WHY THE EVIL THAT IS DOWN TO PURELY NATURAL CAUSES MAKES GOD'S LOVE A RIDICULOUS AND EVEN CRUEL THING TO BELIEVE IN
Main Points:
Religion says that God acting in an unloving way or immoral way does not mean he
cannot let earthquakes and plagues happen. The latter are natural evils not
moral ones.
It needs to prove that but it merely says it is possible that such evils can be
put up with by a loving God. But we need strong evidence or it needs to be
obvious. To settle for less makes us morally evil! We would be saying it lightly
that a good God can maybe set up a lab and make bad viruses in it or authorise
us to do so.
If there is no plan in nature and it just happens then normal is only in our
heads and if there is no normal there is no morality.
It is dishonest to blame free will for evil when we refuse to say, "Maybe nature
or God is evil or maybe not" when we see an earthquake killing little children.
Natural evil just happens but religion believes that God is responsible for all
as maker of all from nothing so there is no just happens.
MORE THOUGHTS
The evil religion condemns is moral evil - evil that some person does. They do
not condemn a God allowing natural evils such as disease. They say that is not
moral evil. That is playing with words. If we made diseases they would be saying
it is moral evil. They make an exception of God which is unfair and amounts to
saying God is an exception just because THEY say so. You can't get out of it by
saying God said it. That is a further insult. It is different if you can prove
God said it. You would blame God or saying it anyway. God being all-good and
all-powerful and creator does not imply that he can let disasters happen if he
so chooses. If God wants a relationship with us then he will meet us as an equal
even if he is not. Not being an equal does not mean he cannot act as one. It is
already settled natural evil is moral evil if there is a God. Natural evil is
just a bad random event if there is not. An earthquake is a moral matter if God
makes and does it. It is not evil if there is no God but is evil if there is.
Moral evil is said to be parasitic on good - evil is simply good that is not
good enough or which goes too far. It is not a thing but a lack of something
that should be there. Moral evil is also parasitic on natural evils - defined as
evil that nobody does.
It is a natural evil that we can be very good and it can make us miserable -
nature does not guarantee happiness in return for the good you do. So natural
evil instead of being for or allowing for moral good is against it. In that
sense, it does not matter if natural evil is not moral evil - what matters is
that it fuels it.
Those who say the problem of a loving creator God letting evil exist and happen
and hurt people is solved by his judging evil first hand and then acting as
appropriate to respond to it and prevent it from getting more power than it need
have. If you cannot judge say a plague for it is not a person or what a person
is doing you judge it in the sense, “If I could judge you I would.” Your
attitude then to natural evil says something about you so religion has no right
to say it is okay for it is not down to the action of any person.
Our right to identify harms is more important than anything else even bread. So
for that reason nature itself programs us to oppose and damn natural evil.
Natural evil asks for firmer opposition to it than to moral evil.
Some religious people claim that things like killer diseases or earthquakes that
kill children are not evils. They are just part of nature. They just happen.
Some atheists say the same thing.
It does not make sense for both sides to be saying that. One side after all
holds that nature is made by God from totally nothing so it is really God acting
not nature. The other holds that nature is just there and just just a thing and
for that reason those things are not evils.
The religious then are being callously dismissive. It is evil of them.
What about the logic behind saying that diseases are not evil? The logic is that
evil is only evil if something is responsible for it. Evil is important.
Responsibility is more important than evil for without it there is no such
thing.
To do evil for a good purpose is evil but not forbidden evil. It is required
evil. But it is still evil and the rule with justified evil is that you cannot
be rewarded for it but have to be called to account.
Thus God should not be worshipped even if his evil is justified. He is not
really worshipped for being good but for triumphing over evil. God is not about
goodness so much as being a weapon.
It is a fundamentally passive-aggressive subject and thus you cannot talk about
natural evil and say it is nothing to do with moral evil. What you think of it
says something about you. That is what we are trying to say.
God sins when he engineers earthquakes etc?
God creating earthquakes and engineering them are two different things. Create
is about where the forces that do earthquakes come from. Engineer is about what
God does with the material he has made.
A man who designs and sends earthquakes would be evil but a man who creates the
forces that earthquake is also making the earthquake deliberately out of
nothing. He is worse.
Religion says God allowing earthquakes and terrible plagues does not mean God
sins and argues that as sin is so bad that God would never sin. So it is better
to be crushed under rocks by accident than to hit somebody. God approves of
natural disaster compared to sin. If you believe in God then you are
automatically saying that such evil is not really evil. Some say it is neither
good or bad which is the same as saying it is half and half. The only recourse
is to say that it is as good as healthy waters and lovely landscapes. That is
the psychopath way. You are saying that the earthquake is fine and you would
send it on people if it were up to you. You consent to what nature does and that
says something about you.
