other question in existence we are able to reason through.

I'm not so much sorry for myself, except at the time, it was very hurtful. I actually feel sorry for people who think they have to die in order to experience pleasure. This life offers so much fulfillment.

NORM

To me, this life is full of heartbreak so that we feel the desire to become Christ-like. Although I don't agree, even if we take the assumption that this is all that there is, then we are even more obliged to help those in need because this is all they will ever experience.

The conversation has gone pass my comment but . . .

My comment that "Natural Evil does not exist..." was about the concept embodied in those terms not about the suffering of people. I regret that I wasn't more clear. I agree with George that if we must talk about captial "E" Evil we must look for intent. I see no Natural Intent. Therefore Natural Evil does not exist. Evil is an overused word which distracts us from attending to human relationships and human suffering. There are many things we say to each other when we share our sufferings. What works for some does not work for others.

 

I would not describe the barrier to feeling one with the Source as mutual forgiveness but perhaps saying, as I might, that we must open ourselves to the transcendent experience mirroring God's making room for creation would seem parallel.

Dutch

We seem to be trying to deny that natural evil exists in the first place instead of dealing with the issue at hand. We are also gravitating toward a very human centered perspective instead of suffering before the fall.

Christ says, "I am the Good Shepherd. I lay down my life for the sheep". In other words, Christ is the Good Shepherd and the sheep are humans. When applying this analogy to ourselves, we are the Good Shepherd to our sheep (animals). If we ignore for a minute that we are putting our sheep through factory farms and consider this moral evil instead of natural evil, the question still remains why there was natural evil before the fall. For the animals have been groaning for millions of years before human moral evil even existed. Why has God forsaken the sheep (animals) just as much as he has forsaken Christ?

I am not suggesting an uncaused cause. Natural disasters (I would avoid the term 'evil' with its connotations of intent) are the result of natural processes functioning according to natural laws. These are part of the big picture of which we are too small to comprehend.

 

George

When I was making my list, I was constantly reminded about how much we don't know. But even more about how much we don't know we don't know.

Natural Evil does not exist - it is a anthrocentric, egocentric, selfish construct. "Oh poor,Poor, pitiful me." We would like to blame someone. In the Hebrew scriptures we said God did it because we blew it. Then we said the Devil did it to get God off the hook.

We can harm each other but Evil is the product of a large group.

We are individuality responsible/culpable.

God is with us.

 

Dutch

When Christ asked God why he had forsaken him, it was not about placing blame, it was about understanding. When terrible things happen to people, they have a right and a built in desire to understand. I think one of the main things we tend to forget is that, just as much as God has to forgive us, we also have to forgive God for allowing this to happen to us. There are some things that happen to us that has nothing to do with deserving it or being responsible for it. Christ certainly was not responsible for it.

What chains?

 

I would never, ever suggest rejoicing at death - unless it was at the end of a terrible suffering. And even then, rejoice would be the wrong word. Perhaps; relief.

 

All I'm saying is that there is no need for a deity to understand death. Nor do we need to appease this deity in order to buy favors for the afterlife.

 

My father recently passed away, and some wingnut had the gall to tell my sister and I that "Your father's death must serve God's purpose," or some such silliness. This was during the Wake, mind you, before my father was even in the ground.

 

I don't care if you believe that; just don't go spouting this nonsense while your standing in line to greet a mourning family.

 

NORM

I think death (not the act of dying) is a great thing for those moving on. The only reason it is sad is because of those who are still here to live without them.

I think the chances that nothing happens after we die is very slim, but if it were so, it would be neutral. On the other hand, If I am right and something continues, then most likely we will lose all of the chains that tie us down here on earth. Life on earth for a majority of the world is a constant struggle. I am beyond blessed and have almost none of that typical day struggle. It is others who I am working for.

I am sorry that someone would say that to you when you are in the act of grieving. While I think they might be right, no one wants to hear that when they are in the act of suffering. Most likely the person was trying to help but sometimes all we need is someone to be there to comfort and simply empathize. Not to try to explain everything.

Here are some explanations I have come up with based on a limited amount of thinking. Some are not very probable. Some are somewhat probable or at least provide part of an answer to the problem. Those with an asterisk are only partial answers.

1*) Many of the natural evils we see in the world only appear to be natural evils. Many cancers we get are from human decisions in regard to diet. Changes in weather might be from global warming for instance. When we account for the daily evils that are really hidden moral evils, it starts to become clear that the number of natural evils is much smaller than originally believed. This is not an answer though since there are still natural evils that did not result from human choice.

2) So that we see both sides of the picture. First we see the heartbreak and can understand the heartbreak. Then we die and see the complete opposite where there is no heartbreak.

3*) Simply because we do not see the mechanism for how something works, it does not mean that it does not work. God wanted natural evil for some unknown reason and chose to allow it.

4*) This is just one of many of the worlds we have been through. We lived a life before this life and acted a certain way. We all received in this life what was due (Christ however says it "rains on righteous and unrighteous alike". This can also be abused by people claiming we simply get what we deserve which is a disgusting way to twist it and probably why Christ was clear that we cannot know who "deserves" what).

