Natural Evil

[Pallas_Athene]

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?

Because the word “evil” is reserved for depicting intentional harm. Indeed the expression of “natural evil” is used, but it is a very unfortunate choice of words.

We have so many of them, it is not a good idea to add more. People speak of “irrational” numbers, indicating a subset which are not the result of the division (ratio) of two integers. Very poor choice of words. People speak of “imaginary” versus “real” numbers. Horrible choice of words.

The only result is confusion. Natural “evil” is an oxymoron.

 

[Wesrock]

Because the word “evil” is reserved for depicting intentional harm. Indeed the expression of “natural evil” is used, but it is a very unfortunate choice of words.

We have so many of them, it is not a good idea to add more. People speak of “irrational” numbers, indicating a subset which are not the result of the division (ratio) of two integers. Very poor choice of words. People speak of “imaginary” versus “real” numbers. Horrible choice of words.

The only result is confusion. Natural “evil” is an oxymoron.

But why must evil imply intention?

This isn’t a new definition we’re talking about here, but a millenia old definition that’s been used in many languages. Would you feel more comfortable if we just said “badness is the absence of good” and “evil is just moral badness”? It’s just the same concept.

So what’s at issue here for you? The word choice or the underlying concept? Do you hold the “absence of good” definition is illogical or do you just prefer a different one?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

DEFINITION OF EVIL
l
(ē′vəl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader’s power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.

4.** Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.**

Evil doesn’t imply intent. Evil is just bad stuff. The world if full of it.

 

[Bradski]

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

The question is not why everyone should have equal happiness. The question is why millions of people suffer/have suffered needlessly. Millions of children over millennia could have been saved from a lingering death by very simple means indeed. Why weren’t the Ten Commandments written along these lines:

Honour your father and mother.
Have no other Gods but me.
Don’t kill each other.
Oh, and wash your hands before every meal.

Imagine a man who has a few generations of his family living with him. Children keep dying over the years for no apparent reason. Grandchildren. Great grandchildren. No-one knows why. One day someone who has lost yet another child hits upon the reason, almost by accident. Everyone is ecstatic. What a relief. No more deaths. How about that, G’pa! Hell, he says. I could have told you that years ago…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The question is not why everyone should have equal happiness. The question is why millions of people suffer/have suffered needlessly. Millions of children over millennia could have been saved from a lingering death by very simple means indeed.

This is simplistic. What you and others of your ilk are whining about is that there is any suffering and death at all in the universe. God could have prevented all suffering, all death. Why didn’t he? Then he doesn’t exist.

Draw your own conclusion as to how logical that sounds.

Sounds totally robotic to me.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So what’s at issue here for you? The word choice or the underlying concept?

The choice of word is the problem. Look up the synonyms for evil, and you will find “malicious”, “vicious”, “malevolent”, “wicked”, “vile” etc… as the most appropriate synonyms. All of them imply a volitional action. (Sure, there are other ones, down the line, which are morally neutral.) It is important to differentiate between “volitional” and “accidental” harm. And “reserving” evil for that role makes a lot of sense.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Then he doesn’t exist.

Or is not benevolent. A benevolent “anyone” cannot allow ANY gratuitous pain and suffering. Now, if you wish to prove that each and every instance of pain and suffering is actually “good” in disguise… then you can “win” the game… but that is unlikely.

 

[Bradski]

This is simplistic. What you and others of your ilk are whining about is that there is any suffering and death at all in the universe. God could have prevented all suffering, all death. Why didn’t he? Then he doesn’t exist.

Draw your own conclusion as to how logical that sounds.

I’m not sure you are following, Charles. It isn’t being used as an argument to say that God does not exist. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion we can agree that He does.

Scripture is full of ‘do this’ and ‘don’t do that’. Almost all of which would have made sense to anyone wanting to lead a reasonable peaceful existence. None of them, in fact, requiring a divine hand in the documentation process. Now God gave us a few hints and tips which enables us to live a little longer than we would otherwise. Fear comes in handy. As does pain. And disgust is a good one, as well. Probably saved quite a few lives over the years. And He’s not exactly reticent when it comes to telling us about the natural world. In fact, we have a complete description of how it was formed.

