 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Satan and the Problem of Natural "Evil" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 2/11/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | Doc,
I FINALLY read Satan and the Problem of Evil. Now I don’t have to feel like an outsider on the board! I took it along for some beach reading on a vacation in the Caribbean, which made for an interesting experience. Somehow the palm trees and white-sand beach made the problem of evil seem like a theoretical issue. I’m sure that reading it in Cambodia or Rwanda or the inner city would have given it a much more practical flavor, but I found that the environment I was in stimulated some theoretical thinking. 
Based on our previous discussions, I was anticipating that the only area where I’d have significant disagreement with the book would be in the area of natural “evil.”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=579&whichpage=3
As a result, I read the book through that particular lens (as well as my sunglass lenses). I was astounded to see the number of parallels and the applicability of the teaching on moral evils to natural “evil,” but equally astounded that you were not utilizing these parallels.
I appreciated the grounding point of the whole book: that the creation arose from the LOVE of God. I found the 6 theses building on this premise to be compelling. However, if love is the only goal of God in creation, the cosmos is reduced to a FACTORY to produce the raw materials that will result in loving beings, or an OPERA HOUSE for the epic love story known as human history. It certainly is those things, but much, much more. I believe that the missing value is the BEAUTY which God desired in his creation, in order to display his GLORY. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Ps 19:1) As a result, we can say the creation is "good." This concept was touched on in the very good Appendix 4: “A Theology of Chance.” I would have liked to see these ideas developed more fully in the sections on “natural evil.”
In order to maximize the beauty of creation so it would reflect God’s glory, it was necessary to grant it some freedom to develop on its own. Granting this freedom to the creation is another “covenant of noncoersion”: the regularities of the universe are maintained as a matter of integrity and demonstration of the faithfulness of God. This freedom resulted in the risk that the world would be a dangerous place. But the result was a multitude of magnificent and majestic creatures. It is doubtful that such majestic creatures could develop if they fed entirely on food that just SAT THERE, that didn’t provide them with challenges to their survival. Psalm 104 praises God for his wisdom in providing for complex ecosystems (v. 10-18). Both carnivorous and herbivorous animals depend on God for their food (v. 14, 21). The glory of God is seen in earthquakes and volcanoes (v. 31-32). In other scriptures lions are described as examples of strength and ability to destroy, but not, as far as I’ve found, as creatures of Satan’s design.
Doc, I would think this would appeal to you, in that it provides another self-imposed constraint, in addition to the nature of love, on God's action in the world.
To say that God’s original design for the cosmos was one without carnivorous animals and tornados is to suggest a kind of “blueprint universe” in which the blueprints themselves have been corrupted by Satan. It seems to me that far too much of the danger of our world is explained by appealing to Satan. I would prefer to say that the possibility of such dangers, though not the danger itself, was a necessary consequence of a world made to develop beauty that would reflect the glory of God. Scripture, rather than saying such dangers shouldn’t exist, points to them as demonstrations of God’s glory. In Psalm 29, for example, the glory and splendor of God are seen in a destructive thunderstorm. It’s true that Jesus calmed a storm when he found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I suspect that if he had a 70 HP Evinrude on his boat, he would have just headed for shore. 
I appreciated the alternative viewpoints you summarized, and I suppose my view is closest to that of Polkinghorne. I would look to the enormous complexity of this world as the primary source of natural calamities. Many of these calamities result from our ignorance or disregard for the dangers about us. If we had invested our technological resources in understanding, predicting, and countering the dangers of the world, many disasters would be eliminated: people wouldn’t be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In our storm-proof homes and public spaces we could celebrate the glory of God in the displays of his power. The evil in many natural disasters is that we have misplaced those technological resources. Thus I see the mandate of Gen. 1:28 to subdue the earth as a call to TECHNOLOGICAL WARFARE, to utilize our resources to deal with the dangers of our world. This is a concept parallel to SPIRITUAL WARFARE against the enemy of our souls. I don’t deny that there is linkage between the two, and that Satan can contribute to natural calamities, for example, by luring people into dangerous situations and contributing to their messed-up priorities as mentioned above. I just don’t think it’s necessary to postulate satanic changes in the “laws” of nature to account for natural “evil.”
As I said, there are many parallels in the description of moral evil in the book which could equally be used for natural “evil.” Through the "lens" I was reading, it seemed that by re-mapping several of the concepts, there was another book below the surface, titled The Big Bang and the Problem of Natural Evil.  In fact, the 6 Theses could be paraphrased into 6 Theses of the Technological Warfare Worldview:
TWW1 Beauty requires development.
TWW2 Development implies risk.
TWW3 Risk implies mutual interaction.
TWW4 Capacity for constructive interaction is proportional to capacity for destructive interaction.
TWW5 The capacity for interaction is irrevocable.
TWW6 The capacity for interaction is finite.
Thoughts, anyone?
Magneton
"Go deep, go far into the scheme of things, and there is mathematics everywhere. Go deeper, go nearer to the core of reality, and there is music everywhere." Slichter, Science in a Tavern
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:26 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|