Why is there evil in Nature?

[Hokomai]

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

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).

Thanks Justin. I earlier quoted Darwin. Possibly Marx is apposite here when he said that religion is the ‘heart of a heartless world; the spirit of spiritless conditions; the cry of the oppressed creature’. I know we don’t agree (with each other or Marx), but there are some common threads running though what we say.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Marx and Marxism is a good example of what happens when one thinks that our human purpose is to create a paradise on earth: the harder you try, the worse the result. We have tried very hard over the last few decades, which makes me wonder what the final result be…

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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).

Freewill is the ability to choose or reject our true good: we can become evil or good at our choice.

For the natural world the problem is different: either God created a dysfunctional world from day one, or God created physical and biological laws that allowed a dysfunctional world to develop (without the world having any choice in the matter). Whichever way you look at it, the question remains: why did God do so?

 

[tonyrey]

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.

You are assuming sentient beings could survive without suffering…

 

[SonCatcher]

Freewill is the ability to choose or reject our true good: we can become evil or good at our choice.

For the natural world the problem is different: either God created a dysfunctional world from day one, or God created physical and biological laws that allowed a dysfunctional world to develop (without the world having any choice in the matter). Whichever way you look at it, the question remains: why did God do so?

I think the underlined is essentially a restatement of what I wrote.

Unfortunately, without the possibility of dysfunction, the world would resemble a glockenspiel clock: beautiful and perfect but ultimately lifeless.

 

[Garyjohn2]

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

Well, I wasn’t merely repeating my point, but expounding upon it in i light of what you said about Dawin’s observations.

What I’m saying is yes, you can view the micro world to discover things about the macro world. You can study individual animals or animal communities to learn about the animal kingdom, or evolution, as a whole. You can also observe nature and glimpse part of the character of God, the creator of it. However, it is silly to say “wasps lay eggs in catapillars, therefore there must not be a benevolent and omnipotent God.” Do you see how this is silly?

If you don’t, that is ok. It’s very common to confuse varieties of insect reproduction with the existence of omnipotence. It’s a beginners mistake, but very common so don’t worry.

I’m joking with you…but its along the same lines of “there is suffering so God either doesn’t exist or is not benevolent.” It doesn’t make any sense. Ask yourself…what is suffering? Can it serve a higher purpose? What purpose(s)? What’s the big picture? In this particular case…can the suffering of the catapillar, or the reproductive design of the wasp…serve a greater good in spite of its outward appearance? What do you think?

God, supposedly perfect, omnipotent, benevolent…creates a world that is either imperfect or becomes imperfect through the actions of the created. Why? What purpose can this serve? You can look it up and read the answers to this AGE OLD question, but you have to “get it” in addition to just learning it. You have to start with the assumption that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful. Go ahead…just assume that first, and then work through the rest and see if it makes sense…or search for more answers based on that fact. If you do it backwards, (by assuming God’s goodness and power must be readily observable with the senses) t will be much harder…but likely still possible. Start with the assumption and work from there.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I think the underlined is essentially a restatement of what I wrote.

Unfortunately, without the possibility of dysfunction, the world would resemble a glockenspiel clock: beautiful and perfect but ultimately lifeless.

Don’t quite get this point (the clock is pretty though). What does one make of the new heaven and earth, where everything will be beautiful and perfect without any dysfunction?

 

[RobbyS]

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.

And what if its is because man, who was supposed to tend the garden, went rogue? Then all the rest of creation was left without proper direction? In short, the devil is in charge of the world. Maybe that sounds manichean, but, heck at least it serves as a premise for a good novel by C.S.Lewis–“Out of the Silent Planet.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

And what if its is because man, who was supposed to tend the garden, went rogue? Then all the rest of creation was left without proper direction? In short, the devil is in charge of the world. Maybe that sounds manichean, but, heck at least it serves as a premise for a good novel by C.S.Lewis–“Out of the Silent Planet.”

Without proper direction? We are talking about a point in time where the alleged God was interactive with humanity for some time afterward.
I hope I misread your post that seems to imply God left them to their own devices when he kept talking and appearing to people constantly and willing for them to kill constantly.

 

[SonCatcher]

Don’t quite get this point (the clock is pretty though). What does one make of the new heaven and earth, where everything will be beautiful and perfect without any dysfunction?

The point of the glockenspiel is that it is mechanical. Its perfection is scripted and there is no freedom.

Heaven and the New Earth, conversely, will be perfect because all their inhabitants will be in glorified form and only desire the good. Yet freedom will not only remain but be multiplied by the lack of concupiscence.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The point of the glockenspiel is that it is mechanical. Its perfection is scripted and there is no freedom.

Heaven and the New Earth, conversely, will be perfect because all their inhabitants will be in glorified form and only desire the good. Yet freedom will not only remain but be multiplied by the lack of concupiscence.

Presuming that a Good God would wish to create a universe in which all His creatures would act (at their own level) as He does, that would mean producing a world in which everything that lives would ‘only desire the good’, with whatever physics and chemistry necessary to facilitate that end. The only beings that could desire evil would be humans, as they alone have the intellectual and volitive freedom necessary to deviate from God’s norm.

So, humans who, alone in a perfect world, would be able to muck it up, thereby showing they are not scripted and have freedom. Which still leaves the question of why non-rational creatures act in the same way.

