Why is there evil in Nature?

[Justin_Swanton]

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).

That was the quote I was looking for! Especially verse 21-22:

“Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now.”

A clear enough statement that all is not well in the natural world, but for a good reason.

 

[Garyjohn2]

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

I cannot persuade myself that a thoughtful and rational human being in a clear state of mind would have seriously judged the qualities of beneficent and omnipotent God based on the activities of insects.

GaryJohn

In other words, since we know Darwin was smart, he must have been either drunk or joking.

 

[SonCatcher]

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

Quoting Darwin won’t further your argument as it is simple matter to counter a quote with a quote.

[BIBLEDRB]Isaiah 55:8-13[/BIBLEDRB]

Our deepest logic cannot understand God’s purpose in what He does, what He creates and what He allows. Our lack of understanding does not contradict His goodness or omnipotence.

 

[Hokomai]

Quoting Darwin won’t further your argument as it is simple matter to counter a quote with a quote.

[bibledrb]Isaiah 55:8-13[/bibledrb]

Our deepest logic cannot understand God’s purpose in what He does, what He creates and what He allows. Our lack of understanding does not contradict His goodness or omnipotence.

If there is a god or gods I accept that it may be that we cannot understand him her it or them. But we can draw conclusions about that we do not understand through the actions and properties of the thing not understood. In this case the only proposition I have put forward is that if there is an omnipotent god(s) then s/he either does not care about the suffering of innocent animals who have done her/him no harm, or enjoys it. Can you produce an argument against that?
…

In quite another vein SonCatcher, I am always careful about casting stones in the area of typos, lest I too be judged, but I greatly enjoyed: 12 For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall sing praise before yen, and all the trees of the country shall clap their hand. Should we all sell $US and buy Japanese?

 

[Hokomai]

I cannot persuade myself that a thoughtful and rational human being in a clear state of mind would have seriously judged the qualities of beneficent and omnipotent God based on the activities of insects.

GaryJohn

In other words, since we know Darwin was smart, he must have been either drunk or joking.

If you read Darwin you will find that this is exactly what he did. Darwin’s genius lay in his ability to observe and ponder even the smallest of life; his main work to develop his explanation of how evolution took place was a gigantic study of barnacles.

 

[Garyjohn2]

If you read Darwin you will find that this is exactly what he did. Darwin’s genius lay in his ability to observe and ponder even the smallest of life; his main work to develop his explanation of how evolution took place was a gigantic study of barnacles.

I think you are missing my point. Yes, you can study the tiny atom to discover mysteries of the wider universe, or ponder evolution by studying birds and barnacles…but that is nothing like observing insects’ behavior to assess or deny the omnipotence and benevolence of God.

That’s…silly.

 

[tonyrey]

]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

Darwin was absolutely right! The archsceptic David Hume pointed out that the universe isn’t controlled by “particular volitions” of the Deity but through the laws of nature. It is absurd - as John Calvin did - to attribute every event to an express command by God. In the immensely complex process of development there is bound to be conflict but that does not detract from the immense value of life, the interdependence of living organisms and the beauty of nature as a whole. It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing…

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]

A magnificent example of the abundant evidence for Design - as opposed to the hopeless inadequacy of the Chance hypothesis!

 

[SonCatcher]

If there is a god or gods I accept that it may be that we cannot understand him her it or them. But we can draw conclusions about that we do not understand through the actions and properties of the thing not understood. In this case the only proposition I have put forward is that if there is an omnipotent god(s) then s/he either does not care about the suffering of innocent animals who have done her/him no harm, or enjoys it. Can you produce an argument against that?

That presupposes that you can actually observe the actions and properties of that which is not understood. Things in this world can be observed directly, through the senses. God is not of this world and cannot be observed through the senses.

 

[Hokomai]

That presupposes that you can actually observe the actions and properties of that which is not understood. Things in this world can be observed directly, through the senses. God is not of this world and cannot be observed through the senses.

If there is a god or gods who created the world, and they are omnipotent, then their actions can be observed through the sense, by experiencing the world. and conclusions can be drawn. In this case the conclusion is about what the god or gods think about the pain and suffering of the innocent.

