Natural Evil??

[Charles W Christian]

:)
Are some animals more "evil" than others? Are alligators, for example, just dispositionally "worse" than, say, a beagle?

I thought about this lately in response to a student's question about "natural evil." Are natural disasters (like tsunamis) "evil", or are people just unfortunate to be in the way of an otherwise benign manifestation of nature? Of course, I know that bad things can result from natural disasters (and from tangling with creatures like alligators and crocodiles), but is that a sign of the "fall," or is it just nature?

Thanks....

Charles (Beagle owner, alligator hater....) :rolleyes:

[Dennis Bratcher]

:)
Are some animals more "evil" than others? Are alligators, for example, just dispositionally "worse" than, say, a beagle?

I thought about this lately in response to a student's question about "natural evil." Are natural disasters (like tsunamis) "evil", or are people just unfortunate to be in the way of an otherwise benign manifestation of nature? Of course, I know that bad things can result from natural disasters (and from tangling with creatures like alligators and crocodiles), but is that a sign of the "fall," or is it just nature?

Thanks....

Charles (Beagle owner, alligator hater....)

Well, if we are talking about dispositions, I know some people who could qualify as alligators.

This is a very complicated philosophical question that I am not really qualified to answer. But I think the simple answer is “nature.” In this sense, the term “evil” applied to nature is inappropriate, or else “evil” must be carefully defined to distinguish between moral responsibility and our own subjective evaluation of experience. That leads to a discussion of what we mean by “good” and “evil” and how we apply those categories to the world in which we live. A related question might be whether humans are evil simply because they are carnivores (or more technically omnivores), which highlights the need for definition and consideration of categories.

One complication is that the very idea of “nature” is a very recent invention. Throughout most of history, including Scripture, the question could only be posed in terms of “which god?” And of course the biblical and Christian answer is always God (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God incarnated in Jesus who is the Christ). If we believe in God as Creator, then that is the real complexity of the question since we have trouble talking about evil in the physical world at the same time that we talk about God as Creator of that world. Either we tend to label the physical world itself as evil, which is the classic Christian response from the influence of Platonism even though biblically the physical world is good, or we opt for a finite God that cannot control the world (Harold Kushner in When Bad Things Happen to Good People).

I think Christians need to think and talk about this question both in terms of a physical world that is good, as well as a God who works in the world for good. Some thoughts on the problem of “Natural Evil.” (http://www.crivoice.org/evil.html)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Ryan Scott]

I'm not sure the hurricane itself is particularly sinister, but perhaps it might be a result of evil if perchance human selfishness has allowed for such conditions (not saying they have, just that it would make for one heck of a fun philosophical argument).

[Billie Goodson]

Something to consider -- fires. Take the case of the massive fires in the San Diego area this year. Evil? In one perspective, most assuredly. However, we also learn that in so many areas after the fires, things are kind of naturally reset, and the cycle of life begins anew. We learn that because we are so good in some instance at controlling things, we allow ecosystems to die out because we stop what is in many cases a natural cycle.

I think nature is basically neutral, looking at it as basically not good or evil. I always think about this when I watch shows like Meerkat Manor. Some vicious predator kills a meerkat and we think how tragic. What if we were watching the show from the predators perspective and it was almost at the point of starvation? We would be heralding the fact that on the brink of starvation, food was obtained. Isn't that an odd way to look at things then assign good and evil?

[Tami Martin]

We only think of some aspect of nature (fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever) as "evil" if we're thinking of sunny skies and 75 degrees as "good." Those sunny skies can be evil if they've been around so long with no rain and cause a drought.

And I can in no way consider an alligator evil for killing to eat or to protect itself or it's young. In that way, humans are the evil. We kill for sport. Not for protection, not to eat, just for fun. THAT's evil.

edited to add: I forgot to answer the question! No. I do not believe there is such a thing as "natural evil." Evil as I understand it is an artifact of moral agency. The consequences of sin have certainly entered our world and are evident for all to observe. But if humans are the cause of those things, I believe humans to be the agency of evil and not the world around us. After all, when God created all that we see, He sat back and said "it is good."

[Ryan Scott]

Or, why do we build cities below sea level and then further lower the elevation of the city by stripping all the natural gas out from under it or why do we build giant homes at the top of exposed cliffs in areas prone to fires and the winds that help fuel and spread them quickly?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The actual catastrophies in themselves are not evil, but anything that is bad that happens to us, comes because of Old Slewfoot that came in the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden, thus temping the ones God had created to love and serve Him, and lured them into sin. Otherwise, I do not think any of these things that we speak of as occurences of nature, would exist, if sin was not in the world. Storms would not be ruining crops, taking lifes, etc. if sin had never entered the world.--my opinion.

[Billie Goodson]

The actual catastrophies in themselves are not evil, but anything that is bad that happens to us, comes because of Old Slewfoot that came in the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden, thus temping the ones God had created to love and serve Him, and lured them into sin. Otherwise, I do not think any of these things that we speak of as occurences of nature, would exist, if sin was not in the world. Storms would not be ruining crops, taking lifes, etc. if sin had never entered the world.--my opinion.

I would say you are correct Anne -- if the assumption holds that without sin, Adam and Eve would have remained in the garden where the natural disasters we are talking of are not recorded in the Genesis story. They do appear to be a regularly occurring natural phenomenon that occurs here on this spinning bubble, so, with the removal of Adam and Eve from the Garden, and their relocation to earth, they became subject to all you mentioned.

