A previous post looked at the nature of evil (“Did God create evil?”). And the focus was moral evil—evil which comes as a result of the evil acts of moral beings. As a follow-up, someone asked not about moral evil, but natural evil. “Why would God let a lot of terrible things happen that are not results of any person’s free will, like natural disasters and diseases? It seems He could prevent things events like the Tsunami that killed 300,000 people without depriving us of our free will and its consequences.”Â
Why natural evils?
First, we have to make an important distinction—between moral evil and natural/physical evil. One person said that moral evil is the evil we actively do, while natural evil is the evil we passively suffer. The first we are responsible for and the second we are not. And though we can imagine examples where these two evils are mixed (e.g., dictators hording food, thereby causing famine), I think this statement is mostly true.
As pointed out in previous posts, the origin of sin is free will. However, when it comes to natural evil the origin lies not just in nature but in our relationship to nature. We twist an ankle, or get a brain tumor, or drown. Without telling us how, God has told us that thorns in our garden, difficulty in our work, and pain in our experiences are all the result of human sin or rebellion from God. But before you wave this off, thinking it is some arbitrary judgment that God has tacked onto the world after the rebellion, think about the principle of psychosomatic unity. Of the numerous schools of psychology, nearly all of them affirm that we are soul-body (“psycho-somaticâ€) unions. We can even point to some bodily illnesses (ulcers) which, in certain circumstances, seemed to be induced by mental states of the soul.
Therefore, it shouldn’t be completely foreign to imagine that when our souls became alienated and estranged from God, our bodies did too. In fact, Genesis 3 goes even further in unfolding the results from humanity’s rebellion against God. The author paints the picture of a break in relationship from God leading to a break in all other relationships. Humanity became (1) estranged from other people, though we were intended to live in close intimacy and fellowship with them; (2) estranged from ourselves, though we were intended to live as fully integrated creatures; and (3) estranged from the natural order of the created world, though we were intended to have dominion and stewardship over it.
Think about the powerful imagine that Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli utilize to explain the unfolding natural sin’s consequences in the world. “To help understand Creation and the Fall, the image of three iron rings suspended from a magnet is helpful. The magnet symbolizes God; the first ring, the soul; the middle ring, the body; and the bottom right, nature. As long as the soul stays in touch with God, the magnetic life keeps flowing through the whole chain, from divine life to soul life, body life and nature life. The three rings stay harmonized, united, magnetized. But when the soul freely declares its independence from God, when the first iron right separates from the magnet, the inevitable consequences is that the whole chain of rings is demagnetized and falls apart. When the soul is separated from God, the body is separated from the soul—that is, it dies—and also from nature—that is, it suffers. For the soul’s authority over the body is a delegated authority, as is humanity’s authority over nature. When God the delegator is rejected, so is the authority he delegated. If you rebel against the king, his ministers will no longer serve you. Thus both suffering and sin are traced to man, not God†(Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli, “Handbook of Christian Apologetics”).
The biblical account of beginnings, therefore, views the universal condition of frustration or brokenness as the natural consequence of the human race’s mutiny from all that is good and true and beautiful—God.Â
Why this natural evil?
In all our attempts to give answers (a theodicy) to the problem of evil we must never assume that we can offer an answer to a particular instance of evil (whether moral or natural). While we can come to valid conclusions about why God has chosen to allow the existence of evil in general, we cannot than say why a specific instance has happened (this tsunami or that tumor). Why does God prevent one evil from happening and not another? We simply cannot know. Though God has revealed much of His mind to us (Scripture), He has not revealed it all to us (“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law†— Deut 29:29). It would be an impossibility to ever know all of God’s thoughts. However, I do have good reason to trust that He does have justification in allowing the evil that occurs in this lifetime. And that good reason is Jesus’ cross and resurrection.Â
The best answer to the problem of evil
The Bible does not present us with a God who is removed and untouched from human suffering. In fact, the greatest example of innocent human suffering is none other than God’s Son on the cross. And Jesus’ resurrection from the grave is the very deathblow to death. Since death is evil’s final victory, Jesus’ triumph over the grave is a guarantee that one day evil will be done away with and pure justice will prevail. Â
11 Comments on “Making sense of natural evil”
I tend to think of the whole world as fallen as it speaks of in Genesis. And therefore, we have imperfect weather patterns, earthquakes, crop patterns/farming problems, etc. I don’t see our God as some “Zeus”-like figure causing these problems for us as some sort of punishment for a certain country not believing in him enough…the whole world has been fallen/”cursed” since original sin.
