Why is there evil in Nature?

[Justin_Swanton]

It was Lyall Watson’s Dark Nature that set off this train of thought for me: the realisation that something is wrong with Nature. It works but it is dysfunctional.

There are many cases of animals behaving in bizarre and destructive ways that can only be described as evil. For example, virtually every species of animal that is not strictly herbivore practises cannibalism to some extent, eating their own kind and especially the young of their own kind.

Animals are soulless and hence not subject to original sin, and God, their Creator, is All-Good. So where does this dysfunctionality come from? Considering even ‘normal’ behaviour, why should so many species be carnivorous? Ever seen a documentary shot of lions strangling the life out of a zebra? It is, to say the least, disturbing.

My own hypothesis, after years of thinking about it, is that Nature reflects in itself the fallen state of Man after original sin. It was created that way by God who knew that Adam and Eve would fall, and it was made the fitting place where fallen humanity would work out its salvation. God saw that it was ‘very good’, but that does not mean it was perfect.

Hence St. Paul’s ‘All creation travails and groans, waiting for the redemption of the Sons of God’, and the need for a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ when the reason for the state of the former has passed away.

I’m looking for (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject, with reference to theological and philosophical authorities. Thanks in advance.

 

[Hokomai]

There is no need to go beyond simple logic. If there is an omnipotent God, or gods, then s/he or they either do not care about the suffering of innocent animals, or like it.

 

[Scoobyshme]

It was Lyall Watson’s Dark Nature that set off this train of thought for me: the realisation that something is wrong with Nature. It works but it is dysfunctional.

There are many cases of animals behaving in bizarre and destructive ways that can only be described as evil. For example, virtually every species of animal that is not strictly herbivore practises cannibalism to some extent, eating their own kind and especially the young of their own kind.

Animals are soulless and hence not subject to original sin, and God, their Creator, is All-Good. So where does this dysfunctionality come from? Considering even ‘normal’ behaviour, why should so many species be carnivorous? Ever seen a documentary shot of lions strangling the life out of a zebra? It is, to say the least, disturbing.

My own hypothesis, after years of thinking about it, is that Nature reflects in itself the fallen state of Man after original sin. It was created that way by God who knew that Adam and Eve would fall, and it was made the fitting place where fallen humanity would work out its salvation. God saw that it was ‘very good’, but that does not mean it was perfect.

Hence St. Paul’s ‘All creation travails and groans, waiting for the redemption of the Sons of God’, and the need for a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ when the reason for the state of the former has passed away.

I’m looking for (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject, with reference to theological and philosophical authorities. Thanks in advance.

First of all, you need to define what evil is. As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

If animals act according to their instincts, then that’s how God created them. And, that’s good. To try to judge animals by the standards of humans is a mistake.

 

[Hokomai]

First of all, you need to define what evil is. As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good.

If animals act according to their instincts, then that’s how God created them. And, that’s good. To try to judge animals by the standards of humans is a mistake.

I am not judging animals. I am drawing conclusions about the nature of any gods there may be.

 

[christosdavid]

The Fall, the curse was extended to the ground, environment which includes even the suffering of animal life.

Romans 8 mentions that the world was subjected to futility and is groaning until it is set free from the bondage of decay (8:18-23).

 

[Khalid]

Evil does not exist, per se. What we call evil is only the privation (that is, absence of) good. Just as darkness does not exist, but is the privation of light.

Thomas Aquinas treats this subject at length in both the Summa Theologiae and Summa contra Gentiles.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

It was Lyall Watson’s Dark Nature that set off this train of thought for me: the realisation that something is wrong with Nature. It works but it is dysfunctional.

There are many cases of animals behaving in bizarre and destructive ways that can only be described as evil. For example, virtually every species of animal that is not strictly herbivore practises cannibalism to some extent, eating their own kind and especially the young of their own kind.

Animals are soulless and hence not subject to original sin, and God, their Creator, is All-Good. So where does this dysfunctionality come from? Considering even ‘normal’ behaviour, why should so many species be carnivorous? Ever seen a documentary shot of lions strangling the life out of a zebra? It is, to say the least, disturbing.

