Re: Natural Evil

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Bill Yates wrote:

> I think the term "natural evil" is too judgmental a term. Its use says
> that we have made a value judgment on some natural occurrence in God's
> creation. Our vision and judgment capabilities are too limited (by our
> natural limitations as human beings and by sin) to justify the "evil"
> label. "Evil" is a moral classification. These things may be disastrous,
> calamitous, sorrowing, and terrible, but not "evil."

But why should we think that "evil" is restricted to moral categories?
That seems pretty arbitrary. And if our vision and judgment capabilities
are too limited to make a value judgment on some natural occurrence in
God's creation, why aren't those capacities also too limited to make a
value judgment on some moral occurrence in God's creation? It would seem
that when some natural hazard causes human suffering it would be easier
to detect the evil that results therein than when some moral transgression
produces minimal and reparable damage in human affairs, which is at least
sometimes the case.

Whenever I hear arguments of this sort, it is difficult for me to avoid
the conclusion that the move to eliminate the presence of genuine evil in
any natural event is the result of a theological prejudice rather than a
reasoned position.

Tom Pearson

________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Thomas D. Pearson
Department of History & Philosophy
The University of Texas-Pan American
Edinburg, Texas
e-mail: pearson@utpa.edu
Received on Fri Oct 1 00:36:33 2004