HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

WHY THE EVIL THAT IS DOWN TO PURELY NATURAL CAUSES MAKES GOD'S LOVE A RIDICULOUS AND EVEN CRUEL THING TO BELIEVE IN

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.  But 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. 

 

Moral evils and physical evils are distinguished by believers. But in actual fact, they are sometimes the same. 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.

 

It makes no sense to tell people to accept the natural evils they cannot change such as meteorites crashing into the earth and wiping out cities and to tell them they don’t have to accept the behaviour of others towards them. They cannot change others any more than they can deflect the killer superbug.  People are comforted by religion and its refusal to admit how terrible natural evil is.  The sugarcoating is manipulative in the extreme.

 

It is important that we abhor belief in God and the teachings about natural evil being good enough to be engineered by God out of sheer compassion.

 

The admission

 

The god believers have to admit that it is at least possible that that non-chosen or non-caused-by-free-agents evil disproves the love of God.

 

If the problem of natural evil could disprove the love of God or the free will defence then why?

 

*   Because it is suffering. 

 

Who cares if evil people are happy and do not suffer as long as they do not harm anybody?  We have to punish because of the world we live in, we need to try and stop evil using punishment, but it is pity we have to.  God does not have to punish anybody.  God does not have to discipline anybody.  To disagree is just to wish for your pound of flesh. 

 

It is insane to say it is wrong for a scientist to build a machine to cause volcanos and it is okay for God to do it.  That denies that the action is just bad in itself regardless of any consequences.  It is insulting and misanthropic and unfair.  And if the reason it is okay for God to do it is because he is bringing benefits out of it then what?  Then the scientist can do it as well so that is not a reason.  And what if the scientist is God's instrument?  Then the scientist doing it is the same as God doing it.  A god like that who is not a moral agent is not a god we can connect with.  It would be evil to offer a God like that and then excuse his role in natural evil.  And even if there is a God it does not follow that the God you adore is him for to adore your image of God is to adore your image of God not God.  That is what you are saying allows natural evil!  Human nature is so eager to adore copies of God that if you want to be found innocent of condoning natural evil so selfishly and for your self-made God you have to go to big lengths to prove it.  The matter is that serious!

 

What right has man to say it is different for God to do earthquakes and plagues?  Even God cannot say it without proving it for it is a proving matter!!  It is easy for man to say it and that is why it is so terrible to say it.  So much for the Christian doctrine that God is daddy and servant!!

 

*  Because it is undeserved suffering?  TRANSLATION: IF IT IS DESERVED THEN FINE!  WHAT A SPITEFUL IDEA!

 

*  Because any good comes not because of it but in spite of it.  It is just wholly inexcusable - period!  This excuse is terrible and unfeeling.  The good coming about in spite of the natural evil has nothing nothing at all to do with making it even a little good.

 

*    Because evil has to happen after we do evil for we must experience and get the natural and bad consequences of our evil.  TRANSLATION: WE CREATE THE BAD RESULTS.  BUT WE DO NOT.  THEY JUST FOLLOW.  GOD CREATES THEM IF ANYBODY DOES.  IF GOD JUST STOPPED HOLDING THINGS IN EXISTENCE RIGHT NOW YOU WOULD NEVER FACE THE RESULTS.  ITS A NASTY UNSYMPATHETIC DOCTRINE. 

 

*   Because a God who sends earthquakes and viruses to torment people against their will can hardly claim to allow evil to happen because he wants to respect people’s freedom to do evil?  TRANSLATION: IF EVIL IS OKAY AS LONG AS NO PERSON IS DOING IT THEN EVIL DOES NOT MATTER SO WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN IF A PERSON DOES IT.  EVIL DOES NOT BECOME EVIL JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS DOING IT.  TO SAY DIFFERENT IS MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION.

 

*  Because it makes no sense to say that evil is a side-effect of the gift of free will and not from God when God does and sends natural evil. Religion has no explanation as to how free will can be to blame for evil when there is evil that is not down to free will. It just ignores the problem and that is evil in itself. 

 

*   Because moral evil cannot be possible unless natural evil exists.  So for that reason natural evil is worse than moral evil.  TRANSLATION: WHAT OPENS THE DOOR TO EVIL IS WORSE THAN ANY EVIL IN PRINCIPLE.  AN EVIL CAN BE LESS BAD THAN  YOU EXPECT BUT OPENING THE DOOR MEANS ANYTHING HOWEVER TERRIBLE CAN HAPPEN.  IF NATURAL EVIL IS BETTER THAN MORAL EVIL THEN THAT MAKES NO SENSE.  IT MAKES MORAL EVIL POSSIBLE AND SETS THE STAGE FOR IT.  SO IT IS AS BAD IF NOT WORSE.