 

[SonCatcher]

Presuming that a Good God would wish to create a universe in which all His creatures would act (at their own level) as He does, that would mean producing a world in which everything that lives would ‘only desire the good’, with whatever physics and chemistry necessary to facilitate that end. The only beings that could desire evil would be humans, as they alone have the intellectual and volitive freedom necessary to deviate from God’s norm.

So, humans who, alone in a perfect world, would be able to muck it up, thereby showing they are not scripted and have freedom. Which still leaves the question of why non-rational creatures act in the same way.

(There is a prevalent opinion that this world was indeed perfect, that humans were the only ones who could muck it up and that, when they did, they mucked it up for all creatures.)

We are supposed to look at creation to better understand the Creator. When we see discord in nature and its consequences, we can apply the lesson learned to our relationships with God and our neighbors. This can actually be a great inspiration for us to strive for harmony.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

(There is a prevalent opinion that this world was indeed perfect, that humans were the only ones who could muck it up and that, when they did, they mucked it up for all creatures.)

Yes, I’ve heard this one, but I’m not quite convinced by it.

The natural world, to me at least, was clearly designed the way it is from day one. Lions must prey on and eath other animals. Bacteria and virus needs hosts to live off. Everything is natural susceptible to injury and death. Just the way it is.

It makes more sense to me that God designed it this way from day one in anticipation of the decisions Adam and Eve would make.

We are supposed to look at creation to better understand the Creator. When we see discord in nature and its consequences, we can apply the lesson learned to our relationships with God and our neighbors. This can actually be a great inspiration for us to strive for harmony.

Or not to think that our purpose is to live at a purely natural level. We cannot make an ideal of anything in this world - we have to go further.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Marx and Marxism is a good example of what happens when one thinks that our human purpose is to create a paradise on earth: the harder you try, the worse the result. We have tried very hard over the last few decades, which makes me wonder what the final result be…

Everything human civilization has ever done is to make earth more like paradise. Medicine, agriculture, electricity, computerization, sewage systems. Marx and Marxism have nothing to do with it, and we can all see what the final result is: you being able to post on a web forum in comfort rather than freezing in cold sleet while eating grubs from the dirt.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Everything human civilization has ever done is to make earth more like paradise. Medicine, agriculture, electricity, computerization, sewage systems. Marx and Marxism have nothing to do with it, and we can all see what the final result is: you being able to post on a web forum in comfort rather than freezing in cold sleet while eating grubs from the dirt.

Sure, any human society has needed and worked for a minimum of comfort and convenience. An individual reduced to digging for worms in the sleet probably isn’t going to last very long anyhow.

The point is what happens to a society that thinks human purpose consists and consists ***only ***in creating a paradise on earth. Quite a different fish from a society that knows man has a higher purpose, but can do with some material benefits whilst working towards it.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

The point is what happens to a society that thinks human purpose consists and consists ***only ***in creating a paradise on earth.

History shows that societies rise and fall regardless of what their members believe to be their purpose. The main factor in how a society fares is who their neighbors are.

Aristotle wrote that the highest good is eudaimonia, so this focus on human happiness and flourishing in this world predates Christ, let alone Marx. In fact, if we look at the Christian monarchical societies commonplace in the Middle Ages, they are all long gone – replaced by secular republics. So perhaps we should be questioning the viability of societies that place service to God higher than human happiness.

 

[SonCatcher]

The point is what happens to a society that thinks human purpose consists and consists ***only ***in creating a paradise on earth. Quite a different fish from a society that knows man has a higher purpose, but can do with some material benefits whilst working towards it.

You are correct that creating Paradise on Earth is not society’s job. It is the Holy Spirit’s work:
Through the Holy Spirit we are restored to paradise, led back to the Kingdom of heaven, and adopted as children, given confidence to call God “Father” and to share in Christ’s grace, called children of light and given a share in eternal glory.

St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 15,36G 32,132.​

(Cited in CCC 736)
CCC 1721 God put us in the world to know, to love, and to serve him, and so to come to paradise. Beatitude makes us “partakers of the divine nature” and of eternal life. With beatitude, man enters into the glory of Christ and into the joy of the Trinitarian life.
Things go better when we work with Him.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

History shows that societies rise and fall regardless of what their members believe to be their purpose. The main factor in how a society fares is who their neighbors are.

Aristotle wrote that the highest good is eudaimonia, so this focus on human happiness and flourishing in this world predates Christ, let alone Marx. In fact, if we look at the Christian monarchical societies commonplace in the Middle Ages, they are all long gone – replaced by secular republics. So perhaps we should be questioning the viability of societies that place service to God higher than human happiness.

My understanding of the Christian monarchical societies is that they slowly divested themselves of everything that made them Christian, finally becoming an end to themselves (‘l’Etat, c’est moi’ of Louis XIV), which made them ripe for revolution.

Taking a higher view, no social order lasts forever, whether it be Christian or not. It is the Church that is guaranteed to last to the end of time, not governments that to a greater or lesser extent support the Church.

And how does service to God conflict with human happiness?

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

And how does service to God conflict with human happiness?

You tell me; you’re the one making ill-considered remarks about societies that consider their highest purpose to make a good life on this earth.

 

[tonyrey]

Without proper direction? We are talking about a point in time where the alleged God was interactive with humanity for some time afterward.
I hope I misread your post that seems to imply God left them to their own devices when he kept talking and appearing to people constantly and willing for them to kill constantly.

I fear you are interpreting the Old Testament too literally…