Religion says we live in a flawed universe.  Natural evils such as plagues and early death happen.  They are nobody's direct fault.  If you were making the plague in a lab or sending a death ray to kill people that would be moral evil.

Natural evils are presumed to fit the love of God.  While God cannot become man to abuse a child sexually he can allow a man to have some disorder where he does it like a robot.  God strangely is not blamed for his programming.  He is not accused of being an abuser by proxy. 

If it were God directly taking EACH PERSON'S SUFFERING AS A RESULT OF NATURE seriously enough to say it is a natural evil and has to happen that would be one affair.  But for people to say suffering that others experience not them is needed and does not impugn their God is another.    It is clearly selfish.  It is hard nosed.  And it is just bad period.

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.

And 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.  

If the problem with evil is that it destroys and attacks wellbeing, it does not matter one whit if it is natural or from human agency.


Trying to call God good when "acts of God" such as plague and hideous accidents happen is linked with doctrines and implications that are clearly evil.  If God could be called good he cannot be called good when you see what natural evils lead to.

The believers have replies to the thesis that natural evil is proof or satisfactory evidence that God is nonsense. They keep saying that God is not acting immorally by sending earthquakes and plagues. It is not that kind of evil if evil at all is the word.  Natural evil, non-moral evil, is really evil and proves there is no God. It cannot be blamed on free will. It just happens and has nothing to do with what people do. Plus natural evil influences and tempts the free agent to harm for natural evil teaches you that you can harm. So natural evil cannot be neatly separated from moral evil. They are intertwined.  It makes no sense to say its a sin for us to create a plague and it is different if God does that. We would only be making a plague from what exists already and we are not making it from nothing like God so he is worse.

The free will excuse for evil does not explain natural evil at all.  It is nonsense for it tries to blame us not God so it cannot claim to be about giving us the choice to be moral or immoral when it is based on a repudiation of "innocent until proven guilty."  If there is no justification for us being allowed by God to commit moral evil, there is no justification for natural evil happening either.

Evil is so serious that it needs good explaining. That entails evidence.  And there is no evidence as to how natural evil can be for the best as a whole.

Believer Assertion: We allow that natural evil might disprove God. But to say natural evil possibly refutes God is to admit it possibly might not. Faith takes us down the latter road.

Answer: Faith is not an answer in a matter that is so serious. Faith is a part of nature for nature makes all creatures go about as if danger cannot happen.

Natural evil should be stated to definitely disprove God because it is a serious matter. It is not a matter of possibility. And a faith based on possibility is a thin faith. It is really guesswork not faith. Guesswork is making religion about you when it is not about you. It is idolatrous and leads to religious hypocrisy.

Believer Assertion: Natural evil is a different subject from moral evil. We should believe because of the divine appeal that we avoid moral evil. That is what matters most. Let God worry about why natural evil has to happen.

Answer: Those who believe tend to forget that natural evil is more than diseases and death and earthquakes and includes our human weakness. It is natural weakness.

Do not forget either that all religions recognise that you can hate people against your will and they deny this is a sin as long as you keep trying to overcome it. No religion has the right to claim that it opposes hate for that is a lie. It has an exception. Hate in that case would be seen as a natural evil. The lie itself gives it no right to be taken seriously when it bans violence and helps explain why religionists who wish to turn violent feel happy to do it in the name of their faith.

Proving God endorses a moral evil would show he is unworthy of being acknowledged as God.  So surely a God who programmes you to hate though it is not your fault is equally vile?  It would be insane to reject God if you could prove he told a boy to cheat in his homework and to love him if he programmes people to hate against their will!! It makes you morally evil for preferring the latter to the sin of cheating. The doctrine of natural evil fitting the love of almighty God is itself morally evil implicitly and often explicitly!!

Believer Assertion: Let us remember the most important thing that if natural evil hurts you and kills your loved ones that God grieves with you.

Answer: A dodge.

And we are vulnerable not God. It cannot be the same for God. You are the one that feels there is no hope and how can you have rapport with a God who stands for hope and who infers that there is something wrong with you for not being able to hope? If you feel God suffers and grieves with you it will fade away with the cold light of day. God cannot really grieve if you lose a loved one in a volcanic eruption when he has saved that person by taking her to the afterlife to enjoy a lovely and eternal existence.

Suffering people may often attend Church a bit but there is not the same demand on Church and worship and on clergy as there would be on therapists. That says something. It is more like they seek help from the Church but it is only their trying to complement the real help they get.

I think it is fair to say that this objection is the most important one. It tries to tackle the core problem: that saying God does natural evil seems to make him unloving.

If the feeling that God grieves with us is a natural one then it is a natural evil itself unless God is inspiring it. It is not nature's place to speak for God.

Believer Assertion: Natural evil is an opportunity for us to be better and bigger than it. It is only tolerated by God because it helps us to mature spiritually.

Answer: This is an insult and is is far from humble and respectful of nature. You will never be stronger than natural evil. Natural evil by definition is not about helping us. We can help ourselves to face it and live through it.

The argument assumes that God permits natural evil to happen but hates it. But there is more than just letting it happen going on. The word permit or tolerate doesn't make sense for it is God who is almighty we are talking about! If God makes nature it has no say in what it does but he does.

Do not forget that to say it is okay for it is just a contradiction and as long as people don't start praising evil for God does it who cares? But a contradiction is never a solution. It is nothing.


No Copyright