 

*   Because the notion that natural evil is remote from the creator and not directly caused by him is nonsense though it is basic to the argument that an all-good God cannot harm.  It contradicts the doctrine that God causes all things out of nothing and things return to nothing if he withdraws his creative power.  There is no indirect strictly speaking.  Everything is a miracle.  The doctrine that God does not directly do harm is incoherent and ridiculous and insincere.  TRANSLATION: THE UNIVERSE IS DIRECTLY CREATED BY GOD MEANING THAT ALL THAT HAPPENS IN IT IS DIRECTLY CREATED TOO.  IF YOU DIRECT GREEN PAINT AT A DOOR AND KNOW THE HANDLE IS THERE AND SPRAY IT ANYWAY YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THE HANDLE SHOULD NOT BE PAINTED SO IT WAS INDIRECTLY PAINTED. 

 

Therefore the natural evil refutes God argument is 100% correct.

 

Free will and moral evil are problematic so you cannot blame any evil on them

 

Moral evil is controversial so natural evil should be MORE controversial. If there is no free will or if it plays a tiny part in what we do then all or most of the evil we do is natural evil as well.  Free will may give birth to how you use your fists to hurt people but natural evil does most of the work.  Your free will did not give you the strength and the knuckles.  Plus when we do right or wrong there will be unintended results direct and indirect that may be harmful.  Even if we have free choice and misuse it there is a lot more to evil than it.  We rage against evil choice when we see the damage so it is not what matters so much as the harm done.  So it is not natural for us to reject the idea that natural evil is so vile that it contradicts the doctrine that God loves us.

 

It cannot be shown that free will is logically possible or real. So free will amounts to a guess. A man with free will who thinks he could be drugged to do things has no proper free will so free will requires that you know it is working and that you have it. But you do not know.  You have the right to do evil of your own free will and say you didn't know you had free will and thus evade responsibility.  Free will is supposed to be given by God because he wants us to freely decide if we will be immoral or moral.  But what use is it with the loophole?  To see it as a gift is to insult goodness never mind God.

 

Our problems with detecting free will, the power to do moral evil, are natural evils so natural evil is the bigger deal than moral evil.

 

Summary:

 

Moral evil, if it exists, is based on natural evil. You cannot lie unless other people suffer from the natural evil of not knowing when somebody is lying.

 

Natural evil then is the basic evil and intrinsically forces free agents if they exist to engage in moral evil. 

 

Moral evil and natural evil are treated as separate by those who wish to blame free will for suffering and misery and death.  The two are mixed together and are inseparable.  Natural evil is the reason you are able to hurt a person's feelings for natural evil puts this vulnerability in them.

 

Natural evil is watered down as being a neutral thing or even good by those who want to stop you seeing it disproves God.  Considering the horrors that happen naturally we can only consider that trivialising to be sick and patronising and hideous.

 

Saying it is worse to have a vice than for nature to create a plague is insane. That is what you are getting at if you say all evil is to be blamed on sin or the misuse of free will. It violates our human nature to hate plague more than somebody being a petty thief. The argument that natural evil is relatively fine is morally evil for it is violence against the way we are made to hate it and rightly so.

 

Natural evil is often seen as having something to with sinners even if the person suffering it is innocent. Thus Adam and Eve and others are accused of having done this to the innocent. That teaching is a moral evil.  You have no right to judge them unless you can put them on trial.

 

People talk about their faith in this God who brings good out of natural evil - eg there would be no brave people if there were no human savages. But that is only good intention wise. It is not good any other way and has NOT THE SLIGHTEST THING WITH SHOWING THE SITUATION OUGHT TO HAPPEN.  It is good to be brave if there is nothing else you can do and the situation really is down to blind forces completely and ultimately. Believers end up being almost happy that cancer exists so that nurses may grow in virtue!  Many believers clearly are!!  Would the pope give a kidney to save somebody with kidney cancer?  It never crosses his mind!

 

If it is good to develop a bad disease as long as nobody is doing it to you (including you!) and it is just blind nature that totally violates what we mean by good. Bad has nothing to do with whether a person is doing it or it is just happening.


Finally:

 

The natural evil argument disproves the argument that evil is all down to human free will. It reveals that any argument blaming it all on free will is insensitive and rude and nasty.  In the universe, human evil is a tiny drop in the mix of potential dangers there is. It does not deserve the religious and godly emphasis put on how terrible it is. 

 

The natural evil problem is always talked about in terms of evil that has no intelligent agent behind it but believers in fact think there is no such thing.  God is to blame for earthquakes etc.  The worship of God is immoral and we have a right to be angry for the sake of those who suffer and find it condoned by believers especially the comfortable ones!

 

Natural evil is terrifying and we know if it is going to happen there is nothing we can do. The help that comes from God amounts to him helping us be more virtuous or bravve in the face of such evil. That is supposed to compensate for the evil! We are using the thought as a placebo to deal with our horror of natural evil. That is the reason we justify it. That is the only reason.  But what right have you to make the suffering of others which is far beyond your own a placebo?  It is not about you.  It is not an opportunity for you to find a way to dull the horror and filth of natural evil.