But nothing about basic hygiene and germ theory. Which would have saved millions upon millions. An immense amount of unnecessary suffering. I can’t see any purpose in the suffering. And I’m sure God is not indifferent to it. In fact, as He loves us, would it be reasonable to say that He would be compassionate to the plight of a small child in distress?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m not sure you are following, Charles. It isn’t being used as an argument to say that God does not exist. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion we can agree that He does.

Scripture is full of ‘do this’ and ‘don’t do that’. Almost all of which would have made sense to anyone wanting to lead a reasonable peaceful existence. None of them, in fact, requiring a divine hand in the documentation process. Now God gave us a few hints and tips which enables us to live a little longer than we would otherwise. Fear comes in handy. As does pain. And disgust is a good one, as well. Probably saved quite a few lives over the years. And He’s not exactly reticent when it comes to telling us about the natural world. In fact, we have a complete description of how it was formed.

But nothing about basic hygiene and germ theory. Which would have saved millions upon millions. An immense amount of unnecessary suffering. I can’t see any purpose in the suffering. And I’m sure God is not indifferent to it. In fact, as He loves us, would it be reasonable to say that He would be compassionate to the plight of a small child in distress?

This argument makes zero sense. What is your point here exactly??? Do you believe in God? Are you for men who find cures for illness?? What are you trying to say?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The choice of word is the problem. Look up the synonyms for evil, and you will find “malicious”, “vicious”, “malevolent”, “wicked”, “vile” etc… as the most appropriate synonyms. All of them imply a volitional action. (Sure, there are other ones, down the line, which are morally neutral.) It is important to differentiate between “volitional” and “accidental” harm. And “reserving” evil for that role makes a lot of sense.

Sorry but you are way off base. Evil is anything bad. That’s all there is to it.

 

[Bradski]

This argument makes zero sense. What is your point here exactly??? Do you believe in God? Are you for men who find cures for illness?? What are you trying to say?

It wasn’t an argument. It was an observation ending in a question. Just looking for an answer is all.

 

[cfauster]

Hi all,

This is a thread to discuss only natural evil. Why does it exist, why does God allow it, why doesn’t he intervene to stop it, etc. What does Scripture say and what does logic say?

The book of Job is both profound and enigmatic. Scholars have wrestled with its poetic contents, bizarre prose prologue, and surprising epilogue. There are diverse views on many aspects of the story…

In Chapters 38-41 God (finally) responds to Job in a somewhat incongruous way by presenting him with a tour of the natural world. Many readers (and scholars) would claim that God seems to be insensitive to Job and his suffering, and God’s response seems to avoid the issues of Job’s complaint. Certainly the response is not what Job—or the reader—expected. Old Testament Scholar Terrence Fretheim takes a more positive route. Fretheim argues that God’s response is one that genuinely addresses Job’s concerns and is focused on nature because therein lies a key point that God wants Job to appreciate. After all, two of Job’s original calamities were natural disasters (1:16, 19). God says that Job does not understand the way in which God’s world works. Job interprets the disorder within nature as defective and/or mismanaged creation, rather than precisely the kind of world that God intended. Consequently, although the world is good, well-ordered, and reliable, it is also wild, untamed, and not risk-free to humankind. God, then, challenges Job to recognize the proper nature of the creation and that suffering may be experienced in just such a world, quite apart from sin and evil. In so doing, Job may better appreciate what his place and role is within God’s world, even in the midst of suffering. - From God’s Good Chaos

 

[inocente]

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!

The problem is that if God alone knows what’s best for us, then God alone must have decided that it’s best for those children to die from waterborne diseases, every minute of every day. But we know it’s not best for them.

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.

The verse (in Luke and Matthew) says “take up their cross”, not “share Christ’s cross”. (“The cross was no unknown image to the Jews who that day listened to the Master. The gloomy procession of robbers and of rebels against Rome, each condemned one bearing to the place of death the cross on which he was to suffer, was a sadly familiar image then in their unhappy land.” - Pulpit Commentary)

Also, He suffered for us, it’s his gift, and you’re not accepting the gift if you try to offer it back, but we’re getting off-topic.

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.

