Natural Evil

[inocente]

Yep, yep, and yep.

Tamint has been transformed in heaven by the mercy of a loving God.

She is certainly not in hell where those might be who arranged her suffering.

Who do you think they are, who arranged the suffering of children who die all around the world every every day, and have been dying for millennia? Have they also arranged for cancer? Have they also arranged for hurricanes?

 

[inocente]

It is licit to do what we can to find a cure, but if it is not possible, then it is better to accept it as the will God and to endure the suffering. Suffering for sufferings sake is not natural. Suffering for a supernatural motive is meritorious. Saints are living proofs of this truth. Even terrorists blow them selves up because of their misguided beliefs, although they do not think their acts are misguided. Theology does include infants and children in their beliefs. Every child that comes into the world come with the stain of original sin, like we all do. We all have to reborn again into a life of grace. Because disease is a fact of life the child is a victim So we baptize them, If they die before they are baptized , in justice, they did not wrong, so it is thought they enter a state of happiness, called Limbo. God’s judgement prevail into the life of every child, and He sees where the life of this child will lead, so He chooses the best for the child, this is one possibility. All things happen because He causes them to happen in His Omniscience, and Omnipotence, in perfect justice, wisdom and love of every child.

It’s good that you believe it’s licit to try to find a cure. Is it also licit to stop the disease before it can infect, by providing good sanitation? Or does that work against God’s perfect justice? How come God’s perfect justice is that children around the world throughout the ages have died every day, and still do, but a child born to rich parents in modern-day America doesn’t? How exactly is that God’s perfect justice?

No, Tamint does not necessarily learn to love suffering, but to endure. But I know it is possible for some young children suffer patiently, even young visionaries have done this. And yes diarrhea can be an instrument of purification, as Jesus said “Nothing imperfect shall enter Heaven” We tend to overlook God’s loving, divine providence concerning all humans, young and old. If indeed this suffering was designed to perfect the child from the effects of original sin, and it’s effects, there is a transformation of grace taking place, especially if the child was baptized. If God has called the child, it is because He loves it eternally, and disease was the instrument of that calling. there is something else to consider, suppose God saw this as the best time to take the soul of the child seeing where it’s future life might lead? Transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Now you’re arguing that it’s the children born to rich Americans who miss out on the loving purification of dying from diarrhea aged two. Or are rich Americans already so pure that they don’t need to be divinely purged by diarrhea aged two? Is this a Donald Trump I see before me?

Sorry bro, you’re all over the place with this. Our simple humanity tells us that children dying every minute of every day of waterborne diseases is unjust, and we are obligated to remove the injustice by helping those poorer than us. Christians help the afflicted, we don’t put up with injustice by trying to explain it away. Jesus tells us it is unjust, and tells us to right injustice: “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[inocente]

It appears to me that Tamint’s situation is the result of the free actions of human beings. I do not know her parents, maybe they are aweful and irresponsible parents and sinners even (Tamnit’s birth may have been the result of fornication or adultery, I don’t know). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that if you are going to have sex, a child may result. Human beings are and need to be responsible for their actions. I am not condemning Tamint’s parents, but Tamint was born into the world because of the free actions of her parents, and humans are and should be responsible for their actions, especially the sacred sex act which can result in a new human being. Yes, parents need to trust in God that he will provide for their children, but we shouldn’t test Him. There may be circumstances in which we live in which it is not a good time to have children. God gave us an intellect and reason for a purpose.

That’s moral relativism writ large. You’re claiming that no one throughout history should ever have had a child because of the far higher rate of stillbirths and infant mortality than in the modern day West. Extraordinary.

 

[Bradski]

A two year old dying of dysentery and rewarded with eternal joy is quite just.

My grandson is that age. Lucky enough to be born in a relatively wealthy part of the world. Lucky enough to be born healthy. Lucky enough to have most of the advantages that Tamint doesn’t. Let’s assume that they both get to heaven.

