Most of the discussions here regarding evil as an argument for or against the existence of God have focused on moral evil, i.e. evil acts committed by moral agents (in this case, human beings). I propose to show that natural evil (evil committed without the participation of a human moral agent) can be an effective argument against the existence of God, commonly defined.
Firstly, we should be clear on what is meant by the term 'natural evil'. As mentioned above, natural evil is that which involves no human agent - there are no perpetrators of this this sort of evil, only victims. When, for example, a tsunami destroys a fishing village, or an otherwise healthy person is diagnosed with terminal cancer, there is no discernible human action which resulted in the outcome.
Some of the properties commonly ascribed to the God of Abraham are omnipotence, omniscience, and justice. If true, these properties would give God the ability to prevent natural evil: he would have known (omniscience) when the tsunami would occur; he could have prevented it (omnipotence); and he would not have allowed the suffering of the undeserving villagers (justice). Thus, if the village is destroyed by a tsunami, God does not have the requisite qualities which make him God and thus does not exist as defined.
The only readily apparent objection to this regards the quality of justice. It is possible, one could argue, that everyone in the village was deserving of death, so God acted justly. Frankly, this seems pretty farfetched. The notion that everyone in a particular village is evil enough to warrant death beggars belief.
The 'justice' objection is even more fraught with problems if we look at the cancer example. Suppose Jane, who lives a healthy lifestyle (she eats well, exercises regularly, doesn't smoke or drink) is diagnosed with inoperable, terminal cancer. Yes, Jane could quite possibly be evil enough to deserve death, but what about her family and friends? Surely, they are going to suffer greatly as they see Jane waste away in (probably) great pain. Is it reasonable to believe that Jane's husband, children, co-workers and friends are so evil that they deserve to be put through something like this?
Perhaps the most stunning (and to me, the most convincing) example of natural evil as an argument against the existence of God is birth defects. While it is clear that some birth defects are the result of the mother's behavior during pregnancy, a significant number are genetic - the defects would have occurred irrespective of the mother's care. Babies born without brains, or eyes, or atrophied limbs, or with foetal ichthyosis. If you believe in a God who is just, how on earth can you explain the death or disfigurement of a child who - literally - could not have had the time to do anything to displease God enough to merit punishment?
So, it seems that the existence of evil - moral or natural - may not disprove the existence of the God of Abraham, but it certainly calls for either a re-defining of this God, or a cogent explanation of why evil occurs.
Boru
Firstly, we should be clear on what is meant by the term 'natural evil'. As mentioned above, natural evil is that which involves no human agent - there are no perpetrators of this this sort of evil, only victims. When, for example, a tsunami destroys a fishing village, or an otherwise healthy person is diagnosed with terminal cancer, there is no discernible human action which resulted in the outcome.
Some of the properties commonly ascribed to the God of Abraham are omnipotence, omniscience, and justice. If true, these properties would give God the ability to prevent natural evil: he would have known (omniscience) when the tsunami would occur; he could have prevented it (omnipotence); and he would not have allowed the suffering of the undeserving villagers (justice). Thus, if the village is destroyed by a tsunami, God does not have the requisite qualities which make him God and thus does not exist as defined.
The only readily apparent objection to this regards the quality of justice. It is possible, one could argue, that everyone in the village was deserving of death, so God acted justly. Frankly, this seems pretty farfetched. The notion that everyone in a particular village is evil enough to warrant death beggars belief.
The 'justice' objection is even more fraught with problems if we look at the cancer example. Suppose Jane, who lives a healthy lifestyle (she eats well, exercises regularly, doesn't smoke or drink) is diagnosed with inoperable, terminal cancer. Yes, Jane could quite possibly be evil enough to deserve death, but what about her family and friends? Surely, they are going to suffer greatly as they see Jane waste away in (probably) great pain. Is it reasonable to believe that Jane's husband, children, co-workers and friends are so evil that they deserve to be put through something like this?
Perhaps the most stunning (and to me, the most convincing) example of natural evil as an argument against the existence of God is birth defects. While it is clear that some birth defects are the result of the mother's behavior during pregnancy, a significant number are genetic - the defects would have occurred irrespective of the mother's care. Babies born without brains, or eyes, or atrophied limbs, or with foetal ichthyosis. If you believe in a God who is just, how on earth can you explain the death or disfigurement of a child who - literally - could not have had the time to do anything to displease God enough to merit punishment?
So, it seems that the existence of evil - moral or natural - may not disprove the existence of the God of Abraham, but it certainly calls for either a re-defining of this God, or a cogent explanation of why evil occurs.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
