Problematic Natural Evil

[whag]

All landslides are evil? All gamma ray bursts evil?

You don't know why philosophy calls the problem of natural evil "evil"?
To help you, it's a "problem" for philosophers and theologians because living, feeling creatures contend with being in the way of nature and have been since before human beings arrived.

[Paprika]

You don't know why philosophy calls the problem of natural evil "evil"?

No, but your definitions are bad. See below.

To help you, it's a "problem" for philosophers and theologians because living, feeling creatures contend with being in the way of nature and have been since before human beings arrived.

[KingsGambit]

"Natural evil" is a commonly accepted term within the realm of philosophy; thus the usage of that particular terminology.

[Paprika]

"Natural evil" is a commonly accepted term within the realm of philosophy; thus the usage of that particular terminology.

I am aware of the existence of the term. I am asking whag to clearly define it for the purposes of this discussion.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know about other Christians, but isn't it obvious (from Genesis 3 and Romans 8) that it's God who cursed nature?

Yes, it is obvious from the scripture cited, but unfortunately this archaic ancient view is one of the theologic albatrosses of traditional Christianity that does not remotely fit the reality of the world we can realize today. The simple natural explanations work best.

[whag]

No, but your definitions are bad. See below.

That's a close enough definition. If it's bad to you, the classical definition is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

I suspect you aren't that familiar with it because you asked me how landslides and gamma rays bursts can be "evil." That's a nonsensical question if you're already familiar with PONE.

[Paprika]

I suspect you aren't that familiar with it because you asked me how landslides and gamma rays bursts can be "evil."

I didn't ask that.

All landslides are evil? All gamma ray bursts evil?

[shunyadragon]

I am aware of the existence of the term. I am asking whag to clearly define it for the purposes of this discussion.

Natural Evil is the traditional theological Christian view of the violence, suffering and death in nature independent moral evil of human nature. It is a concept of Theodicy and the explanation of good and evil based on the 'Fall' and original sin.

Plantinga describes it as 'Transworld Depravity'

[JonathanL]

Is the belief that natural evil is retroactively caused by human beings popularly held by Christians today? I'm only aware of one modern book that argues for it, which is Dembski's The End of Christianity. I recently finished that book, and would like to start on another book that explains why PONE fits the definition of "very good," which God declared creation to be in Genesis.

Dembski's view is that PONE is bad but that human beings caused it.


I found William Dembski's treatment of the subject unconvincing. He spends many pages explaining why natural evil is bad, but he only reinforces why the Problem of Natural Evil is such an impediment to belief. He does this by explaining how much the problem plagued him as a Christian. What are some other Christian views on the subject that try to rationalize the state of affairs without concluding that human beings retroactively caused it?

My belief would be that the forces of nature have always worked the way they do now, even before the fall, but that God's protective care and being obedient to His counsel would have prevented any negative effects due to these natural forces from occuring.

[KingsGambit]

Some Christians (and I may as well be honest and place myself in this camp) have been questioning whether what we see as "natural evil" really qualifies as such. The biblical book of Job in particular presents the awesome forces of nature, even including predation, as simply majestic portions of God's creation. There is no hint that they are anything less, and the Hebrews of time time must have been content with that... and we may simply have to acknowledge that this was a part of God's "very good" creation. This might be compatible with Chrawnus's suggestion in post 39 if we define "negative effects" in terms of on humanity in particular. After all, there are some very non-negative results from things like plate tectonics that also cause earthquakes, as Bethany Sollereder explains here: http://biologos.org/blog/how-could-g...heodicy-part-1

[Carrikature]

Some Christians (and I may as well be honest and place myself in this camp) have been questioning whether what we see as "natural evil" really qualifies as such. The biblical book of Job in particular presents the awesome forces of nature, even including predation, as simply majestic portions of God's creation. There is no hint that they are anything less, and the Hebrews of time time must have been content with that... and we may simply have to acknowledge that this was a part of God's "very good" creation. This might be compatible with Chrawnus's suggestion in post 39 if we define "negative effects" in terms of on humanity in particular. After all, there are some very non-negative results from things like plate tectonics that also cause earthquakes, as Bethany Sollereder explains here: http://biologos.org/blog/how-could-g...heodicy-part-1

That's certainly one take on it.

The opposing contention is that suffering caused by these phenomena are still not prevented by God. Either God can't prevent them or chooses not to for reasons of his own. That choice not to is the usual path, followed by either the claim of a greater good or the claim of free will preservation.

[KingsGambit]

That's certainly one take on it.

The opposing contention is that suffering caused by these phenomena are still not prevented by God. Either God can't prevent them or chooses not to for reasons of his own. That choice not to is the usual path, followed by either the claim of a greater good or the claim of free will preservation.

Once you get to the point of trying to an establish a greater good, it seems almost comically futile attempting to speculate as to the deeper intentions of God. While I may find certain insights to be helpful, I have to do something very difficult for me personally and admit I have no idea.

[whag]

I didn't ask that.

Correction, you asked if "all" of them were. That's still a weird question. If you know anything about PONE, you'd know that's no way to address the issue. The issue is human beings and other sensitive creatures being in the way of nature. Is that an inevitable, designed, intended thing? This quandary of that spawned the discussion of PONE particularly in philosophy and theology.

[whag]

My belief would be that the forces of nature have always worked the way they do now, even before the fall, but that God's protective care and being obedient to His counsel would have prevented any negative effects due to these natural forces from occuring.

So Eden represented the world as is, not a locale where these forces didn't exist?

[shunyadragon]

That's certainly one take on it.

The opposing contention is that suffering caused by these phenomena are still not prevented by God. Either God can't prevent them or chooses not to for reasons of his own. That choice not to is the usual path, followed by either the claim of a greater good or the claim of free will preservation.

I prefer the Baha'i view that Evil does not exist as described in the dualism of ancient worldviews. The Natural circumstances of what appears to be violence and suffering is simply a part of the physical nature of our constantly cyclic evolving, physical existence and life itself. The spiritual nature of our human souls also evolves through their journeys through many worlds, but their is no direct relationship between the physical violence and suffering, and the spiritual nature of the journey of the human souls.