 

[Hokomai]

A magnificent example of the abundant evidence for Design - as opposed to the hopeless inadequacy of the Chance hypothesis!

The ‘chance’ hypothesis is not something I associate with Darwin. Do you? And I think it is about the origin of life, not its progression.

 

[Hokomai]

I think you are missing my point. Yes, you can study the tiny atom to discover mysteries of the wider universe, or ponder evolution by studying birds and barnacles…but that is nothing like observing insects’ behavior to assess or deny the omnipotence and benevolence of God.

That’s…silly.

Well, so you say. but repeating your view does not strengthen it. Why is it silly, exactly?

 

[tonyrey]

A magnificent example of the abundant evidence for Design - as opposed to the hopeless inadequacy of the Chance hypothesis!

Yes - when taken to its logical conclusion. Natural selection makes intelligent selection superfluous…

And I think it is about the origin of life, not its progression.

**Fortuitous **combinations of molecules followed by **random **mutations of genes covers the whole scenario from start to finish in the minds of NeoDarwinists.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

If there is a god or gods I accept that it may be that we cannot understand him her it or them. But we can draw conclusions about that we do not understand through the actions and properties of the thing not understood. In this case the only proposition I have put forward is that if there is an omnipotent god(s) then s/he either does not care about the suffering of innocent animals who have done her/him no harm, or enjoys it. Can you produce an argument against that?

I can. Suffering per se is not necessarily evil. After all God Himself (if one believes in Christian theology) suffered in the person of Christ, but that was necessary and beneficial. We humans are subjected to suffering in various forms, and that suffering can be beneficial as Christ’s was.

But why should animals, who are not part of the redemptive process, have to be subject to the same sufferings as humans? Because humans and animals are part of the same natural order, the same set of physical and biological laws that allows suffering to arise.

There is a parallel with original sin. Adam and Eve sinned, and the rest of us, without having done anything, inherit that sin and all its consequences. Likewise, Adam and Eve sinned and God, knowing they would sin, created a world that would apply the consequences of their sin, in which all its creatures were necessarily subject to the same consequences.

The reason I started this thread though was not to look at the suffering creatures have to endure, but rather the fact that creatures ***themselves ***inflict pain and death on each other. This goes much deeper. Without really understanding why it should be so, I see the natural world as a reflection of everything *fallen *man is capable of, evil as well as good. Question is, why should it be so?

 

[Hokomai]

I can. Suffering per se is not necessarily evil. After all God Himself (if one believes in Christian theology) suffered in the person of Christ, but that was necessary and beneficial. We humans are subjected to suffering in various forms, and that suffering can be beneficial as Christ’s was.

But why should animals, who are not part of the redemptive process, have to be subject to the same sufferings as humans? Because humans and animals are part of the same natural order, the same set of physical and biological laws that allows suffering to arise.

There is a parallel with original sin. Adam and Eve sinned, and the rest of us, without having done anything, inherit that sin and all its consequences. Likewise, Adam and Eve sinned and God, knowing they would sin, created a world that would apply the consequences of their sin, in which all its creatures were necessarily subject to the same consequences.

The reason I started this thread though was not to look at the suffering creatures have to endure, but rather the fact that creatures ***themselves ***inflict pain and death on each other. This goes much deeper. Without really understanding why it should be so, I see the natural world as a reflection of everything *fallen *man is capable of, evil as well as good. Question is, why should it be so?

Hmmm - I can see that this is consistent with Christian belief, but it still leaves my proposition standing - that if there is an omnipotent god or gods, they either do not care, or think it is right that innocent animals suffer. You have replaced my ‘not care or think it right’ with ‘is not evil’, but I guess that is the point I am making - the omnipotent god or gods do not think such suffering is evil.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Hmmm - I can see that this is consistent with Christian belief, but it still leaves my proposition standing - that if there is an omnipotent god or gods, they either do not care, or think it is right that innocent animals suffer. You have replaced my ‘not care or think it right’ with ‘is not evil’, but I guess that is the point I am making - the omnipotent god or gods do not think such suffering is evil.

The Christian position would be that evil, physical or even moral (sin), can be allowed by God if a greater good arises from it. ‘Greater good’ concerns the final state of things in the next world which, being permanent, is our true home. So seeing this world as a place where things are not as good as they could be is not an indictment of the Creator’s goodness.

