The Problem of Natural Evil

[Kelp(p)]

The problem here is the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus made it clear that a good person goes out of his way to help those in need. When we look at earthquakes and tsunamis, not to mention diseases like polio and smallpox, we can we that God is not behaving like a Good Samaritan.

Does this help? My response to Whag. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post121222

Building on that in terms of disease, if God healed them for us, then we would never develop the vaccines and would not be able to discover and develop the cures on our own and learn as much about the human body, right?

[Kelp(p)]

First, sorry we haven't talked much Kelp. Been rather busy. Anyway, the main thing I'd remember here is that you need to look at the entire picture and not just a small part of it. Remember that we see death as this end wall. The end all of everything, but does God see death as this end all wall that we do? This is the biggest and often times hardest thing to remember. God is eternal and this world of ours and our lives are not. God simply will not have the same views on death and suffering that we tend to have.

Just glad to see you again.

I know, you're right about God's ways being different. It's just so hard to be ok with only partial answers when these issues are so painful

[robrecht]

You think they're that easy a target?

One shouldn't really expect an ancient poetic narrative to provide a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of earthquakes and tsunamis and the like. No doubt, some will try to argue the contrary, and will never be convinced otherwise, but it doesn't seem like a worthy debate to me.

[Kelp(p)]

One shouldn't really expect an ancient poetic narrative to provide a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of earthquakes and tsunamis and the like. No doubt, some will try to argue the contrary, and will never be convinced otherwise, but it doesn't seem like a worthy debate to me.

I think it's best to just take the philosophical gist of it: In the Beginning, humans and God had a good relationship and everything was utopian. Then we voluntarily screwed up and now we're no longer in paradise with God because of it.

[robrecht]

I think it's best to just take the philosophical gist of it: In the Beginning, humans and God had a good relationship and everything was utopian. Then we voluntarily screwed up and now we're no longer in paradise with God because of it.

I agree. There's more that can be said about the artistry and implications of the narrative that are very profound but I don't think it was intended to address the philosophical questions of natural evil and certainly not scientific ones. The Book of Job is more relevant in my opinion.

[whag]

As for why earthquakes and volcanoes even have the exist in the first place, they are rather a necessary part of the ecosystem we have now.

I was hoping you were using earthquakes and volcanoes as representative of all the "problematic" phenomena. That's how I was using them. No one is saying volcanoes don't create rich soil. I specifically said it does. I'm talking about parasites. Dog cancer. SIDS. Venom. The evolutionary arms race.

You limit it by saying geology has a good side. We already know that.

If you look in other threads around here lately, you'll see me flailing up and down trying to show that God could have made a better possible world than this. Now, I'm not so sure, though. This is the world God wanted to make for us, and we'd have to do someawfully*complex calculations to come up with a better one that still had as interesting and glorious a natural world as a consequent, right?

Yes, the irony being that God describes thorns and birth pangs as inglorious. It's actually the theist who assigns evil to those things, seeing them as curses and the product of evil. To skeptics, it's just nature doing its thing, no more or less evil than the Northern Lights. Does that make sense?

[whag]

I think it's best to just take the philosophical gist of it: In the Beginning, humans and God had a good relationship and everything was utopian. Then we voluntarily screwed up and now we're no longer in paradise with God because of it.

That's way too fairy tale-ish for me to believe. What did all the animals and hominids who suffered and died before that do wrong?

[robrecht]

That's way too fairy tale-ish for me to believe. What did all the animals and hominids who suffered and died before that do wrong?

Don't assume that the narrative is even intended to address such questions about animals.

[seanD]

That scenario is impossible, since the phenomena you describe antedated human beings' penetration of crust.



Human beings weren't burning fossil fuels during the hot ages. That scenario doesn't jibe with what we know about industry in stone age.



Human beings wouldn't know what fault lines were or how to detect them. They settle where the fish and fertile soil are, which makes logistical sense.



All those scenarios, not just the last one, are equally hypothetical, requiring faith to accept.



All three scenarios aren't likely, circling us back to the original problem.

I didn't know you were only referring to the period during prehistoric man. I thought you were referring to natural evil in general. Scenario #1 and 2 covers prehistoric man.