I see where you’re going but it isn’t inevitable - children have suffered and died for millennia from diseases which we now know how to prevent. We can and do substantially reduce suffering in the world, suffering isn’t part of God’s plan or inevitable.

 

[inocente]

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.

When you meet Christine76 in heaven, and she died aged two from diarrhea, and never got to fall in love or raise a family or do any of the things you can do, but instead only has the nightmare memory of the suffering of her last days and the tears of her mother and father, tell her it all turned out nice in the end.

It cannot be the case that if the outcome is the same then suffering is irrelevant, since no normal person ever, in the entire history of the world, would agree that it’s pointless trying to reduce or eliminate suffering because the outcome is the same.

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!”

You just totally undid your argument that the outcome is the same so suffering doesn’t matter.

btw If that post was intended to me, I’m a Baptist not an atheist. I just don’t happen to share your theology. I follow Christ not Christine.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure you are following, Charles. It isn’t being used as an argument to say that God does not exist. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion we can agree that He does.

Scripture is full of ‘do this’ and ‘don’t do that’. Almost all of which would have made sense to anyone wanting to lead a reasonable peaceful existence. None of them, in fact, requiring a divine hand in the documentation process. Now God gave us a few hints and tips which enables us to live a little longer than we would otherwise. Fear comes in handy. As does pain. And disgust is a good one, as well. Probably saved quite a few lives over the years. And He’s not exactly reticent when it comes to telling us about the natural world. In fact, we have a complete description of how it was formed.

But nothing about basic hygiene and germ theory. Which would have saved millions upon millions. An immense amount of unnecessary suffering. I can’t see any purpose in the suffering. And I’m sure God is not indifferent to it. In fact, as He loves us, would it be reasonable to say that He would be compassionate to the plight of a small child in distress?

The originator of the big bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, put it like this:

“The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.” - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847#sthash.RLQ2NaYD.dpuf

 

[inocente]

inocente;13475016:

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?

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

So you’re saying that all those Christians who, throughout the ages, have watched their children die, or have had loved ones killed by cancer or hurricanes, arranged that by taking care of themselves but not thinking to take care of others.

There have been some strange theologies expressed on this thread, but I’m thinking you take the biscuit.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

btw If that post was intended to me, I’m a Baptist not an atheist. I just don’t happen to share your theology. I follow Christ not Christine.

If you follow Christ, they why don’t you understand his suffering?

 

[cfauster]

We can and do substantially reduce suffering in the world, suffering isn’t part of God’s plan or inevitable.

Just a clarification question.

Certainly we can, should, and do substantially reduce suffering in the world, and certainly we can do so now in many ways previously unavailable to us.

But where you add “suffering isn’t part of God’s plan or inevitable,” do you mean all suffering, or particular kinds of suffering? For example, would the pain experienced by animals other than humans be included?

Thanks in advance for any clarification you provide, inocente.

 

[inocente]

If you follow Christ, they why don’t you understand his suffering?

That’s an interesting technique. Make a bald assertion which is nothing to do with the post you’re replying to and is off-topic and is a personal remark.

It would be better if you started a separate thread to discuss your understanding of Christ’s suffering, since people who are interested in that topic may not be following this thread.

Otherwise, I completely understand if you’re having difficulties coming up with a reply to what I actually said to you .

 

[inocente]

Just a clarification question.

Certainly we can, should, and do substantially reduce suffering in the world, and certainly we can do so now in many ways previously unavailable to us.

But where you add “suffering isn’t part of God’s plan or inevitable,” do you mean all suffering, or particular kinds of suffering? For example, would the pain experienced by animals other than humans be included?

Thanks in advance for any clarification you provide, inocente.

Hi. I’ve seen it argued that suffering is necessary in this world, or otherwise Christ could never have suffered for our sins. Not sure about that argument. Technically of course, physical pain is necessary as a warning mechanism, a consequence of being physical, just as suffering bereavement is a consequence of loving. Other hominids (at the least) also mourn the loss of loved ones, for instance here’s a gorilla mourning the loss of her friend (very sad, the subtitles are what she is signing) - youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg

But it’s hard to see how an animal suffering a long drawn-out disease could be part of God’s plan, and when we see such things we empathize and want to do something about it, just as we want to minimize human suffering.

Don’t know if that helps. What’s your view?