The problem of natural evil - not a problem in Eden?

[RickD]

Paul, lets take Romans 5:12 first:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Through Adam, sin entered the world(of humanity), and death through sin(to humanity). Humans are the only species who die because of sin. And humans are the only species who are redeemed through Christ.

Paul, it has to be world of humanity, as opposed to the world/earth, because we know from scripture, that sin entered the world/earth when the first sinner(Satan) entered.
I fail to see where this verse makes your case about Adams sin knocking the world out of whack. Unless, by "world" you mean world of humanity. Then I'd agree.

Now for Romans 8:18-22:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Paul, notice in verse 20, who subjected creation to futility. It wasn't Adam by his sin. The verse says, "Him". Him with a capital H.

There's nothing in these verses that back your point that the whole creation was affected by Adams sin. People die because of sin. People are redeemed through Christ.

Natural disaster had to occur before Adams sin. The earth which is home for advanced life can't exist without earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, etc. Those are necessary "evils" in this temporary world.

[ryanbouma]

I wonder if this illustration will help make my point. Think of all the childrens books that show Adam with all the animals being named. Adam is often petting a lion with a nasty looking snake dangling from a tree nearby among other animals. A lions instinct is to eat us. But the lion didn't. Why not? It's a weak illustration, I'm aware. But I kind of think God held nature at bay miraculously for Adam to enjoy life in the Garden of Eden. Once Adam fell, God said Adam would work the land to survive. Pre-fall it seems to me that hunger wasn't a concern. Sure, Adam needed to eat. But it was no biggie. Food was miraculously provided everywhere in the Garden. Adam had no fear, no knowledge of death, no worry. It was heaven on earth. Yet we know that creation was scientifically the same before and after the fall.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hi Ryan

I just wanted to point out that "natural evil" assumes that death is a bad thing, in the Christian world view death is merely a change of states of being.

The atheist see this as a huge moral obligation on God, but it only holds weight because they assume that death is a finality, but If the Biblical God is real then death is no longer final and "natural evil" is not really evil at all but just a series of events that changed a persons state of being.

I hope this rambling makes some sense.

[PaulSacramento]

The atheist has no ground to stand on to ask why God didn't create a world without these things since there is no evidence that a world can exist without them.
Death is part of the natural circle of life for the atheist and he has no grounds to postulate a universe without death since such is non-observable.

Correct. But then he will say, "nevermind death, why did your god allow for pain and suffering? Did he want us to experience that despite loving us so much? This is a cruel world with hunger, pain, disease, etc."

As for the believer, yes I can see one who believes that the world was created perfect at one point having issues with this, but nowhere does it say the universe was created perfect, just "good".
Could God have created a world with no suffering?
Without suffering there is no compassion, without compassion what are we?

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm on board with you that creation wasn't necessarily perfect. But the Problem of Natural Evil begs the question, why wasn't it created perfect. So I'm suggesting God did not create it perfect but protected us from it miraculously, and we chose the fall separating us from divine protection from the "natural evil". That then leads us into the free will argument against the Problem of Evil, which is fairly sound imo.

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps God created pain and suffering so that we may express compassion/Jesus ?

IMO and this is something that I believe deeply:
We are never more in God's image than when we show compassion.
Compassion means to "suffer with others"
Christ is the exemplification of Compassion.
IMO, God allows for suffering because it is suffering that leads us to show compassion.
People, nations, that "hate" each other will put hate aside and show compassion for their "enemies" when they suffer a horrific natural disaster.
It is suffering that unites us, it is suffering that makes us excel and raise about our petty differences.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, lets take Romans 5:12 first:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Through Adam, sin entered the world(of humanity), and death through sin(to humanity). Humans are the only species who die because of sin. And humans are the only species who are redeemed through Christ.

Paul, it has to be world of humanity, as opposed to the world/earth, because we know from scripture, that sin entered the world/earth when the first sinner(Satan) entered.
I fail to see where this verse makes your case about Adams sin knocking the world out of whack. Unless, by "world" you mean world of humanity. Then I'd agree.

Now for Romans 8:18-22:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Paul, notice in verse 20, who subjected creation to futility. It wasn't Adam by his sin. The verse says, "Him". Him with a capital H.

There's nothing in these verses that back your point that the whole creation was affected by Adams sin. People die because of sin. People are redeemed through Christ.

Natural disaster had to occur before Adams sin. The earth which is home for advanced life can't exist without earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, etc. Those are necessary "evils" in this temporary world.