Nor do I see God as one who dictates any sort of will. Yes, it’s horrible when hundreds of thousands of people die. No, I don’t think our God finds joy in that. But what happens on earth when millions of people pull together and provide shelter, food, kindness, love and aid for the hundreds of thousands that need it after a disaster? I think that not only gives God joy, but it blesses the memory of those 300,000 who were lost, and shows that they weren’t lost in vain, but that some love can come out of tragedy.
I certainly agree that, for whatever reason, we are not in harmony with nature, and the result is suffering. Why does God not intervene to minimize the suffering in cases where His intervention would not limit our free will? Your answer appears to be “We simply cannot know.” I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds this behavior inexplicable.
Just to clarify, what behavior is it that you find inexplicable?
Not intervening to minimize suffering. For example by preventing or at least warning us about about impending natural disasters, like the Tsunami.
To come up with an answer to that would be, in effect, putting words into God’s mouth. That’s something I would, um, hesitate to do. We don’t know all the answers, but in journeying together creates fellowship. As I tried to point out above, in wake of disaster, there can be greater love that pours out of people in aid, shelter, rebuilding, etc. Why would we need to come to the aid of eachother when everything is running smoothly?
I think it is safe to say that God sees a much bigger picture than we do. He doesn’t see things linearly, or one incident at a time. This day is a mere fraction of time…he has an eternal timeline, eternal perspective, eternal purpose that we as humans cannot comprehend, no matter how hard we try.
To ask such black and white questions makes it hard to come up with answers, when our world, both physical and spiritual, are more shades of gray and many other colors that we might not understand.
Would it be safe to say that God sometimes causes what is seemingly evil at the time, but in someways redemptive, or just done because of His foreknowledge, or just because it’s His will?
There seems to be no redemption for Annas and Saphira for their sin (God kills them), but there is total redemption for David.
In 2 Thessalonians God sends “powerful delusions” to unbelievers.
In Genesis 45:8 Joseph makes it clear that it was God’s plan, that he be sent to the Pharoh, not the ill-intent of his brothers, but God’s sovereign plan.
Now all of this must be held with 1 John 1:5, “…in Him there is no darkness at all.”
Could God cause and create catastrophic events in the world because they, in the end, bring Him more glory?
These are my unconcluded thoughts, feel free to debate or converse.
I think that since God is sovereign and has control over the universe, only He is also to send the lightening, tsumanis, hurricanes, etc. Only He can allow this to happen. Why does this happen? Considering that God knows all and has a plan for each one, we can never tell. I think that we become disconcerted that people die in this natural disasters but I think that (without being callous) everyone in the earth is appointed to die and God appoints that time. God is not suprised that someone loses a house or a life. He knows about it. Why does He do this? I dont know. Is it to test or reprove His children, to bring others who are not His children to Himself, to bring take some home to Himself? All I know is that He has the best intentions for His children even if it doesnt look like it from this side of eternity
I agree Stephen.
It seems intellectually inconsistent to only attribute the good things in life to God, and claim Him as Sovereign, but not attribute the natural disasters and tragic events under His Sovereignty as well.
I think that it’s here, for me anyway, that I am the most vulnerable, and most hopeful in my God.
I don’t know if I could give up my life and everything that goes with it for a god who only controls the good things, and not the bad things. That god is just a little too small for me
I have a few questions concerning this sentence:
“Of the numerous schools of psychology, nearly all of them affirm that we are soul-body (“psycho-somaticâ€) unions.”
(1) Which psychological schools affirm a soul?
(2) How are you allowed the word ‘soul’ in this translation of psyche? Psychologically, the word is translated as ‘mind’. In fact, anytime I have encountered the word in discussion or in psychology classes, it referred specifically to the mind. Every dictionary I have found reports that, used in psychology, the world refers to mind. How are you allowed this translation?
(3) What about the philosophic schools? Dualism is not exactly what I would call a thriving school of thought–especially in terms of soul. You can find mind-body dualities, but soul-body dualities are obsolete (outside of those who have vested interest in keeping the soul around).
(4) You do see the difference between ‘soul’ and ‘mind’, right? Because the two are not so easily conflated–they are not identical.
Just curious,
Bob
Bob,
I don’t mean to speak for Matt, but let me just throw in my two cents. Matt is absolutely right that the meaning of “psychology†is the “study of the soul.” The English word psyche comes from the Greek “psuché†which simply means soul. Even in philosophy the term “psychic†is used to refer to anything which related to the soul (no association to the paranormal however). In fact, the famous agnostic Plato was the first to offer a ‘map of the soul,’ and thereby created, in effect, the world’s first psychology. He argues that the soul has three component parts—desire (appetite), will (spirit), and reason (intellect). I don’t think one of the greatest minds ever—Plato—can be dismissed as having a “vested interest†in this matter. Rather, Plato seems to be the paragon of the willingness to following the evidence wherever it leads.
Good comment Brent