Problematic Natural Evil

[shunyadragon]

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

The concept of the 'Fall,' original sin, moral evil and natural evil remain deeply engrained in the scripture and theology of traditional Christian churches.

[KingsGambit]

The concept of the 'Fall,' original sin, moral evil and natural evil remain deeply engrained in the scripture and theology of traditional Christian churches.

And?

[Carrikature]

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.

I agree. The greater good appeal always struck me as very ad hoc. In my opinion, admitting that you don't know is far better than speculating. The latter more often comes across as a salvage attempt.

[Carrikature]

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.

I definitely hold a different view of evil, but this thread is only talking about Christian beliefs.

[shunyadragon]

And?

It is a problematic view of the nature of our world and human history.

[whag]

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.

You might want to look at other passages in the bible that describe predators. Vipers aren't described as majestic but sneaky. If there's majesty in an antelope being eaten alive, I'm not seeing it.

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

It's not much of a solution to say human beings were shielded from the same forces that affected lower animals. From Sollerader's essay:

The solution is not to wish for a world with no pain, but for a world where pain is appropriately experienced.

Yet God curses women with pain in childbirth. It's perfectly reasonable to see the therapeutic value of emotional and physical pain, but why does God call it a curse?

[firstfloor]

When you find a problem in your philosophy it is good to go back to your fundamental assumptions because that is usually where the problem lies. Religious philosophy is inhibited in its development by doctrine and therefore things like the problem of natural evil are permanent features. No rationalisation will be perfectly satisfactory but the continual chase after the new rationalisation might be sufficiently diverting for most people.

[whag]

When you find a problem in your philosophy it is good to go back to your fundamental assumptions because that is usually where the problem lies. Religious philosophy is inhibited in its development by doctrine and therefore things like the problem of natural evil are permanent features. No rationalisation will be perfectly satisfactory but the continual chase after the new rationalisation might be sufficiently diverting for most people.

Ironically, doctrine becomes its own stumbling block. Whereas Eve's birthpangs curse is--I suppose--meant to convey the gravity of human evil and bring people to repentance, the story reveals itself as bald fiction as we see the same "pangs" have been inflicting all female mammals for eons.

[myth]

Ironically, doctrine becomes its own stumbling block. Whereas Eve's birthpangs curse is--I suppose--meant to convey the gravity of human evil and bring people to repentance, the story reveals itself as bald fiction as we see the same "pangs" have been inflicting all female mammals for eons.

"Bald fiction", really?

I'm not sure why the experience of other female mammals correlates in your mind to Eve's situation. Care to explain?

As far as the rest of the discussion here, I've always been satisfied with the explanation involving God choosing to preserve free will. I'll admit that I'm a novice with regards to philosophical/theological matters, but I really don't see a big problem here.

[whag]

"Bald fiction", really?

I'm not sure why the experience of other female mammals correlates in your mind to Eve's situation. Care to explain?

Yes. Human beings are mammals who possess the same physical properties as mammals that make giving birth hurt a lot.

[whag]

As far as the rest of the discussion here, I've always been satisfied with the explanation involving God choosing to preserve free will. I'll admit that I'm a novice with regards to philosophical/theological matters, but I really don't see a big problem here.

Philosophers and theologians see a big problem there, hence all their philosophizin' and theologizin'. =)

[myth]

Philosophers and theologians see a big problem there, hence all their philosophizin' and theologizin'. =)

They see a problem because they approach the situation from a vastly different worldview than my own. The fact that I see no problem with here is not because of my lack of ability to comprehend the situation, but because my worldview provides anwers to the 'question', if you will, that are satisfactory to me. The more I read about this topic, the more convinced I become that it is of little consequence to me.

But, to be more effective as a witness for my faith, I'll probably continue to follow the thread. After all, it's easier to debate this issue with others if I have a better handle on the standard arguments involved. To that end, do you mind briefly describing why you, personally, view this as a problem?

[whag]

They see a problem because they approach the situation from a vastly different worldview than my own. The fact that I see no problem with here is not because of my lack of ability to comprehend the situation, but because my worldview provides anwers to the 'question', if you will, that are satisfactory to me. The more I read about this topic, the more convinced I become that it is of little consequence to me.

But, to be more effective as a witness for my faith, I'll probably continue to follow the thread. After all, it's easier to debate this issue with others if I have a better handle on the standard arguments involved. To that end, do you mind briefly describing why you, personally, view this as a problem?

The problems are various. Let's start with human female birth pangs since you took issue with it. Since suffering and death were part of the teleological plan regardless of the actions of Satan and human beings, we cannot reasonably interpret human birth pangs as a "curse," correct?

Ditto, Adam's curse to obtain food by the sweat of his brow.

[myth]

The problems are various. Let's start with human female birth pangs since you took issue with it. Since suffering and death were part of the teleological plan regardless of the actions of Satan and human beings, we cannot reasonably interpret human birth pangs as a "curse," correct?

Ditto, Adam's curse to obtain food by the sweat of his brow.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was asking why, in the general sense, you seem to regard PONE as inconsistent with the existence of God. Please correct me if I have assumed this incorrectly.

As far as birth pangs are concerned, I think we can both agree that the biology involved is very complex. Additionally, if we are accepting (in broad terms, at least) the biblical narrative of the Garden of Eden, we must acknowledge that the way Eden functioned was clearly different than our world today (i.e. God's causing edible plants to grow, presenting animals to Adam, having Adam 'tend' the garden, and God's creation of Eve...they're all supernatural events). The context of your question requires me to assume that the same God who did all this, and created all these things could not also choose to alter their biological functions as a form of punishment. I accept that God created the Garden of Eden, and as an extension of that belief I also have no problem believing that he could make alterations to the Garden and its inhabitants, as he deemed necessary.

[whag]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was asking why, in the general sense, you seem to regard PONE as inconsistent with the existence of God. Please correct me if I have assumed this incorrectly.

No, I'm saying that it appears to be a problem for Dembski's Christianity, hence his (and your) retrofitting an explanation for it. I didn't say it is inconsistent with the existence of God. At most, I'm saying it's at tension with the belief in a loving God. I gather this from Dembski's conclusion that only human beings, not a loving God, could be responsible for the degenerate state of nature. He believes nature is corrupted.

As far as birth pangs are concerned, I think we can both agree that the biology involved is very complex. Additionally, if we are accepting (in broad terms, at least) the biblical narrative of the Garden of Eden, we must acknowledge that the way Eden functioned was clearly different than our world today (i.e. God's causing edible plants to grow, presenting animals to Adam, having Adam 'tend' the garden, and God's creation of Eve...they're all supernatural events). The context of your question requires me to assume that the same God who did all this, and created all these things could not also choose to alter their biological functions as a form of punishment. I accept that God created the Garden of Eden, and as an extension of that belief I also have no problem believing that he could make alterations to the Garden and its inhabitants, as he deemed necessary.

You lost me. What was altered?