Where is the justice there?

 

[tonyrey]

My grandson is that age. Lucky enough to be born in a relatively wealthy part of the world. Lucky enough to be born healthy. Lucky enough to have most of the advantages that Tamint doesn’t. Let’s assume that they both get to heaven.

Where is the justice there?

How could everyone on this planet be given the same advantages?

 

[tonyrey]

God permits natural evil because it is an inevitable consequence of physical laws which cannot cater for every contingency. Jesus gave us the Beatitudes to console the victims of both moral and natural evil because they share His suffering on the Cross and are closer to Him in heaven than those who haven’t had to endure so much pain, sorrow and injustice.

I agree with your first sentence but not the second. It doesn’t work since morally, if enduring pain brought us closer to Christ, we should do everything in our power to increase suffering in the world, which is obviously wrong.

It would be a grave sin to inflict needless suffering on ourselves and others because God alone knows what is best for us. Jesus told us to take up our cross and follow Him, not make one!

We cannot share His suffering. His sacrifice is a gift freely given, and no one needs to suffer to be worthy of that gift, as none of us can ever be worthy anyway.

None of us can ever be worthy but we can demonstrate our love for Him by responding to His command to accept our cross. We can share His suffering by meditating on His Passion and Death on the Cross. We identify ourselves with Him by accepting and offering our suffering to Him instead of complaining about it.

I think it’s better to just admit that we don’t know why God allows suffering, since if God could prevent it then He surely would, just as any of us will.

We do know why God allows suffering because it is the inevitable consequence of free will and the limitations of life on this planet. An earthly Utopia is a fantasy for which no one has ever produced a feasible blueprint.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No, they are not “evil”. They are bad, very bad, but not “evil”. When a cat “plays” with a mouse, it is not an “evil” act. Evil is reserved to volitional actions, where one party inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering on someone else, who is capable to experiencing pain and suffering.

I reject the catholic definition of “evil is a privation of good”. According that definition the cat would be “evil”. The lack of rain causing a drought would be “evil”. A overabundance of rain causing a deluge would be “evil”. The lightning causing a fire would be “evil”. And that definition is irrational.

Nature does not “care”. It is unable to “care”. If there is a God, then he has a lot to answer for. But of course there is no sign of that.

What is the difference between bad and evil? That’s just a matter of semantics. Either the world is full of good and bad (or evil) or it is not. Which is it?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Sorry but this doesn’t work either . Continuing with the example of the fictional Tamint, the two-year old girl who dies from a waterborne disease as does some real child in the world every minute of every day - one child dying once would be sufficient proof, there is no need for another to die every minute of every day, as if God keeps forgetting he already made the proof. Enough with the proofs already.

And anyway it’s arguable whether an injustice can be righted by a later compensation, since a toddler dying from diarrhea can never be undone. It also paints God as being powerless to prevent suffering, and only able to pay out on the insurance later.

The issue with many of the theologies expressed on the thread is that in one way or another they try to justify suffering, and that puts them at odds with our normal human reaction, that Tamint’s suffering is unjust, and we ought to try to prevent or alleviate such suffering.

Some say Tamint is to blame for her own suffering, as if karma is getting her back for sins from previous lives. Some say her parents are to blame, as if no one should have a family so long as there’s any chance their child may catch a disease. Some say we’re all to blame, as if primitive man invented viruses, bacteria and parasites. (Elsewhere, there were those who claimed Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath against the morals of New Orleans). All these argue that by intervening to alleviate suffering we’re working against natural justice.

Others claim suffering is good for Tamint’s soul, as if it’s some kind of reward to die of diarrhea aged two, and we are stealing away such rewards by intervening to provide good sanitation.

