In this write-up I am going to address the following question:

What peculiar problems are posed for theism by the existence of evil that inflicts harmless animals that is not the result of the blameworthy agency of creatures? How to solve such problems?

I will start by setting the ground by citing the case of Mambi as a model example of natural evil. Then I will discuss the problems this evil might pose to theism. Next, I will analyze these problems. I will take a holistic approach to address this problem, looking first into the nature of our world, the nature of evils, the nature of the subject of evil (Mambi), the nature of God, and the nature of our epistemological power. Based on all these observations, my conclusion will be to assert that existence of such evils in this world does not assert the non-existence of God.

 Case Study Example

Following is an example of a possible evil that might occur somewhere deep in a forest:

“In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn called Mambi is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering” (Rowe 1979: 337).

The above example encompasses a category of evil that is not caused by immoral act from a creature. This class of evil enjoys the following set of characteristics:

1. The subject of the evil is a weak harmless animal.
2. The agent of evil are lightening, fire and tree (all natural causes).
3. There is no association of an external human agent in the scene.

I will refer to the above example as Mambi.

Problems posed to Theism

Mambi poses the following problems for theism:

1. (P1) Being a harmless creature, it is difficult to understand why such  evil should touch Mambi. One might justify such an evil falling on a poisonous snake, for example.
2. (P2) Being an omniscient, omnipotent and good God, this evil:
1. Was known to God before it happened, and yet He allowed that (P2.a)
2. God was able to prevent it before it happened but did not (P2.b)
3. God being good must not be pleased to allow such event to happen, but it happened (P2.c)
3. (P3) Mambi suggests no sign of purpose by allowing such evil. No  bigger good was attained, nor any life was saved through Mambi’s painful death. No compensation was given to Mambi in this world,  assuming that the world hereafter (if it exists) is not meant for animals.

Analyzing the above set of problems one will conclude:

1. Either God exists but has an incoherent set of properties like:
1. he is omniscient but not omnipotent (and vice versa). (from P2.a and P2.b)
2. he is omniscient and omnipotent but not perfectly good. (from p2.c)
3. his actions and decisions has no purpose. (from p3)
2. Or, He does not exist.

Presenting the Theist’s Defense

How to defend such problems? Is it conclusive from these problems that God does not exist, or He has inconsistent set of properties?

I will take the position of theist’s advocate and present solution to these problems through addressing the following central questions:

1. What are evils? Are evils absolute or can it be relative?
2. Does evil has different consideration based on subjects?
3. Given our epistemological limitations, are we entitled to comprehend a reasonable purpose for such evils?

Nature of Evils

Evils are not of one sort. It might be absolute or relative, so an evil is evil for someone and not evil for other. Consider a rainfall event on a locality where rain is very scarce. No one will doubt the enormous benefit this rain would bring to this locality. However, it is very likely that –after the shower- Mrs. X slipped in a muddy land and broke her leg. Balancing the benefit of rainfall and the relative evil it caused Mrs. X, the rainfall still remains a good and not an evil. Considering the case of Mambi, the agents of evil were: lightening, tree and fire. No doubt that these three agents are by themselves very beneficial. However, in the case of Mambi, they were arranged in a combination which caused evil to Mambi. Still a question remains for theists to answer: Why Mambi and Mrs. X had to suffer, and Why God did not interfere?

Nature of Subjects

Problem of evil need to be discussed in the context of victims as well. These victims could be human or non-human. In case of human victims, theists present few explanation for evils which are not applicable to non-human victims. For example, compensation in the hereafter or punishment for sin or opportunity for repentance. Harmless animals, however, live and die for a certain purpose, i.e. to act as a resource in the ecological system. When we catch fish through fishing rod, we inflict pain and agony to this fish before it dies, or when a tiger catches a fawn and tears it into pieces it suffers a lot before it dies. In such cases, we do not hold ourselves or tigers to be blameworthy. Again, if above scenarios show some purpose for catching fish or fawn as our food or tiger’s, still Mambi remains mysterious as we can not understand any such purpose for her agony.

Our Epistemological Limitations

As shown, the above explanations can not raise totally the fog over the problem of natural evil, and probably we will never be able to reach to a satisfactory answer if our limited reason is the only reference. Our inability to find a purpose for God allowing such evils, does not mean the absence of such purpose. Reason tells us that there are so many events reason can not understand alone. For example, at time t reason looks at an event and confirms that it is evil for a subject Z, but at time t+n some pleasant outcomes results from the same evil which would make Z happy. So, our inability to know future, and our inability to know the purpose of God’s action renders us incompetent to comment on certain events as evil.

Conclusion

If there is a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good, then all His action must be full of wisdom and purpose. Our empirical reasoning suggest that if this universe is His product, then it is full of wisdom and purposes and signs of intelligent design. The minority events which does not seem good to us, should point to our inability to comprehend their goodness and not trigger the conclusive verdict that they are not good, or God does not exist.

---

Filter +3 Excellent+2 Insightful+1 Useful0 NeutralSee All-1 Off Topic-2 Flame-3 SPAMOldest FirstNewest First50 posts25 posts15 posts5 posts 

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site.. Such material will be removed
Name:
Email:
Comment-Tracking E-mail Alerts
Mode		New entry [Start a new Entry]
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:

Powered by OpenComment 3.0.21