My own hypothesis, after years of thinking about it, is that Nature reflects in itself the fallen state of Man after original sin. It was created that way by God who knew that Adam and Eve would fall, and it was made the fitting place where fallen humanity would work out its salvation. God saw that it was ‘very good’, but that does not mean it was perfect.

Hence St. Paul’s ‘All creation travails and groans, waiting for the redemption of the Sons of God’, and the need for a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ when the reason for the state of the former has passed away.

I’m looking for (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject, with reference to theological and philosophical authorities. Thanks in advance.

No explanation. I gave up searching for it, why the lion needs to eat the zebra and the zebra the herbs…

God knows better…

 

[Catholic90]

If the lion did not eat the zebra, we would be overrun by zebras.

Similarly, if the hawks did not eat the mice, we would be infested with rodents.

It is called balance.

Animals are not evil. They act on instinct to survive.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Animals eating their own kind is not evil. I think your hypothesis is failing at this point.
If we anthropomorphize animals and see them eating their own young, we can perceive it as evil…but it is not. Animals cannot choose between right and wrong, cannot sin, cannot commit evil acts. They can only follow their God-given instincts for nutrition, culling the weak, and preserving their own gene pool.

I have a hard time thinking of any examples where there is evil in nature outside of humanity. Do you have any others?

 

[promethius]

It was Lyall Watson’s Dark Nature that set off this train of thought for me: the realisation that something is wrong with Nature. It works but it is dysfunctional.

There are many cases of animals behaving in bizarre and destructive ways that can only be described as evil. For example, virtually every species of animal that is not strictly herbivore practises cannibalism to some extent, eating their own kind and especially the young of their own kind.

Animals are soulless and hence not subject to original sin, and God, their Creator, is All-Good. So where does this dysfunctionality come from? Considering even ‘normal’ behaviour, why should so many species be carnivorous? Ever seen a documentary shot of lions strangling the life out of a zebra? It is, to say the least, disturbing.

My own hypothesis, after years of thinking about it, is that Nature reflects in itself the fallen state of Man after original sin. It was created that way by God who knew that Adam and Eve would fall, and it was made the fitting place where fallen humanity would work out its salvation. God saw that it was ‘very good’, but that does not mean it was perfect.

Hence St. Paul’s ‘All creation travails and groans, waiting for the redemption of the Sons of God’, and the need for a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ when the reason for the state of the former has passed away.

I’m looking for (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject, with reference to theological and philosophical authorities. Thanks in advance.

I think we have two major questions to address (namely, animals killing and animals suffering):

1. Animals killing:

It’s hard to look at an animal like the praying mantis or the black widow that kills their spouses in order to procreate (and in fact, these are not the only two animals that do this) and not see “evil”… but this is an error in judgement.

God’s moral law is a subset of the natural law that pertains ONLY to man. Animals are not subject to it, as they are not morally aware not cognizant of God. Animals are only subject to the natural law, and even then to the natural law which pertains to their own existance.

When the Praying Mantis kills its mate, it is not evil or wrong… in fact, it is in accord with the nature that God ordained for it when it was created, and thus it is GOOD that it should do so.

1. Animals suffering:

Suffering is not necessarily wrong. It’s a western heresy to believe that moral value is defined by what is “comfortable” and thus to avoid “discomfort” at all times as evil. Look at some of the justifications of abortion which have to deal with the mother not having to put up with the “financial burden” of a child… suffering is not evil, it is simply part of life. We can argue whether or not physical pain for animals was tied to the fall, but we can’t know exactly until we can ask God

 

[Roy5]

Hm! I don’t have much creative to say here. I’ve always been distressed by those animal planet films that show massive and swift lions chasing weaker and helpless animals which then are brutally killed and eaten. Couldn’t God have made us all vegetarians? That is one of many questions I hope to ask the Lord someday.

I tried vegetarianism for awhile myself back in my extremly idealistic college days, but it didn't last. For one thing, I was on the wrestling team and the coach warned me that I needed the protein from meat. In fact, before most of our matches we were fed a big steak! So, I abandoned my short-lived principles to conform to the world around. I have Hindu friends who are vegetarians and they seem to keep quite healthy.