And so on. Contrast all these attempts to justify suffering with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The respected priest and Levite, driven by their ideas of God and cleanliness, walk on by. They won’t get to heaven (‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me’). But the Samaritan, who is from a tribe Jesus knows full well his audience detests, “as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him”. The Samaritan never stops to consider whether the man’s suffering is justified, even though it was by the action of men (perhaps they thought he deserved it for his past crimes). The Samaritan is motivated not by ideology or justification, but by simple humanity, the humanity shown by any child (and he then acts with the competence of a mature adult).

Imho any theology which seeks to explain natural evil must not work against that.

You are missing the point. Whether someone suffers or not in his life on this earth, the outcome is the same. They die. However with God there is justification for their lives. They don’t just suffer and die. They have life everlasting either in Heaven, Purgatory (for a while) or Hell. Otherwise life is indeed pointless as you have said. As for two babies dying whether in pain or not, they are both innocent so there is no judgement on them, they are taken straight to Heaven.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You are missing the point. Whether someone suffers or not in his life on this earth, the outcome is the same. They die. However with God there is justification for their lives. They don’t just suffer and die. They have life everlasting either in Heaven, Purgatory (for a while) or Hell. Otherwise life is indeed pointless as you have said. As for two babies dying whether in pain or not, they are both innocent so there is no judgement on them, they are taken straight to Heaven.

Also suffering isn’t really for the “benefit” of the person suffering. It is for us who are not suffering to behold the suffering and then try to do something to relieve it. So many of you atheists seem to be of the opinion that that’s just the way it is, there is nothing we can do about it. But if everyone thought that way there would be no cures for diseases, no charitable relief services, no people giving unselfishly their time, money and talents for those who are suffering and in need. I’m not saying all atheists are uncaring, but there seems to be a few here that say, “the world is uncaring - and there’s nothing that can be done about it!”

 

[Kevin_Gore_LC]

Pallas Athene, thank you for participating in this thread. You have a unique and enriching position. I would like to better understand your point of view.

I am happy to communicate with you, because I have never heard a non-theist give any solution at all to the problem of evil, but simply attack the theistic one.

A theistic response to the problem of natural evil, pain, suffering, and death, could be the following:

1. It is evident that all are subject to pain, suffering, and death
2. It is evident that some suffer more than others, to the point of injustice in the world as we know it, especially when considering the innocent and the young vs the unjust and the old.
3. Since we don’t experience just retribution in this life, this suffering finds meaning, and justice exists, only if there is punishment/reward from a just judge after death.

I know you have different doubts about this solution.

I would like to know what positive solution you propose to answer the injustice of natural evil and give meaning to human suffering and death.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The cat wouldn’t be evil in that scenario. The cat is acting according to its nature. This seems like a misunderstanding of the Catholic position.

Of course the cat would not be evil, just like the tornado or the tsunami are not evil either. But the effect of the cat playing with the mouse is a “privation of good” for the mouse. The effects of the tornado and the tsunami are a “privation of good” for the affected humans.

All I am saying that catholic definition of “evil” is incorrect. “Evil” is not just physically bad, it is intentionally bad. One can say that it is “morally bad”.

It is sad to view pictures of babies, children and adults suffering and dying, it is a fact of life every one will suffer and die.

Why should anyone feel sadness when something is the result of God’s will and God can do no wrong?

That means you live in a universe without meaning or purpose, because there is in your atheist ideology no one to govern or care whether the universe lives or dies.

That is the exact way to look at the universe. We sometimes try to “anthropomorphize” the universe, but that is just poetic usage of words, without any meaning.

But you seem to blame God for everything. Interesting for an atheist.

No, I most certainly don’t. I am saying that IF there is a God, THEN he is to blame for everything that is bad. Of course in that case one should also give thanks to God for all the good that there is. But to give thanks to God for the good, and blame “Mother Nature” for the bad is simple hypocrisy.

What is the difference between bad and evil? That’s just a matter of semantics. Either the world is full of good and bad (or evil) or it is not. Which is it?

Not at all. We differentiate between “natural bad” and “intentional bad”. And that is not just semantics.

