Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marty Pomeroy's avatar

Hi Craig. Well written! I have a comment on one sidebar point you made ("natural evil"), but in offering this, don’t want to detract from the quality of what you put together.

My thought is first this: in discussions of the problem of evil and suffering, I prefer to carefully define “evil” as the consequence of choices. “Good” is how God made us to live, evil is when we depart from that. They are not equal opposites, and not (as an atheist might argue) just labels we put on sociological preferences. This obviously implies moral realism.

Consequently (here’s my point) I feel that the term “natural evil” is a category error. Because Nature makes no choices, it cannot do evil. As you mention, tectonic activity is necessary for life on this planet. Some of the consequences are the result of evil by humans, such as systemic poverty due to oppression, poorly constructed buildings, etc. But tectonic activity is never evil.

This approach seems very useful in cultural apologetics and explaining the “Christian worldview.” God cannot take away evil without removing our ability to choose, the Free Will Defense. People seem to grasp this fairly easily, and that natural events which result in harm are not “evil” in themselves.

Hope this is helpful and interesting! Your comments welcome.

Marty

No posts

Ready for more?