 Now, as to Adam and Eve and 'original sin'. I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. It may be a useful parable. But, woman made from man's rib when he was asleep? Sorry. Doesn't make sense. And God walking n the cool of the morning, looking for Adam and Eve once they had sinned? Just too much that sounds like mythology. And even if true would a just and merciful and forgiving God saddle us all with 'original sin' because of the disobedience of some very ancient ancestors? Besides all that, as Kierkegaard, the Dane, pointed out: if Adam and Eve had not yet been permitted to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they even have known that they were doing evil? And as for the whole apple saga and the snake and such - pure mythology but with deeper spiritual and psychological meaning. It makes Christianity look primtive to insist that Christians take such folklore literally.

 As for me, I'm looking forward to that time - in the life beyond - when perhaps we will understand all this mystery we confront. There's a old gospel hymn that starts: "Farther along we'll know all about it, farther along we'll understand why. Cheer up, my brother, live in the sunshine, we'll understand it all bye and bye." I trust in God that somehow it all makes sense. Meanwhile, I move forward by faith.   

 God bless everybody - no exceptions.

 

[SonCatcher]

There is no need to go beyond simple logic. If there is an omnipotent God, or gods, then s/he or they either do not care about the suffering of innocent animals, or like it.

Consider the animals that tend to be picked off first by the hunt:

• old
• lame
• diseased

They are already suffering. They have no human caretakers and animals cannot care for their own.

The carnivores that eat them actually cut their long term suffering short.

This is quite different with people. We have the ability to care for the old, diseased and lame. We can alleviate their suffering. Further, those who do suffer often find inspiration in it to contribute infinitely more to society than if they were “whole”.

 

[Roy5]

Don’t forget that the larger, stronger animals often go after the baby prey who are unable to defend themselves.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Consider the animals that tend to be picked off first by the hunt:

• old
• lame
• diseased

They are already suffering. They have no human caretakers and animals cannot care for their own.

The carnivores that eat them actually cut their long term suffering short.

You forgot the young.
To sum it up…pretty much the slow. Just the way it works!

 

[SonCatcher]

Don’t forget that the larger, stronger animals often go after the baby prey who are unable to defend themselves.

While the young are targeted, they often have parents defending them. This is not the case with the other groups.

 

[Khalid]

 Now, as to Adam and Eve and 'original sin'. I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. It may be a useful parable. But, woman made from man's rib when he was asleep? Sorry. Doesn't make sense.

Some elements of the story may be mythical, but if we are not all descended from a common person (it doesn’t have to be both Adam and Eve, just one of them; Edward Feser has put forth a good theory on this, having to do with the “ensoulled” Adam and Eve and their children cross-breeding with non-ensoulled hominids, such as Neanderthals, etc.), we did not inherit original sin, and thus had no need of Jesus to die on the cross to save us - we didn’t need salvation at all, if we didn’t inherit original sin, as we would have had no concupiscence.

The doctrine of common descent from our first parent or parents is as important to the truth of the Christian faith and redemption (and need for redemption) as the Cross and Resurrection are.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Evil does not exist, per se. What we call evil is only the privation (that is, absence of) good. Just as darkness does not exist, but is the privation of light.

Thanks Khalid. This brings up a precision that is at the heart of the problem. For St. Thomas Aquinas, evil is not just a privation of good; it is a privation of a ***due ***good, a good that should be there.

Now Creation, within its material limitations, is good and reflects the goodness of God, from Whom it came. What is goodness? To sum up the Scholastic position, it is the state of something that is perfect in itself, lacking nothing due to its nature, and furthermore, giving of its perfection to others. Bonum is diffusivum sui as the saying goes: good is diffusive of itself. One sees this perfectly in the Trinity, where each Person is wholly God, possessing entirely and perfectly the divine nature, whilst at the same time one Person receives all of the divine nature from another: The Son from the Father, the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

There is an image of this in the terrestrial family, where the woman, created from the body of the man, together with him bring forth the child, who receives his own bodily nature from them both. The spouses care for each other, perfecting each other, and bring their offspring to his or her own human perfection in adulthood.

In the animal world this also can be seen, though of course in a more biological and inferior manner.

So far so good. But then what do we make of creatures that harm not only others but even themselves. Why do lemmings jump off a cliff into the sea and drown themselves?

