Notes from Evil Bender

I’ve recently finished reading God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer by Bart D. Ehrman. Central to Ehrman’s argument is that too many of us have disappointingly shallow responses to the problem of theodicy, the branch of theology that attempts to defend God against the problem of evil. We either attribute evil to free will and call it a day, or perhaps do not consider it at all. Furthermore, Ehrman argues that theologians careful treatises on this subject gloss over the true scope and emotional impact of evil, and that their bloodless responses cannot address the full scope of the problem.

Ehrman was on my mind when I stumbled across this explanation of “natural evil”–that is, evil not caused by humans, but by our natural world.

Where was God during the terrible tsunami of 2004 that killed over 150,000 people in Southeast Asia? People like Martin Kettle say that religious people cannot explain this tragedy.¹ Kettle asks the question, “What God sanctions an earthquake?” He seems baffled to find an answer based upon a religious worldview, in which a God of love is said to preside over the universe. The answer is surprising simple, but lost to those whose worldview precludes integration of earth sciences principles taught in elementary school with the existence of God.

What could we find in the natural sciences that could explain how God would allow the deaths of 150,000 people? Well, I’ll give Rich Deem, the piece’s offer, credit: he actually does try to bring some science into this question, and at least he isn’t a Young Earth Creationist. But his attempt does not reflect well on his understanding of the monumental problems posed by the problem of evil.

His argument is that natural laws, which must exist, cause evil. This would be a perfectly acceptable position for an atheist to hold, but why a theist would hold it is somewhat baffling. Let’s take a look at Deem’s argument:

Do all these kinds of events represent the random acts of impersonal nature or is there something behind the natural events that occur on the earth? [...]

The missing factor that prevents the earth from becoming a waterworld are the two processes that actually build land masses. These geologic processes are tectonic activity (which cause earthquakes) and volcanism.² Prominent examples of land building through these processes can be found in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim. If one examines Southeast Asia, one can see the results of the Indian plate colliding with the Asian plate. This collision has resulted in the formation of the Himalayan Mountains. Volcanism is responsible for the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. Both of these processes are intertwined, since volcanism results from the great continental plates colliding with each other. So, without plate tectonics and the accompanying earthquakes, there would be no land masses on planet earth, since all the land would eventually end up in the ocean.

You’re probably confused at this point. We all understand the role of plate tectonics in the tsunami, but we are not asking “what are the natural processes that allowed the tsunami to kill so many” but “why couldn’t a loving, all-powerful God have prevented this.” Well, Deem has worked out his pat answer:

According to atheists, the presence of earthquakes and other forms of natural “evil” is an indication that a loving God was not involved in the design of the earth. However, if atheists were involved in the design of the earth, there would be no land, since there would have been no tectonic activity to produce it.

This is, of course, meaningless. How could “atheists” be involved in the design of earth? Deem has assumed that land needs to exist, that tectonic activity would not be a problem if land did not exist, that land can only exist through tectonic activity, and that all this somehow vindicates God:

Ultimately, the design of atheism would preclude the existence of humans altogether. Without earthquakes, the earth would be a waterworld, and the most advanced life form would be fish. God’s purpose for the creation of the earth was to provide a place for human beings to live.⁵ Without land, human beings would never be possible.

I hope the problem with this is obvious: why would the all-powerful creator of the universe need to use a process that causes so much suffering to create land? Why would he go to so much trouble to specifically create a place for humanity only to have that home slaughter untold billions, and 150,000 from one tsunami?

This isn’t a problem for atheists: we have no reason to suppose the universe was designed to be kind to humanity–all the more reason we’d better look out for one another. But theists need to explain why God could not have created a better world. Simply put, if God is all-powerful and all-good, this should be the best of all possible worlds. While plate tectonics tells us why tsunamis kill, it is no explanation for why God should have designed the world to require such suffering.

There are theologians who have given the above question a great deal of thought. I disagree with their conclusions, but I respect that they actually consider the implications of their beliefs. Deem does no such thing:

The “natural evil” described by atheists actually represents the design of an intelligent Creator. Without earthquakes and volcanoes, there would be no land masses on planet earth, and human life would be impossible. Atheists have missed some pretty fundamental principles from earth sciences in condemning God for allowing earthquakes. God’s creation of “natural evil” is actually necessary design.

Such an answer explains nothing, and both downplays the problem of suffering through natural evil and the power of God. A God who can only design a universe for human life that is hostile to that life doesn’t seem to be much of a God.

And of course none of this explains why God could not have intervened to stop the tsunami, even if plate tectonics are required for human life.

In other words, this is yet another dismal failure of half-assed theodicy.