[Daniel Hamlin]

I'm curious about other's thoughts on the origin of viruses (virii?), bacteria, and carnivores, if natural evil is the result of sin.

[Tami Martin]

Death is the result of sin.

How is it that we make the logical leap that this makes death and anything that causes it "evil?"

It almost seems like the word "evil" has lost it's meaning - assuming it ever had one. For instance, in the field of mental health, you won't hear the term "insane" being used. It has no meaning in the mental health field. It's a legal term with specific legal definitions but beyond that it has no meaning.

Have we applied this word to so many things - even to the weather - that it no longer holds any rational meaning?

[Daniel Hamlin]

Death is the result of sin.

How is it that we make the logical leap that this makes death and anything that causes it "evil?"

It almost seems like the word "evil" has lost it's meaning - assuming it ever had one. For instance, in the field of mental health, you won't hear the term "insane" being used. It has no meaning in the mental health field. It's a legal term with specific legal definitions but beyond that it has no meaning.

Have we applied this word to so many things - even to the weather - that it no longer holds any rational meaning?

For discussion sake, do you mean physical or spiritual death (or both)?

[Tami Martin]

Yes, both.

Is there some evidence that physical death was part of God's plan that I've missed?

The man and woman were not restricted from eating of the Tree of Life until after they'd sinned so there's certainly reason to believe that had they not sinned, they'd still be here.

[Billy Cox]

Several years ago, I read the book 'When Bad Things Happen to Good People'. I naturally enjoyed the book because I am of course a 'good person' to whom 'bad things' have happened.

However, in reading the book I noticed that the book defines evil in very human-centered terms. If something causes me pain, loss or inconvenience, then it must be evil. I now find this definition to be problematic, but I don't have an alternative - there is just far too much good stuff to watch on TV these days. :)

[Dennis Bratcher]

Yes, both.

Is there some evidence that physical death was part of God's plan that I've missed?

The man and woman were not restricted from eating of the Tree of Life until after they'd sinned so there's certainly reason to believe that had they not sinned, they'd still be here.

Human immortality is alien to Scripture. It is an influence from later Greek concepts. One of the distinguishing features of God in the OT is that He is “everlasting”, that is, that he lives forever. Even in later Greek mythology, the Immortals were gods precisely because they were immortal.

Biblically, human beings were never immortal. If we read the Genesis narratives carefully apart from the later philosophical accretions, the threat of sin was not just death but immediate death (how the couple in the narrative would know what that was is another topic). Even in later biblical traditions, the tragedy of sin was that it brought consequences that diminished or shortened life. To be blessed was to live a long life (Prov 16:31). That leads to one of the life observation dilemmas in the Wisdom traditions as they question why some wicked people lived a long life. During the Maccabbean Wars as many young men were dying defending the nation from the Greeks, the problem became acute. This led during this period to the early development of the concept of resurrection, an idea absent in most of the OT.

Back to the Genesis narratives, there is no connection made between the couple’s sin and death, except in the threat that “the very day that you eat . . . you sill most assuredly die.” It is not spiritualized, and in that context the most logical meaning is that they would physically die. But that threat is not carried out, since God actually responds with grace to the couple. There is nothing said anywhere in that narrative that indicates the couple would have lived forever had they not sinned.

The restriction of the Tree of Life implies that the couple is mortal, and yet nothing in the text suggests that they have changed from being immortal to being mortal. The danger is that these mortals will eat of the Tree and become immortal, which is why it is restricted. If we consider Genesis a theological commentary in the form of a narrative, it is an acknowledgement that human beings were created mortal (Heb 9:27).

It is against this background that the resurrection of Jesus, which confirmed his promise of eternal life (especially in John), has its greatest impact. Paul even acknowledges this in 1 Corinthians 15:52-54.

Of course, we are still left with Paul’s extended argument in Romans 5. But he is not offering commentary there on Genesis, nor is he dealing with whether human beings were created immortal. It is a theological argument that uses death as a metaphor for consequences, much as it is done throughout the OT, without necessarily having in mind physical death. Throughout the OT, death is not just a biological fact, but is a metaphor for anything that diminishes the quality of life, such as sickness. For Paul, Jesus opens up a new way for human beings to live without "death" by living "according to the Spirit."

There is a lot more that could be said about the biblical traditions, but the bottom line is that throughout Scripture the assumption about human beings is that they were created mortal, which is part of the nature of human beings, and they can achieve eternal life only as a gift of God.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[William Hunter]

The Bible tells us there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned. Even the animal world seemed to get along. Then look at our world since Adam and Eve disobeyed God and let Satan into the human family and nature.

Before creation we are told that the world was "without form and void." It was in chaos. The when when Spirit of God moved over the deep, He brought cosmos, order. Chaos re-entered the creation when Adam and Eve sinned. Not only the human family was devestated, but also all of nature.

[Ryan Scott]

Death is the result of sin.


I'm not sure I agree with this one.

[Charles W Christian]

The Bible tells us there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned. Even the animal world seemed to get along. Then look at our world since Adam and Eve disobeyed God and let Satan into the human family and nature.

Before creation we are told that the world was "without form and void." It was in chaos. The when when Spirit of God moved over the deep, He brought cosmos, order. Chaos re-entered the creation when Adam and Eve sinned. Not only the human family was devestated, but also all of nature.

To be fair, I don't know if the Bible explicitly says that there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned. In fact, many very good interpreters of Scripture disagree on the extent to which death itself was seen as a direct result of the Fall....at least death as we understand it.

Anyway, whether or not it's the case, I don't recall Scripture spending much time on this as you assert....

Charles