What we say here can apply to many God systems but we will look at the Christian system and what it says about it. 

If I set up an earthquake to be possible, if I make it happen, I am evil. To say God does that and is good makes no sense. Religion may say it does not use God to condone evil.   Given what harm human nature does and what it condones we need proof of that.  It is not about God, for now, but people.

By the way, if Jesus Christ is true God and true man God cannot exempt himself from the moral rules that apply to a man.  So don't be fooled by notions that it is different for God to let earthquakes happen and create them than for us to do the same thing if we could.

Remember, even God cannot see what has not happened.  He cannot tell us what Cleopatra would have had for breakfast and what time if she had lived for another day.  He cannot even tell us if she would have eaten by 8 am or 11 am.  He cannot even give an opinion on it that carries weight more than any other opinion.  Thus it follows that we should have the right to disagree with God.  Morality takes account of circumstances and alternative circumstances and the latter is where the problem lies. We always pretend to know more about what will happen if somebody does x then we do.

Religion then cannot outline morality as clearly as it says so it has no right to pretend that "There is evil that just happens - natural" and "There is evil that people create and do - moral" as if it really knows where one starts and the other ends.

It is odd how it argues that since is not just an infraction of an abstract moral law that deals with rewards and punishment.  It says sin is a violation of the created order and will bring destruction to others and yourself.  Now if I am God and link all sorts of bad things to something somebody does then it is not sin that is the real problem!  Religion often slams sin on rule grounds as if any harm does not matter so it is very confused to say the least.

We have a right to know what people mean by evil and what evil is - clearly.  Exempting God from the rules applied to everybody else is more than just seemingly unfair.  It muddies.  That is why it is not acceptable.  We need to know.   Exempting God is an insult to how we depend on good role models.  It does not line up with a God who supposedly made us with that core need.

Many religious people, most even, say that evil, particularly natural evil, cannot lead to a debate on the existence of God and his love and we should trust.  That is emotional and moral blackmail.  This is an example of how their attitude to natural evil does harm.  More examples of the harm are coming.

Christian thinker William Lane Craig was asked by Kevin Harris if natural evils like earthquakes could be seen not as direct or miraculous judgments of God but as indirect ones. Craig said he could not see any reason to think that.  That is not a denial but an assertion that God who keeps a lot of stuff private anyway might have his reasons.  In other words, if a reason or an indication came up he would consider that dreadful doctrine or even believe it.  No decent person implies they would consider such hideous nonsense.  Yet it is suggested by the idea that natural evils are indeed acts of God.

Surely Craig thinks natural evil is the indirect result or remote result of human moral evil? He says he does not. But if natural evil is fine then what is so wrong with saying it is a direct or indirect result? The Christians are trying to play on the common tendency to worry more about direct evil than indirect as if the latter could not be worse! It usually is worse and more deceptive.

Christian Assertion: Moral evil such as sin matters and natural evil is nothing in comparison.

Reply: This is a bare assertion. Why should we agree with that? Just because you can say that does not say you morally should say it! Why is it not a sin to say natural evil is fine and should happen? Sin makes no sense if it is not about avoiding harmful attitudes.

The naturalistic fallacy is present here.  It is a trick argument that pretends you can get a moral ought from an is. That is the idea, "What nature shows us we should do is what we should do and that will be the fair, compassionate and respectful thing to do".  This is a good paraphrase and shows how absurd it is. 

The dictum that is equals a moral ought boils down to one or both of these errors.  "X is unnatural and therefore immoral" which ignores how animals eating their babies if they have too many is natural.  "X is natural and therefore okay morally."  The latter makes you think of people who look for examples of animals engaging in same sex erotic activity and who then say that homosexuality then must be okay in humans.  So the ought from an is fallacy mistakes something that is not about morality for something that is about morality.  Logic and observation cannot prove that if you stab somebody you did wrong. The reason is that logic is not a moral tool and neither is observation. They do different jobs from what morality seeks to do. We would need some firm criteria to work out moral oughts if we really care about the appalling suffering that happens in natural disasters.

