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.


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.


No Copyright