You are missing the point. Whether someone suffers or not in his life on this earth, the outcome is the same. They die.

I rather doubt that you would have the same opinion it the suffering one would be YOU. Don’t you run to the dentist when you have a little toothache? It is very easy to shrug off someone else’s suffering. Even if this existence is “not all there is”, it is still important. If a kid stumbles and skins his knee, a good parent comforts him and does not shrug it off.

Pallas Athene, thank you for participating in this thread. You have a unique and enriching position. I would like to better understand your point of view.

I am happy to communicate with you, because I have never heard a non-theist give any solution at all to the problem of evil, but simply attack the theistic one.

A theistic response to the problem of natural evil, pain, suffering, and death, could be the following:

1. It is evident that all are subject to pain, suffering, and death
2. It is evident that some suffer more than others, to the point of injustice in the world as we know it, especially when considering the innocent and the young vs the unjust and the old.
3. Since we don’t experience just retribution in this life, this suffering finds meaning, and justice exists, only if there is punishment/reward from a just judge after death.

I know you have different doubts about this solution.

I would like to know what positive solution you propose to answer the injustice of natural evil and give meaning to human suffering and death.

Ok, let me try. I have two solutions from the top of my head. Before we go on, I do not see death as a problem. Only a static world can exist without it. Life and death are not contradictory, life and suffering are.

Now, pain and suffering are a different issue. Pain does have a useful role in our existence, it indicates that something went “wrong” with our body, and we need to do something to “fix” the problem. But there is a much better solution: “regeneration” of the affected part. The lowly worm called “planaria” has complete regeneration “built into it”. If you cut it into two, both halves will regenerate. Rodents will grow their teeth back if they lose it.

Trees will grow new branches and leaves. Moreover, threes do not have a pain center, so they do not suffer when they lose a branch of a leaf. Excellent prototypes for a better world, without pain and suffering. Now people might say that such a world is very “boring”. But it does not have to be so simple and boring.

The entities which dwell is a “new, improved” universe could have thinking and intelligence built into them. Their body could have full regenerative powers. They may even have a “pleasure center”, but no pain center.

So, this was the first attempt to answer your question. Let’s see the second one.

There is no logical reason for the beings of the universe have a “carbon” based existence. It could be “silicon” based. These beings could have replaceable limbs, their bodies would not “decompose” if made of sturdy materials. They could live practically indefinitely with proper maintenance.

As for using energy source, both worlds could use the solar energy, which is available in abundance.

This is what I can offer as first approximation for a “new, improved” world without pain and suffering.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The entities which dwell is a “new, improved” universe could have thinking and intelligence built into them. Their body could have full regenerative powers. They may even have a “pleasure center”, but no pain center.

There is no logical reason for the beings of the universe have a “carbon” based existence. It could be “silicon” based. These beings could have replaceable limbs, their bodies would not “decompose” if made of sturdy materials. They could live practically indefinitely with proper maintenance.

As for using energy source, both worlds could use the solar energy, which is available in abundance.

This is what I can offer as first approximation for a “new, improved” world without pain and suffering.

O brother, you can’t reinvent the world. How are you going to help THIS world, not your silly fantasy world?

 

[Wesrock]

All I am saying that catholic definition of “evil” is incorrect. “Evil” is not just physically bad, it is intentionally bad. One can say that it is “morally bad”.

I don’t see you demonstrating that the Catholic definition of evil is incorrect, just that you don’t agree with applying it to anything outside of morals and intentions. Perhaps you could explain why you consider the privation of good definition problematic? I assume there are implications you are concerned about.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No, I most certainly don’t. I am saying that IF there is a God, THEN he is to blame for everything that is bad. Of course in that case one should also give thanks to God for all the good that there is. But to give thanks to God for the good, and blame “Mother Nature” for the bad is simple hypocrisy.

But God made the world. Therefore he made “Mother Nature”.

Not at all. We differentiate between “natural bad” and “intentional bad”. And that is not just semantics.

