Natural evil

[Aelred_Minor]

I was thinking of viruses and genetic defects. I guess you could classify viruses as parasites in a sense: they rely on a host to replicate themselves, even though they aren’t technically alive. It would be fair to say that ebola (or whatever) doesn’t strike my fancy, but I see now that from a Catholic point of view we could say that it is good that it exists, in that, by virtue of existing, it (along with the rest of creation) gives testimony to *Esse, *and hence, God himself. Before the fall, we could say that the natural operation of the virus in say, a cow, an extremely fast growth rate and the subsequent destruction of cellular walls (reducing organs to sludge) would be an unadulterated good.

I think genetic defects would fall under the “personal tragedy” category. For example, the existence of some malfunctioning organelle(s) (like those which cause an error in the reproduction or execution of DNA such that a fetus forms without a skull) is objectively good. It is objectively good that such a thing exists, even though it serves no discernible purpose other than to produce horror. Or maybe such a conclusion is just the result some difficulty distinguishing good from evil.

I’d hate to keep repeating myself or to keep asking you to clarify yourself. Viruses like everything else would be objectively good in their beings at all times, and good overall when they do not adversely effect humans. If you’ve ever seen a giant model of a virus or even an electron microscope image of some of them, or the patterns produced by some leaf mosaic viruses, you might see how viruses even increase the beauty of God’s creation, though there may be other instances in which this is much harder to see. Birth defects would probably be an example of a natural phenomenon which disturbs us because of our closeness to animals and our tendency to anthropomorphize them. Plant mutations can be quite interesting, though objectively speaking they are basically the same thing.

 

[tonyrey]

I know that I’m not asking an original question here, so if someone could just point me towards the answer, I’d appreciate it.

The argument from evil claims that the evil we see in the world is not compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God. This evil comes in two forms: moral and natural. Moral evil doesn’t give me pause with respect to the existence of God, but I find natural evil disconcerting. Here’s how I’d put it:

1. God could have created the universe in a way that differs qualitatively from the universe we observe.
2. God could have created the universe such that there would be more or less natural evil than we experience.
3. The “pointless” evil we observe argues against an omni-benevolent God.

Your last statement implies that there can be nothing which is purposeless in a universe created by God yet the element of chance makes such a demand unreasonable. There are bound to be negative coincidences in any immensely complex system.

 

[Binary]

I’d hate to keep repeating myself or to keep asking you to clarify yourself. Viruses like everything else would be objectively good in their beings at all times, and good overall when they do not adversely effect humans. If you’ve ever seen a giant model of a virus or even an electron microscope image of some of them, or the patterns produced by some leaf mosaic viruses, you might see how viruses even increase the beauty of God’s creation, though there may be other instances in which this is much harder to see. Birth defects would probably be an example of a natural phenomenon which disturbs us because of our closeness to animals and our tendency to anthropomorphize them. Plant mutations can be quite interesting, though objectively speaking they are basically the same thing.

Cool story bro.