IMO, humanities fall put man out of sync with nature and the whole of creation suffered.
When man goes to war, does not creation suffer?
When man pollutes, does not creation suffer?
When we kill indiscriminately, without taking into account the natural balances of the world, does not creation suffer?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
IMO, humanities fall put man out of sync with nature and the whole of creation suffered.
When man goes to war, does not creation suffer?
When man pollutes, does not creation suffer?
When we kill indiscriminately, without taking into account the natural balances of the world, does not creation suffer?

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Since this thread is about natural evil, I thought you were claiming that natural evil such as earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, etc. began to happen only after Adam's sin.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
IMO, humanities fall put man out of sync with nature and the whole of creation suffered.
When man goes to war, does not creation suffer?
When man pollutes, does not creation suffer?
When we kill indiscriminately, without taking into account the natural balances of the world, does not creation suffer?

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Since this thread is about natural evil, I thought you were claiming that natural evil such as earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, etc. began to happen only after Adam's sin.

Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression.
DO I think that SOME natural disasters have happened because of man;s fall?
I don't know, some think that because of what we have done to the Earth that hurricanes and tornadoes are more intense and destructive.
Have our nuclear testing and WMD effected the environment? Perhaps.
Have they effected what causes earthquakes or volcanoes? Maybe, I don't know BUT I often wonder if it could be so.

[ryanbouma]

Hi Ryan

I just wanted to point out that "natural evil" assumes that death is a bad thing, in the Christian world view death is merely a change of states of being.

The atheist see this as a huge moral obligation on God, but it only holds weight because they assume that death is a finality, but If the Biblical God is real then death is no longer final and "natural evil" is not really evil at all but just a series of events that changed a persons state of being.

I hope this rambling makes some sense.

I agree with what you're saying 100%. I even look forward to death as funny as that sounds. I don't want to die until I'm 80 or something, but it'll be a good day! But the Problem of Natural Evil isn't just about death, as I said above, forget about death. What about pain and suffering. The Problem of Evil asks, why would an all good, all knowing, all powerful God create pain and suffering. There's lots of arguments from the Christian perspective, and I believe the free will argument is best. The compassion argument is good, but has some issues imo.

But what about naturally cause pain and suffering. What about the volcano I mentioned, what if it sprayed hot lava all over my legs and I couldn't ever walk again. I'm not dead, but I'm suffering. Why did God do that? This question keeps more people from knowing God than possibly any other question. I'm saying pre-fall he wouldn't have allowed that to happen, miraculously. Anybody wanna actually comment on my belief specifically? Any biblical evidence for or against that view? Does it make sense?

[PaulSacramento]

I think the issue is one of "why did God do that?"
The preconceived notion that all-powerful means that God either does or allows to happen, bad things to good people ( we dont' have issues when bad things happen to bad people of course).
The thing is that if God allows creation to unfold in a "natural and free" way, then God doesn't direct anything ( though He sustains creation) and it seems that the bible tends to go in that direction, that God allows creation to go "its own way" and that when God does intervene, it is NOT the norm but the exception tot he rule.

Our issue is why God allows what we view as "wrong suffering".

The point is that IF God has a reason then He is JUSTIFIED in allowing such.

EX:
I saw the movie about those 3 whales stuck in ice in Alaska in the 80's.
God could have intervened and saved them but He didn't and what happened?
The calf died but the other two survived because all types of people worked together to help them reach the ocean:
Greenpeace, natives, big oil, national guard and even the Russians.
Would they have worked together if God had saved the whales?
No.

We have to be honest with ourselves and ask the hard questions, yes, but we h ave to ask ALL of them and not just the ones we want answered the way we want them answered.
How much GOOD has come from horrible situations that, if God had intervened and fixed it for us, would NOT have happened?

Granted that is a small consolation for many, especially those that suffer or have lost loves one BUT we have to try to see things from the POV of the person we are judging and in this case, we are judging God.
So, from God's POV, a POV that is infinite, all knowing and in which death as we know it is, well, meaningless, is suffering justified if you KNOW that it will be for the greater good?

[Jac3510]

I think you're asking an important question, Ryan. I don' think the answer is too terribly difficult, but it is a good question.

First, you should note that you can answer this by either denying natural evil exists at all (as some have done here), which of course invalidates the argument entirely. The problem I have with that is that you then have to try to argue that suffering is not evil, and while I find the arguments for that terribly insufficient, what's worse is that atheists and agnostics who put forward the argument in the first place will be even more turned off when you try to tell them suffering isn't evil after all. So you either have to be willing to tell them that their intuitions on that are wrong (good luck with that--I happen to think their intuitions are right on that precisely because they are right after all), or you have to find a way to reconcile the fact that suffering exists in this world that is not caused by people's free choices.