[Kelp(p)]

I was hoping you were using earthquakes and volcanoes as representative of all the "problematic" phenomena. That's how I was using them. No one is saying volcanoes don't create rich soil. I specifically said it does. I'm talking about parasites. Dog cancer. SIDS. Venom. The evolutionary arms race.

You limit it by saying geology has a good side. We already know that.

My mistake.

I'm not sure we know enough about the complex interactions in ecology (even before man-made climate change) to say that anything could be completely taken away without radically altering the natural world that we have. We don't even know all the causes of cancer, never mind what would have to change in order for it never to have existed. Perhaps there is also something redemptive in the search for the cure, though. And sadly, any searching process is going to require a certain number of dead end cases.

Then there's how something like dog cancer might teach someone about persevering through suffering or having empathy with all living things. Molinists will tell you that God created this world, exactly as it is, out of all the possible worlds that we have available, because this is the only one that has both the greatest possible human freedom and the greatest number freely choosing to be with God.

Or, alternately, this could be the only possible world God could create (speaking in terms of what is logically possible, not in terms of God's power. God cannot make a square circle). In which case we have to chose between not existing at all and living with what we have. I can understand why someone would desire the former. It's a deeply painful thing, I know.

Yes, the irony being that God describes thorns and birth pangs as inglorious. It's actually the theist who assigns evil to those things, seeing them as curses and the product of evil. To skeptics, it's just nature doing its thing, no more or less evil than the Northern Lights. Does that make sense?

That's what the authors of the Tanakh thought. I believe that the Bible contains genuine messages from God, but not all of it has to be correct or an accurately reflection God's thoughts on a matter. Other Christians will disagree, of course.

[KingsGambit]

The Book of Job is more relevant in my opinion.

I agree, though there are two possible angles this could be viewed. Are you thinking more in terms of the general futility of theodicy implied, or by the presentation of violence in nature as non-negative in the speech ascribed to God?

[Kelp(p)]

That's way too fairy tale-ish for me to believe. What did all the animals and hominids who suffered and died before that do wrong?

In terms of hominids, hard to say when the first one that could have moral accountability was. H. Ergaster, perhaps?

But anyway, they didn't do anything wrong. Their suffering was a byproduct of the forces of evolution and climate, etc. making this world the way God wanted it to be. If there was no evolutionary arms race, wouldn't nature be a lot more boring?

And what if all things are restored in God someday? What if there comes a time when all those animals return and are healed and join in bliss and harmony in singing with us and the angels of the joys of our God forevermore? Would that make it all worthwhile? The Bible says that God catches all our tears in an urn. He knows each one. The hairs on our heads are all numbered. A sparrow never falls but that He knows it. I see no reason not to believe that all this is building up to something that will make even the words of Romans 8:18-23 pale as a description:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

[robrecht]

I agree, though there are two possible angles this could be viewed. Are you thinking more in terms of the general futility of theodicy implied, or by the presentation of violence in nature as non-negative in the speech ascribed to God?

I must be thinking of the former 'cause I'm not really sure what you mean by the latter. But along with the futility of the former, I also see the hope for the Incarnation, of the God who will suffer with and for us, which may not provide us with all the answers, at least not such that were would fully understand, but which allows us to engage God fully in our present, sometimes painful search for answers and, more importantly, full responsibility, which is the only real cure for futility. When God suffers with us and for us, our suffering can no longer be said to alienate us from God. There can be no enmity (איב) between Jesus and Job (איב) and no longer any enmity between us and God.

[whag]

I must be thinking of the former 'cause I'm not really sure what you mean by the latter. But along with the futility of the former, I also see the hope for the Incarnation, of the God who will suffer with and for us, which may not provide us with all the answers, at least not such that were would fully understand, but which allows us to engage God fully in our present, sometimes painful search for answers and, more importantly, full responsibility, which is the only real cure for futility. When God suffers with us and for us, our suffering can no longer be said to alienate us from God. There can be no enmity (איב) between Jesus and Job (איב) and no longer any enmity between us and God.

Why would God need to enflesh himself to become acquainted with the sufferings of human beings? One would think he'd have that capacity to know the human experience before having to become a human being.

[KingsGambit]

Why would God need to enflesh himself to become acquainted with the sufferings of human beings? One would think he'd have that capacity to know the human experience before having to become a human being.

I think the general focus here is on the willingness to share with the suffering experimentally than intellectually being able to comprehend it.