[Buddha-l] Natural Evil

[Bob Zeuschner]

Hi Stan --
It seems to me that you have totally trivialized the amount of 
undeserved pain, suffering, and death in this world.
Try this: "Daddy, why are you so mean? You drowned my baby, my wife, my 
family, and 250,000 others, many of whom went to your church for safety."
That's not "daddy-mean."
"Daddy, my baby strangled on her unbilical cord the day she was to be 
delivered, and the pain caused to the mother was mean."
That isn't "daddy-mean." That is monstrously evil. Lives are ruined.

You want to excuse God for doing things that, if a human being did them, 
we'd consider that person a monster and either execute them or put them 
in jail for life.

Consider: I build an enclosed playground for my children, let them go in 
to swing, climb, play in the sand, and then I throw a deadly snake into 
their playground. I have done something evil.
God, the heavenly father, has done something even more evil, because 
that imaginary being in the sky created the snake, knew what the snake 
would do, and went ahead anyway, causing unnecessary pain, suffering, 
and death.


The only ones who MUST find earthquakes evil are Christians, not Buddhists.
The reason is that Buddhists don't claim that this universe/world was 
created by a loving father, a loving father of infinite power, infinite 
knowledge, and infinite goodness.
The Christian God is the architect of the world and could have made it 
better. God chose not to make a safe world but one that falls down on 
us, erupts under us, etc. etc.
God is the building supplier (created everything out of nothing, and had 
no limits on what God could create).
God is the building contractor, building everything.
God, being omniscient, KNEW in advance all the undeserved pain and 
suffering his creation would cause -- could have built it otherwise 
(omnipotent), but chose not to.
God could have created the best of all possible worlds.
God didn't.

I'm very aware of the free-will arguments (by the way, why do you 
suppose that the concept of free will does not exist in Chinese 
philosophy, Indian philosophy, etc.?)
Free-will is a theological concept needed to explain Adam and Eve's 
misuse of their "free-will" to account for the alienation of God and humans.
As I teach it in my philosophy classes, free will is a fundamentally 
incoherent notion. I prefer pratityasamutpada.

I'm also very aware of the distinction between natural evil and moral 
evil, and teach these when I teach Augustine and Aquinas.
Evil as an absence of good is not a meaningful explanation, but that 
would be another discussion.

I still find Christianity something that makes sense ONLY if one has 
started out accepting the supernatural claims as true, and then one does 
one's best to try to make sense of it all.
Bob

SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
> Bob,
> 
> I find questions of theodicy occasionally interesting and tend these days to categorize them as types of the argument: "Daddy, Why Are You So Mean?"  Your claim is too strong that a Christian *must* find earthquakes and other natural events indicative of some moral evil.  To my mind this is tantamoun to asserting that all Buddhists *must* find earthquakes etc. evil.  Second, questions of theodicy are coherent and have degrees of positive persuasion only to the extend one denies free will, which denial itself opens to other questions.  Third, I note that neither you nor Richard have addressed the designation of any sort of evil as the lack of a due good.  This definition holds whether the evil if moral in nature or non-moral (or "natural").  When applied to a non-moral natural evil (this is not a categorical misnomer or incoherent) such as an earthquake, flood, etc. there is no question of intentionality involved, so if one denies the distinction between non-moral and moral
 e!
>  vils and holds to a claim that the only evil in the world is moral evil, then one does not have to call earthquakes, etc. evil.  Here, though, the notion is counterintuitive for most people who haven't studied various philosophies.  Finally, you give me too much credit for being original in claiming that God creates out of goodness and wisdom.  As an aside, I wonder, why is it that some become quite vociferous in denying the existence of God only when pointing to evils, yet do not reallly question it when considering the various types of beauty, goodness, and charity one comes across in one's daily life?
> 
> Stan
> 
> Bob Zeuschner <rbzeuschner at adelphia.net> wrote:
> 
>> Although I personally do not find earthquakes etc. to be evil (sharing a 
>> Buddhist/Taoist perspective), I do believe that a Christian must find 
>> them evil.
>> Here is why.
>> God created this universe, and could foresee (omniscience) all the 
>> possible consequences to all possible designs. God had unlimited ability 
>> to make any universe she wanted (omnipotence), one without any flaws 
>> (nothing to cause undeserved suffering), or one with flaws.
>> God is the architect of the universe, the contractor, and supplied the 
>> building materials ("Fiat Lux!").
>> If a building collapses and hurts people, we sue the architect, we sue 
>> the contractor (shoddy design, shoddy construction) or we sue the 
>> supplier of the building materials (poor quality).
>> God designed and built a universe FOR human beings, out of LOVE for 
>> human beings (according to Stan).
>> If God designed a defective universe which falls on people, then God 
>> cannot be all good. This undeserved death and suffering is evil and is 
>> preventable, and thus is genuinely natural evil. God could have made a 
>> universe without flaws, but chose not to. God chose to cause unnecessary 
>> and undeserved death and suffering to humans (Christmas tsunami two 
>> years ago) and animals.
>> This suffering is undeserved and preventable.
>> Thus "Natural Evil."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
> 
>