The appeal to nature fallacy is present.  It assumes that if you line up to nature it will show you what is good or best.  Wicca and nature religions seem to be based on this.  Is it not the same as the naturalistic fallacy?  Well the appeal to nature does not comment on moral things such as respect and fairness but advises on happiness and wellbeing but does not morally censure those who defy the advice.  The naturalistic fallacy does comment on moral dictums at least in a broad way.  We must be aware that those who talk about nature grounding morality may be pretending to think that it does.  It is really just a ploy to get an enjoyable life.  It is really the appeal to nature that they like.

Behind all moral utterances is the fear that human life cannot function without a moral code.  In other words, morality is just a fancy word for the naturalistic fallacy.  Those who condemn the fallacy sneak it back in and disguise it.

It is shocking that the God belief implies that sin is the worst evil and that a small sin is worse than a natural disaster like an earthquake. God allows natural evil to happen implying he prefers it to sin. But God should abhor sin and evil the same. Evil whether wilful or not should offend him infinitely.

Christian Assertion: Adam and Eve and others have sinned and sin brings hurt in itself and hurt as in other consequences. You hurt yourself by sinning at all and more hurt will come. Christians say that Adam and Eve because they are offenders who are everyman and everywoman, our representatives that we are linked to them.  Fundamentally this is a rejection of individualism.  We are all connected to make us suffer their punishment though it is not technically our fault.

It is surmised by some that Adam and Eve at the start had bodies like the body of Jesus after the resurrection which was unaffected by harm. If an avalanche fell on Jesus it would do him no harm for the rocks would just pass through him. Adam and Eve then sinned and we are told their bodies changed. This is a resurrection in reverse! That aside, it is said that when Adam and Eve became independent of God they threw off his protection and that had consequences for them and their children.

Reply: The Bible says nothing of the sort about Adam and Eve. Jesus himself said nothing about what his resurrection body was like. The doctrines about the ghost style body are based on hearsay and theological speculation. It is not certain that even the New Testament supports it. A vision of a Jesus who appears in ghost like body does not mean Jesus has a ghost like body. Even in Catholicism, apparitions are done by different methods. It is thought by some that Mary did not appear bodily in Lourdes but was seen by remote viewing. The Bible believers always really believe in their own theories and speculations and interpretations rather than in the Bible.

And if Adam and Eve had a reverse resurrection then maybe it happened to the risen Jesus too!

Christian Assertion: Human sin in general causes and worsens natural evil. So if you suffer, sin is to blame though not necessarily your own sin or sins. Jesus said that natural disasters in some cases had nothing to do with the particular sinners who died and were not down to their sins. See John 9:1-3. See Luke 13:4. But as sin is supposed to damage all around it the sins of others then have a role.

Reply: Jesus however clearly made the notion that suffering is down to sin an understandable view to take though he dismissed it. Atheists prefer to say there is no excuse for even considering it. And Jesus did not say that every disaster has nothing to do with your sins. He expressly said that punishment for sin through natural disaster does happen.

Luke 13 has Jesus telling everybody they will be punished and not to think that those who died when Pilate murdered them and those who the tower fell on were any worse than them. The text is lied about a lot. Christians say that it denies that those people were being punished by God. It does not. In fact it says they got what everybody deserves and will get.

Christian Assertion: Natural evil, or much of it, is done by evil and violence loving spirits such as Satan. The Bible says so (Job 1:16, 19; 2:7; Mark 9:20; Luke 13:10-16; Matthew 17:14-15).

Answer: That gives Satan and his minions godlike powers but there is only one God of love. It is a fearful doctrine. The pagans believed the gods were beings who may be governed by a monarch god but they had power to change nature magically or supernaturally. The Christian doctrine is polytheistic. The doctrine is not so good if it leads to too many people flirting with those demons and doing evil to make bargains with them.

Jesus said that whoever sins is a slave to sin and spoke of sin as if it had abilities and so on. If so Satan the top sinner is the biggest slave of all! This really turns sin into a sort of abstract but very real god or God.

Paul while saying that there was only one God said that we have made Satan a God in action by empowering him.

Doctrines affirming superpowerful evil beings lead to mental torment for the mentally ill and give rise to mental illness in the first place.

FINALLY - Christian attempts to underplay natural evil are surely moral evils?  For that reason, natural evil is evil and god if he exists is to be blamed.  And his worshippers are just colluders.


No Copyright