Catholic90 gives an explanation that on the face of it does seem to explain: there is an order, set up by God, that requires that animals kill each other to preserve its balance:

If the lion did not eat the zebra, we would be overrun by zebras.

Similarly, if the hawks did not eat the mice, we would be infested with rodents.

It is called balance.

I have to say though that it just doesn’t wash. God can create any order He chooses, granted, but why create an order in which it is necessary that creatures inflict suffering, pain and death on each other and even on themselves? Why not create an order that, at the created level, simply reflects the flow of goodness and perfection that occurs in the Trinity?

There is clearly something else in the equation here, something that goes beyond a simple natural order that works well enough to sustain itself. I asked myself the question: what kind of a world should fallen man, working out his salvation, find himself in? Then it all started making sense.

But enough from me.

 

[Garyjohn2]

While the young are targeted, they often have parents defending them. This is not the case with the other groups.

Hmm…i guess it depends on the animal and the situation. Most of the times with zebra, deer, antelope, and other herd animals the parents aren’t protecting, but running away as well. The lions, wolves, and what-have-you try to target and separate the ones that are smaller or moving slower.

However, there are lots of cases where the parents do protect the young. Bison, elephants, and other animals that can put up a good fight (or realize they outnumber the predators by a good margin) will often stand their ground…but not always. Bears always will. Snakes never do.

Red-wing blackbirds and owls will defend their nests with young in them. Sparrows and robins will not.

An animal’s usual instinct is to flee from a predator, even if they have young with them, because they can always produce more young the next year. If they die protecting their young, or are seriously injured while defending, their genes are not passed on. It is good you point out the exceptions though, because the animal parents will oftentimes defend their young if they perceive there is a good chance of being successful while not risking their own life and limb.

 

[tonyrey]

It was Lyall Watson’s Dark Nature that set off this train of thought for me: the realisation that something is wrong with Nature. It works but it is dysfunctional.

Nature is necessarily dysfunctional and dysteleological in some respects because of its immense complexity and plurality.

There are many cases of animals behaving in bizarre and destructive ways that can only be described as evil. For example, virtually every species of animal that is not strictly herbivore practises cannibalism to some extent, eating their own kind and especially the young of their own kind.

Natural evil is an inevitable consequence of the laws of nature - as David Hume recognised.

Animals are soulless and hence not subject to original sin, and God, their Creator, is All-Good.

They are amoral but they are not biological machines!

So where does this dysfunctionality come from? Considering even ‘normal’ behaviour, why should so many species be carnivorous?

Predation is only evil from the viewpoint of persons living in an artificial man-made environment…

Ever seen a documentary shot of lions strangling the life out of a zebra? It is, to say the least, disturbing.

It is preferable to being eaten alive by a pack of hyenas or wild dogs!

My own hypothesis, after years of thinking about it, is that Nature reflects in itself the fallen state of Man after original sin. It was created that way by God who knew that Adam and Eve would fall, and it was made the fitting place where fallen humanity would work out its salvation. God saw that it was ‘very good’, but that does not mean it was perfect.

Hence St. Paul’s ‘All creation travails and groans, waiting for the redemption of the Sons of God’, and the need for a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ when the reason for the state of the former has passed away.

Not all natural evil can be attributed to original sin. It existed before man appeared on the scene…

I’m looking for (name removed by moderator)ut on the subject, with reference to theological and philosophical authorities.

Evil and the God of Love by John Hick is a standard work on the subject.

 

[Hokomai]

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.

Charles Darwin

From Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumonidae

Upon sensing the vibrations emitted by a wood-boring host, the female wasp will drill her ovipositor into the substrate until it reaches the cavity wherein lies the host. She then injects an egg through the hollow tube into the body cavity. There the egg will hatch and the resulting larva will devour its host before emergence. How a female is able to drill with her ovipositor into solid wood is still somewhat of a mystery to science, though it has been found that there is metal (ionized manganese or zinc) in the extreme tip of some species’ ovipositors. The adult insect, following pupation is faced with the problem of extricating itself from tunnels of its host. Fortunately, the high metal concentrations are not limited to the female’s ovipositor as the mandibles of the adult are also hardened with metals and it uses these to chew itself out of the wood.[4]

%between%