5) We are all a part of God. When we see a lion eating a gazelle, it is evil to the gazelle, yet, since the lion does not have a moral awareness, it is not evil to the lion. Since we will live the life of the lion AND the gazelle, how can this be evil? We are going to live both the sustenance and the suffering, so the suffering is simply to ourselves. Likewise, when we cause millions of Jews to suffer through the holocaust or put billions of animals in factory farms, we are simply going to live the life of all of them. We are causing the suffering to ourselves. This suffering could be justified to God if we are both the receiver and the loser. We of course must act to prevent this suffering to ourselves/them.

6*) Natural evil is a method by which we have our hearts changed and reach out to God

7) God is telling us a story. There is not joy without sadness and God is using all frames of reference to tell the story.

8*) This life is but a split second on the grand scale of life and the paradise awaiting will be the answer

9*) Time is not linear and we simply are paying for the suffering we caused others (It rains on the righteous and unrighteous alike however)

10) God IS the life of the animals. Since God is the actual animal, they are not really feeling pain, or rather, God is feeling the pain and is able to handle it. We, however, are guilty for causing them suffering.

11) We will be everyone in the Universe. We are simply causing the suffering to ourselves when we live the lives of all these people and animals we cause suffering to.

12*) This is a made up dream. Pain is simply an allusion.

13*) While we think in terms of death being some terrible thing, in reality it is just the step to paradise

14) "God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome". Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around."

"Answers complex questions like why does God not interact with the world? Why is there suffering? Energy and matter are not created or destroyed, only changed."

15*) Before life, God gave us the ability to choose to live with free will (moral evil and ability to sin by choice) or the ability to choose to live without free will (natural evil but no ability to sin by choice). Those who chose free will became humans and those who chose to live without free will become animals or insects. Those who chose free will are to be judged based on moral evils committed. Those who chose to live without free will are not to be judged but are given harder lives because of natural evil. The future paradise is the next step.

16*) We are currently in debtors prison. Death is our freedom.

17) The collection of all souls (humans/animals/insects) is simply one soul growing up. When looking at things from an individual perspective it does not make sense. When looking at things from the perspective of all life as one, it makes sense. Everything is working in the gradual improvement until we reach the point when the wolf will live with the lamb.

18*) Fallen angels (simply agents who are higher than humans) have free will and are able to extend that free will on us. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was an example of this natural evil before moral evil ever existed.

19) Every moral evil is traceable to natural evil. This is why someone like Thomas Jefferson could be against slavery and yet at the same time own slaves. This was a transition period from natural evil to moral evil. Now that we realize the evil of breaking the free will of another, it is now a moral evil. Likewise, we are all against factory farms. Yet we still continue to create the demand for factory farms. We are realizing the evil of breaking the free will of another and now it is becoming a moral evil even though people not too long ago thought it was okay to beat a dog. While we can certainly imagine a world where natural disaster is not needed for beings to live, we cannot have our current state of moral evil without a mechanism for producing moral evil. We would not have the desire to produce moral evil if we never had natural evil in the first place. For example, we can easily imagine a world where the sun provides just enough energy to its inhabitants and the killing and eating of other animals was never needed. However, if we never had this natural evil, we would in turn never have the moral evil of wanting to kill other animals. If we never had the natural evil of wanting to reproduce by sleeping with every good looking person we see, we would never have the moral evil of committing adultery. If we never had the natural evil of fighting for survival, we would never have the moral evil of taking from others and ignoring the interests of others so that we may survive. If we never had this understanding of survival, the context of Christ laying down his life for the sheep would not make any sense and we would never even have Christ in the first place. Sacrificing of ourselves and breaking the natural law would make no sense in this context. In other words, if we had no natural evil, there would be no reason for life at all.

20*) We know based on the fact that animals existed for millions of years before humans that animals exist for reasons outside of simply what they provide us. We are only looking at this from the perspective that God creates things only for humans. This is based on a very egotistical conception of ourselves. Once we realize that God loves all of creation and does not create everything for simply ourselves, it makes much more sense why animals existed for millions of years before we were even a blip on the radar.

21) God is a Utilitarian. Because of the mere fact that evil exists, and yet God allows it, we know that God is a Utilitarian. We know that God cares about the greater good. We see this exemplified in Christ when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions (natural evil) and to pick up our cross and follow him instead. Then he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose their soul?" Christ wants us to drop every desire that has resulted from natural evil of this world and instead to self-sacrifice everything. When we understand how the natural evil of this world has turned into moral evil, it becomes very easy to understand what Christ wants us to do. Everything God desires for his creation is the opposite of natural evil. This is exemplified in Isaiah when we are told of a future state where even the wolf lives with the lamb.

22*) God's plan is to break the chains of natural evil.

