I’m trying to avoid writing overly-long, self-indulgent posts on this blog, so when this post starting getting way too long, I divided it into two separate posts, both dealing with the problem of evil in the form of natural disasters.
A friend of mine told me about some short, sitcom-like sketches on youtube called “Mr. Deity.” The sketches portray God as the bumbling CEO of the universe. There are currently 8 or 9 episodes, and the first one pokes fun at why God allowed so much evil in the universe. (I’m not recommending that you watch these clips, especially if you are easily offended. They are very antagonistic toward Christianity and aim at insulting almost everything I believe as a Christian)
In the first episode, Mr. Deity is having a conversation with his consultant Larry about what evils he should allow into his creation. About half-way through the episode, Larry brings up the topic of natural disasters:
Larry – “Umm, well, the next one, I checked with the boys down on research on this, and they said we’re safe to leave it out.”
Mr. Deity – “What is it?”
Larry – “It’s that natural disasters compliment; the earthquakes, floods, tsunamis….”
Mr. Deity – “Yeah, I need to have that in.”
Larry – “But sir, I spoke with the head of R&D. He said if we leave this out, it’s not going to affect anybody’s freewill or violate any natural law or anything, and since you’re already way over quota on the gratuitous pain and suffering…”
Mr. Deity – (interrupting Larry) “Here’s the thing, if we take it out, it’s going to be way too easy for people to believe in me.”
Larry – “No, sir, let me go over the list: holocausts, torture, and Downs syndrome. Those three alone, make it kind of hard to believe in you.”
The creators of Mr. Deity see the challenge that natural disasters pose for Christianity. Why do earthquakes happen? Why did God allow hundreds of thousands of people to be tragically killed in the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia? These are really tough questions.
7 comments:
I can't recommend enough PVI's "The Problem of Evil." It was taken from a series of lectures so it's smooth reading. The best comprehensive defense of a range of "problems of evil" that I've seen.
(Geesh, it's so easy to self-indulge in cynicism. I wouldn't be able to watch the YouTube stuff without puking from the Enlightened gratification!)
Here's a tiny sketch of a reply:
I think the first response has to be that we're fallen. The second that if we weren't fallen we'd know more than we do. And finally, we may have to admit that there just is not a sufficient reason for every evil ... BUT that we should expect this as much if not more on the assumption that Christian theism is true than atheism.
Tristan, this is a reply to both this post and the one before it.
My question is this: What makes "natural evil" evil? We say that a hurricane that kills people is evil, but what about a hurricane that doesn't? Do demons cause one and not the other?
How do we distinguish between what natural phenomena are evil and what are not? If we all lived in steel houses buried under the ground, no one would say that a tornado is evil. But once it touches a over cramped trailer park and tears apart everything it touches we call it evil. But what if everyone lived in straw houses? Then any old stiff wind would blow everything over and suddenly wind would be evil, right? Well, we don't live in straw houses. Our houses withstand the common thunderstorm. And I don't know about you, but I enjoy watching thunderstorms from the comfort and safety of my home. I actually think they're rather beautiful. Would I think the same if I was homeless???
What about forest fires? No one would argue that forest fires don't serve a vital purpose in the perpetuation of a given forest. Forest fires have a purging value with many life-giving benefits. But if that same fire torches someone's house, we call it evil. Interesting.
The truth is that there is nothing inherently evil about a hurricane or forest fire in itself. Do I think that Eden was liable to being destroyed by a hurricane or forest fire? Probably not. There's no doubt that somehow - metaphysically or not - all of creation has been thrown out of whack due to the introduction of the history of sin. Perhaps hurricanes that destroy everything they touch are just a byproduct of the history of sin. But then again, maybe not. I don't know. My point is that "natural evil" really is a relative term. If the Indonesian tsunami hadn't killed a single person, would we still call it evil? I doubt it.
Sean,
You may be right that there is nothing inherently evil about natural disasters, but I do think that Scripture is pretty clear about death and destruction being inherently evil. The fact that natural disasters bring about horrible death and destruction indicates that they are somehow connected to evil. Perhaps they are only instrumentally evil in the sense that they bring about evil but are not themselves evil. I’m not really sure about this.
I think the bigger question is: Are these disasters caused by God? I think this is the main question Hart tries to address. He points out that many Christians considered the tsunami an act of divine sovereignty. This seems to make God the author of death and destruction, and Hart feels that this is the worst explanation Christians can give for natural disasters.
Sean and Tristan,
I have a hard time thinking that a tornado is intrinsically evil in the same way that I have a hard time thinking that the hard ground that I fall on is intrinsically evil.
But I also don't see why we should think that all death is intrinsically evil. Frankly, I'm quite delighted to kill mosquitos and there is something humorous about frogs eating them too. Furthermore, I don't see why there had to be no physical death of any kind before the fall. What, would the plants that are eaten stay alive even in one's stomach?! If plants died, then why not single-celled organisms, bugs, etc.?
I don't think that humans could have died pre-fall but I don't have any good reason to think that animals didn't. Interestingly, I think that Aquinas thought that animals even killed one another--just not humans because pre-fall we had a supernatural gift of authority over the animals.
I think C.S. Lewis thought this too. If you look at the life on planets where sin has not manifested itself (in his Space Trilogy), the creatures don't sin but some of them do hunt. Also, the effects of the fall seem to be local (for Lewis) and demons only have control over our planet (and thus not the colliding of meteors millions of miles away).
One more thing while I'm expounding on the virtues of PVIs book. A tough problem, which he addresses in a pretty interesting way, is the problem of reconciling God's power/foreknowledge/goodness/freedom with the actual amount of evil in this world. One theistic response is that this is the best possible world. The problems with this are (1) then it would seem that God would have to create it and then wouldn't have freely created it and (2) SURELY this isn't THE best possible world.
But if this isn't the best possible world then it seems like there could've been a better world and thus God does not do what is best in creating this one. Could could've done better, but didn't, thus God isn't perfectly good.
And there appears to be no good reason why he couldn't have created a world with less evil. Could God have created a world in which there was one less deer that burned to death in the woods? Seems like it. What about two deer? Seems like.
This is the sort of problem that PVI gives a really interesting answer to.
When I said I thought death was inherently evil, I should have said I thought human death was inherently evil. I like hamburgers too much to think animal death is inherently evil.
I’ve read some on the “best of all possible world” theory (Leibniz and others). I think it is easier to reconcile this view with a soul-making purpose of creation as opposed to the traditional Augustinian view. Hick’s idea is that the world is the arena for turning immature humans created in the image of God into mature beings formed in the likeness of Christ. God made pain and suffering an essential part of this transformation process. Therefore, I think Hick would say that God created the best of all possible worlds by incorporating pain/suffering/death.
I haven't read Hick's Soul-Making theodicy but since he's a pluralist-universalist and every body makes it to glorification then this would naturally fit with a best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario.
PVI doesn't think this is the best possible world which I suspect would make the particulars of his response to the problems of evil significantly different than Hick's. I suppose he could be a universalist (I doubt it but I don't know) and just think that there are better worlds in which perhaps people choose to follow God sooner.
Post a Comment