So accepting that natural evil does exist, and that suffering really is evil, and that in both humans and animals, I think the argument we should make is relatively simple. I've written on this more extensively here (start on page 28), but in general, the point is that in order for free will to exist, we must live in a world in which rational choices are possible. But in order for us to live in a world where rational choices are possible, we must live in a "regular" world -- that is, a world that operates by normal, predictable laws. Unfortunately, that necessitates that every single time those laws operate in such a way that we get bumped around by them in ways we don't like (such as when we stub our toe or our cells just so happen to mutate this way so as to produce cancer), we suffer for it. Now, a smart person figures out the way reality really is, and he learns to live in accordance with reality so that he maximizes his chances at happiness and minimizes his chances at pain. That is just what the biblical wisdom literature is all about. A not-so-smart person ignores the way reality really is, does things his own way, and gets bumped around a lot more than necessary (so smoking causes cancer, and buying a house in Florida means you get hit by a lot of hurricanes). The smart person (the Bible calls him "wise") knows that he can't avoid ALL suffering, but he always knows that God has so designed the world to operate in particular ways, and therefore, he can avoid a lot of it. And when it DOES happen, he understands it happens because that's just the way the world is, and it sucks, and no one--God included--likes it, but it is what it is, and so he praises God all the same.

That's really it. A world that always operates according to normal laws means that, unfortunately, sometimes those laws cause events in our life that we wish would not happen. We could ask God to intervene in such events, and He might even decide to do that from time to time. But imagine if He did that EVERY time. If EVERY time you stubbed your toe or tripped and fell the hard ground became a fluffy cushion, if someone accidentally ran a red light (not anyone's fault for whatever reason--perhaps the light just broke) and God caused you to just pass through each other right before a crash . . . imagine if that happened ALL the time for EVERY living thing. There would be no way to no the consequences of any given choice. Wisdom would become a meaningless concept, and in both cases, the whole notion of rationality goes out the window, because we are now living in an essentially alogical world. But where there is no rational choice, there is only arbitrary choice, and where there is only arbitrary choice, free will turns out to be rather meaningless after all.

So yeah . . . natural evil happens because, sadly, we get bumped around by the way reality really is.

Frankly, I find that approach far more satisfying in every way--theologically, philosophically, and even emotionally--than just denying that natural evil exist or trying to say that death and suffering aren't evil after all (even if it were just in animals. Sorry, I had a pet die in a terrible accident that was no one's fault before -- natural evil does exist!).

[ryanbouma]

Thank you so much for that reply Jac. I'm going to let that soak in and give it thought, but I believe I can get on board with that explanation. Because its a simpler explanation than mine, its preferred. And thank you for not trying to trivialize suffering. I agree that this tactic really turns off the skeptic. And in my experience, it is the Problem of Evil that keeps people skeptical more than anything I'm aware of.

[PaulSacramento]

Define evil.
Now have a atheist or skeptic define evil.
e·vil
/ˈēvəl/
Adjective
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Noun
Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.

or:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

Personally always find the definition that some skeptics TRY to use very interesting when dealing with "natural evil":
Obviously they can;'t use the standard "moral/immoral" view since nature has no morals.
SO they try the:

2. causing harm or injury; harmful: an evil plan
3. marked or accompanied by misfortune; unlucky: an evil fate

Yet, under the correct context of how evil is use in those definitions, are harm, injury, misfortune truly evil?

I mean, do we call a tornado evil? do we call an earthquake evil?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I mean, do we call a tornado evil? do we call an earthquake evil?

We call them Natural evil.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
I mean, do we call a tornado evil? do we call an earthquake evil?

We call them Natural evil.

In what way are they evil?
When we think of evil do we think of random acts that just happen to hurt people that are in the way?
Or do we think of acts that are done on purpose to hurt others, acts that are done with the conscious intent to hurt others?
The latter IMO.
Do we call a person evil that kills another when they, in a hurry to get to work, bumps into someone and that person falls into the street and gets hit by a car?
Do we call a person evil that, in the process of going to work, hits an animal with their car that they didn't even see?
DO we call a person evil that, in the attempt to put food on the table for their family, kills a deer?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
In what way are they evil?

Paul, I already answered that on page 1, here:

Main Entry: 2evil
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b : a cosmic evil force 2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

Number 2:

2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

Paul, "Natural evil" is just a term. It's NOT "evil" in the sense of the definition you wrote here:

Now have a atheist or skeptic define evil.
e·vil
/ˈēvəl/
Adjective
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Noun
Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.