23) Placeholder

I've come to look at dying, suffering, etc. not as "evil" - as though there were something tangible we could do about it - but, rather; as just the natural state of things. Evil as a thing that is caused by either sinful behavior or a malevolent god seems rather silly to me. Remove the deity from the equation, and "bad stuff" is only interpreted as such from a human perspective. Negative consequences of, say; walking out into oncoming traffic because you imbibed too many Jagermeisters are just that - negative consequences of stupidity and entropy, not evil.

 

However, if one accepts the paradigm of biblical evil (the Fall), then logic would dictate that this god created "evil" because, in that worldview; it exists in the first place. So, I can see your quandary.

 

NORM

I think this is a good point about death. We tend to think of death as some terrible thing. In reality, maybe we should be rejoicing at death because the chains are no longer present.

The story of Adam and Eve is an attempt to understand why bad things happen to good people just as you are attempting to. But evolutionary history of the universe does not include the story of Adam and Eve - and there is no history before the story of Garden of Eden. Evolutionary history and stories in Genesis don't overlap. They function in different ways to explain and understand the world.

 

I don't believe "natural evil" exists in the evolution of the universe. Things just happen. The many layers and understandings of the story of the so called "Fall" lets us try to understand why life is hard and we harm each other.

 

I guess we could imagine a static world in which nothing moved or bumped into anything else but this universe is dynamic. Tectonic plates shift, volcanoes erupt and the same processes that led to the evolution of you and me also leads to the evolution of both good and bad bacteria and cancer. Without death there is no life. It just happens. and the One who is the Source of all waits for us to recognize the ultimate companionship on our journey.

 

If you see evil don't look to find someone to blame look forward to see what can be done to make things better. That's our assignment. Just as Adam and Eve took on the difficult assignments of tilling the soil and birthing a people. Learning how to live together. Esau and Jacob, Cain and Abel - so many stories in Genesis about this.

 

I keep my own list of the many ways to understand the story of Adam and Eve and there are several threads on this message board about Good and Evil. If I find the links I will post them here but I don't want to co-opt the many thoughtful responses you will get here now.

 

Dutch

I get that with the good must come the bad. I am not looking for someone to blame as much as I am simply for understanding. The question still remains, why is their no life without death? I think Christ himself had to deal with this. Even Christ asked, "God, why have you forsaken me?" when he was on the cross. It's no wonder that if Christ asked it, so are we.

One thing I never understood about the fundamentalist Christian understanding of the Genesis creation account is that they blame the existence of evil on the fall of Adam and Eve and yet simultaneously claim Satan rebelled against God and took on the form of the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve. So, if Satan existed before the fall, how can they say that evil didn't exist until after the fall? And if there was no evil until after the fall, then how can Adam and Eve's actions been counted as a sin if there was no evil?

Good point about the snake existing before the fall.

To me, God as some sort of Supreme Creator that consciously chooses what to (and not to) create, simply doesn't make any sense. This question of 'natural evil' further pushes me away from the theory of any such God.

 

What may be evil for the antelope, is life giving sustenance for the lion, so how can its death be called 'evil'?

 

Animals like us live in a kill and be killed world. We are travelling along an evolutionary trajectory. It is what it is and I can't imagine for a minute, a God choosing to 'make' this world in such a manner. To me that is logical, not a God choosing to create evil (or not).

You make a good point about how for the antelope it is evil, but for the lion it is not. I think we need to look at it from an unbiased perspective though similar to how God would view it. From this unbiased perspective, it is still what I would consider an evil. Not a moral evil, but an evil nonetheless.

I don't think there can be evil without agency and malevolent intent. Natural disasters, IMO, lack agency. Therefore, 'natural evil' cannot exist.

 

George

An uncaused cause is responsible for the nature we see?

Trust,

 

Some people choose to use the terms 'natural evil' and 'moral evil' which differ from each other in that the term 'natural evil' is generally used where there is hurt or harm but no agent morally responsible. You have pointed out that the one is a precursor to the other and You ask... :"But why did God allow natural evil?" The question is a conundrum and so it evades resolution. The only thing i can say is because God did. Personally i, as others have indicated, do not recognize the natural as evil. Birth and death and suffering are part of the evolutionary process of life in this world. Asking .. Why did God allow it ?.. will not change reality. I agree with Dutch above.. "If you see evil don't look to find someone to blame, look forward to see what can be done to make things better" And i would add, if you cannot do anything to change it, it seems to me wise to be at peace with what is.

 

joseph

This is very good advice. I want to make sure that I accept only those things I am absolutely sure I cannot change, however. The suffering of others is too intense for me be at peace with it. Maybe accepting that it occurs in general. But not just letting it go.

Based on our current scientific evidence, we know that suffering and death of animals existed for millions of years before Adam and Eve were even a blip on the radar. Therefore, Adam and Eve could not have created natural evil. (Although it might be argued that Adam and Eve were the first to experience moral evil). We know that natural evil is basically a precursor to moral evil. But why did God allow natural evil? Do we have a logical explanation or has anyone gathered a list of explanations for why there would be natural evil before humans? I have started making a list but am curious what others think about this issue.