 

[SonCatcher]

Consider this: Much like how God gave free will to humans when He created us in His image, He granted a kind of freedom to all of nature. That freedom permits all this suffering to occur even though it is not the desired outcome. Were God to spare the zebra, He would deny His creation its path (also, there would be the issue of providing nutrition for a lion - I digress).

 

[Hokomai]

The Christian position would be that evil, physical or even moral (sin), can be allowed by God if a greater good arises from it. ‘Greater good’ concerns the final state of things in the next world which, being permanent, is our true home. So seeing this world as a place where things are not as good as they could be is not an indictment of the Creator’s goodness.

The suffering animals, however, even in this scheme of things, have no share in the ‘greater good’ or the ‘final state’. While it might be possible to hypothesize that an omnipotent god or gods do care about animals and will somehow make their suffering ‘right’, this seems not to be an option for Christianity, which has no scripture or tradition clearly indicating anything like this. Religions which uphold incarnation have a better chance, but even then the responsible gods seem to be somewhat callous towards animals.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The suffering animals, however, even in this scheme of things, have no share in the ‘greater good’ or the ‘final state’. While it might be possible to hypothesize that an omnipotent god or gods do care about animals and will somehow make their suffering ‘right’, this seems not to be an option for Christianity, which has no scripture or tradition clearly indicating anything like this. Religions which uphold incarnation have a better chance, but even then the responsible gods seem to be somewhat callous towards animals.

I take your point. I’m fond of animals myself (we have a dog and two cats). There is one answer which will sound a bit tough: this creation has a sell-by date, and the only things that will survive it are humans. Hence anything that in any way facilitates the ultimate good of humans (i.e. their salvation) must be permitted, even if it is harmful to the good of all other creatures.

The question is seeing how this applies in practice.

Here’s an idea: the natural world in which we live is not perfect, and its imperfection is of such a nature that we cannot, with any degree of honesty, convince ourselves that our purpose in existing is to be happy in it. It is beautiful and good, but also dangerous and brutal. Watching a lion devour a springbok tells us that this creation cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be a paradise. We are forced to look upwards.

 

[Hokomai]

I take your point. I’m fond of animals myself (we have a dog and two cats). There is one answer which will sound a bit tough: this creation has a sell-by date, and the only things that will survive it are humans. Hence anything that in any way facilitates the ultimate good of humans (i.e. their salvation) must be permitted, even if it is harmful to the good of all other creatures.

The question is seeing how this applies in practice.

Here’s an idea: the natural world in which we live is not perfect, and its imperfection is of such a nature that we cannot, with any degree of honesty, convince ourselves that our purpose in existing is to be happy in it. It is beautiful and good, but also dangerous and brutal. Watching a lion devour a springbok tells us that this creation cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be a paradise. We are forced to look upwards.

Thanks Justin for continuing the discussion. Surely though an omnipotent god could have done it a different way? For example by having lots of delicious plants with warm fibre to make clothes from, and animals which ate them which did not suffer predation? And then this god could have shown us proof of a future paradise rather than letting us speculate on it by negative example of the natural world? I can’t see other than that if there is a creator, and s/he is omnipotent, then this being must have deciding that animal suffering is ok.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Thanks Justin for continuing the discussion.

You’re welcome. That’s what we’re here for.

Surely though an omnipotent god could have done it a different way? For example by having lots of delicious plants with warm fibre to make clothes from, and animals which ate them which did not suffer predation? And then this god could have shown us proof of a future paradise rather than letting us speculate on it by negative example of the natural world? I can’t see other than that if there is a creator, and s/he is omnipotent, then this being must have deciding that animal suffering is ok.

My notion (I’m thinking this through on the fly) is that we humans have a very strong and persistent hankering for a comfort zone, i.e. to be nicely and happily set up in the present with no worry for the future, especially if that future consists of a Being and a state of being we cannot directly see and experience. It takes a lot, a very great deal, to boot us out of the comfort zone and convince us life is a journey and not a destination. Hence a world in which we can see beauty and goodness but in which we can never be comfortable (mentally as well as physically).