God's Image
The Bible and the Christian faith say we are made in God's image. Therefore if
that means anything at all then if we are repelled by evil in the universe God
must be even more repelled. So God making natural evil would prove that we are
not in God's image or that God does not exist. Religion says a God who does not
make us in his image is a distant God and not good for us or our moral
progression. It all connects - natural evil cannot be separated from how it
impacts on moral evil. The notion that it has to be regarded as just natural and
something a good God can do for the real problem is sin does not hold water.
The question, is all evil down to factors God does not control and can he be
good and make terrible diseases? Natural evil is not an accident if there is a
God. Those who say it fits God are thinking of it as an accident and that makes
no sense. Natural evil may not be moral evil but it certainly is “would-be moral
evil.” It does not get off the hook just because it is not like a sin or crime.
Evil by definition is that which would be worse if it could be even if that
means being immoral.
Free will and evil
Christians say God is perfectly good and harmless and never encourages
immorality in the slightest so if evil exists it must be down to human beings
abusing their free will. That is the free will defence.
Why free will cannot be considered part of natural evil too is not explained!
The biggest and most lasting suffering is not down to human doing. It is natural
evil that has nothing to do with anybody.
Christians claim that even that evil fits belief in God! To pretend that free
will makes sense of evil is dishonest when they would still justify God if there
were no free will. They would be okay with evil in a world where only cats and
dogs exist and rip each other to bits. Not only is their argument wrong but
worthy of condemnation and it is so shamelessly dishonest that the dishonesty is
often unnoticed - some things are so unbelievably shameless that they go right
over your head. They are more okay with terrible suffering due to disease than
with moral evil. Again that is sanctimonious and disgraceful.
We don't really see nature as something that is permitted to harm!
You may say, “If something is just random or chance then its fair. It is fair
for it just happens and can happen to anybody.”
Another may say, “Fairness is nothing to do with it.”
Yet that is not how we view things. We do not say it's fair if pure chance is the
reason that a child gets caught up in a wave and is drowned.
Fairness is not as much about free will or what somebody has chosen to do as it
is about wanting people to be happy and well. Fairness is about us imposing our
values on nature. We are part of nature so you could see us as the moral part of
nature that imposes our values on the rest.
Natural evil is the issue that makes what we do with our free will a non-issue
in comparison. The magnitude and randomness of it show that! How we see it and
our so-called free will do in fact have a relationship that we are about to
explore.
Moral and Natural-Physical Evil can be the Same!! Or half and half.
Moral evils and physical evils are distinguished by believers.
Let us ignore the assumption that free will evil is not itself another kind of
natural evil.
(So in actual fact, they are at least sometimes the same.)
When you hurt somebody deliberately it is natural evil that you use to do it and
it not you is the reason the damage is permanent. Natural evil is the biggest
problem here. Natural evil is what you inflict when you gouge out the other's
eye but natural evil does the real harm. Condemnations of what you have done
deny this and are more personal than the "love the sinner not the sin - hate the
sin" brigade would have you believe.
Nature has enabled us to wage war with terrible weapons. That is an example of
the two working together. Why does religion ignore that? Because it wants
natural or physical evil to look as if it just happens and does not mean
somebody wants to hurt us or does not care. God co-operates with the bad person
and does natural evil to aid that person. Natural evil is bad for it gives the
message, "God uses evil to do good no matter how much it looks like there is no
good in it." Thus it permits and leads to people thinking they can do harm for
God's job is to turn it to good. Natural evil cannot be treated then as a
separate issue from human evil. Human nature sees natural evil as proper evil
and whoever says they do not is a liar. The doctrine accuses them of being evil.
Again natural evil and human evil are linked and there is no excuse for trying
to say the former is permissible. If physical evil is bad so is moral evil.
Natural and moral evil are one for natural evil has programmed a response to
natural evil in us. No matter what theologians say about the good side of
earthquakes and so on being the side that matters deep down we all know deep
down that we are trying to be okay with evil and with a God who may exist and
who is making diseases to inflict on little babies. The vast majority of people,
if not all, do lump natural and moral evil together perhaps in a simplistic way.
They see volcanoes as evil. It is alarming that they would worship a God they
believe is responsible for natural evil. It is undeniable that those who deny
they do that are in denial and do not see that they actually do. This is not
about it being true or false that natural harm is bad. It is about how we
inherently see it.
Natural evil naturally leads believers to argue that it is better for people to
die in earthquakes than to be murdered! So the very reason for condemning murder
in the first place is abandoned! Belief is evil, cruel and judgemental. We
cannot separate natural evil such as accidents from our moral sense.
How we see it says something about the kind of people we are.