.

So if some one unintentionally murders someone, rapes someone, or steals from someone it is okay in your world?

What does it matter if an intentional war caused the famine or an act of nature caused the famine? The results are the same. People suffer.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Who do you think they are, who arranged the suffering of children who die all around the world every every day, and have been dying for millennia?

They are those who took care of themselves but did not think to take care of others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How could everyone on this planet be given the same advantages?

These utopians all have the same mentality. If everybody does not have equal happiness forced on them by God, then there is no God.

Go figure.

 

[ynotzap]

My grandson is that age. Lucky enough to be born in a relatively wealthy part of the world. Lucky enough to be born healthy. Lucky enough to have most of the advantages that Tamint doesn’t. Let’s assume that they both get to heaven.

Where is the justice there?

If they both got to Heaven, then they were found worthy in spite of their station of existence on earth. Justice is not always meted out in our earthly existence. Existence does not terminate at our physical death, it is central to our belief. It is not contrary to our reasoning, and experiences of saintly people who experienced the supernatural. What would the secular world know about these truths? The secular world judges by what it sees, not by what it does not see, for that takes knowledge of the truth that is known, and not necessarily sensed, enlightened and experienced. That is the work of God. Those that don’t have this gift are at a real disadvantage in understanding life and it’s problems, such as justice, evil, good, death and happiness One can only be held accountable for what he knows, and for what he can know but through spiritual sloth refuses to know for his own reasons. Only God can judge rightly and administer correct justice, the rest of us are at best, fallible and limited.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

O brother, you can’t reinvent the world. How are you going to help THIS world, not your silly fantasy world?

I remember a joke. A beautiful woman brings her ugly and sick child to the doctor, and asks what can the doctor do about it. The doctor says: “Please take off your clothes, and climb up on the examining table”. The woman says: “But doctor, there is nothing wrong with me. I came here for my child”. The doctor shrugs: “That child is hopeless. We shall make a new one”.

I don’t see you demonstrating that the Catholic definition of evil is incorrect, just that you don’t agree with applying it to anything outside of morals and intentions. Perhaps you could explain why you consider the privation of good definition problematic? I assume there are implications you are concerned about.

I already did. If evil is simply the privation of good, then all the natural disasters are “evil”.

So if some one unintentionally murders someone, rapes someone, or steals from someone it is okay in your world?

There is such a thing as unintentional homicide, but no unintentional murder or rape. Unintentional homicide is “bad” but not “evil”.

What does it matter if an intentional war caused the famine or an act of nature caused the famine? The results are the same. People suffer.

Are you one of those who only consider the outcome but not the cause? I thought the catholic church cares about the intent, too.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I remember a joke. A beautiful woman brings her ugly and sick child to the doctor, and asks what can the doctor do about it. The doctor says: “Please take off your clothes, and climb up on the examining table”. The woman says: “But doctor, there is nothing wrong with me. I came here for my child”. The doctor shrugs: “That child is hopeless. We shall make a new one”.

That’s a joke?

I already did. If evil is simply the privation of good, then all the natural disasters are “evil”.

You are very cagey as usual.

There is such a thing as unintentional homicide, but no unintentional murder or rape. Unintentional homicide is “bad” but not “evil”.

O no, a person could rape someone without knowing he was raping her. Our justice system is full of such cases. There are many, many ambiguous crimes. That’s what the court system is for.

Are you one of those who only consider the outcome but not the cause? I thought the catholic church cares about the intent, too.

I care, or course, and the Catholic Church cares, but I am asking YOU! Quit turning the tables and give me a straight answer, please.

 

[Wesrock]

I already did. If evil is simply the privation of good, then all the natural disasters are “evil”.

Well, at most I’d say there’s evil in them for those adversely affected. But regardless… Why is this problematic?

You already distinguished between unintentional bad and intentional bad above. Why can’t the same be done for deprivation of good? Natural vs moral evil?