Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Natural evil


Natural evil encompasses instances of suffering and destruction attributable to impersonal natural processes rather than human moral agency, including geophysical catastrophes like earthquakes and tsunamis, biological disorders such as diseases and parasitic infections, and ecological interactions like predation that inflict pain on sentient beings. These phenomena arise from the operation of physical laws and biological mechanisms inherent to the universe's structure, independent of intentional wrongdoing.
In the , natural evil forms a core element of the evidential , challenging the logical coherence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent by highlighting apparently gratuitous that precedes , such as prehistoric animal agony evidenced in fossil records of predation and . attempts to reconcile this with divine attributes through explanations like the necessity of stable natural laws for a life-sustaining , where disruptions enable scientific and response, or attributions to secondary causes such as fallen spiritual entities disrupting cosmic order. Critics contend that the scale of natural evil—manifest in events like volcanic eruptions burying ecosystems or viral outbreaks causing mass mortality—renders such justifications implausible without empirical warrant for interventions. Debates persist over whether natural evil qualifies as "evil" in a moral sense or merely as value-neutral outcomes of causal chains governed by indifferent laws, with portraying predation and as adaptive mechanisms fostering rather than purposeful affliction. Proponents of skeptical theism argue human cognitive limits preclude deeming specific instances gratuitous, while evidentialists cite cases like isolated animal torment in wildfires as underscoring probabilistic improbability of benevolent design. Empirical observations of nature's brutality, including the prolonged of prey under parasitic or predatory attack, underscore the tension between causal realism and teleological interpretations.

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Core Definition

Natural evil denotes forms of suffering, , destruction, and resulting from the impersonal operation of natural laws and processes, independent of human or , including phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, infectious diseases, and predation in the animal kingdom. This category excludes harms directly traceable to human actions or , distinguishing it from , which originates in deliberate choices or ethical failures by rational agents. Philosophers and theologians, such as , characterize natural evil as outcomes of natural mechanisms producing harm without attributable moral culpability, often exemplified by geophysical disasters or biological afflictions that predate or occur apart from human influence. In theological contexts, this includes animal suffering and from congenital conditions, which challenge explanations rooted solely in human , as these events appear embedded in the fabric of creation itself. The concept underscores causal realism in understanding worldly disorder as arising from probabilistic physical interactions rather than intentional malice, yet it prompts inquiry into whether such processes serve any discernible purpose or reflect inherent limitations in a lawful universe. Empirical evidence from paleontology reveals extensive pre-human instances of natural evil, such as mass extinctions and fossilized evidence of predation spanning billions of years, indicating its deep integration into cosmic history.

Historical Origins and Evolution of the Concept

The concept of natural evil, encompassing suffering from non-moral sources such as disasters and diseases, first emerges in ancient theistic texts grappling with undeserved affliction. In the Hebrew Bible's , composed during the Persian period (circa 550–330 BCE), the protagonist endures calamities including a destructive windstorm that collapses a house on his children and a severe skin disease, without evident personal moral failing, challenging simplistic and prompting reflections on divine permission of natural harms. This narrative laid early groundwork for distinguishing suffering not directly tied to human agency from that resulting from . Greek contributed to the formulation through (341–270 BCE), whose paradox questions why evils persist under a who is either unwilling or unable to prevent them, implicitly including natural occurrences like earthquakes and plagues alongside human actions. The explicit distinction between (from ) and natural evil (from disordered nature) crystallized in early with (354–430 CE). In Confessions and , Augustine posited that natural evil arises as a privation of good, originating from the Fall of , which corrupted the natural order through misused , rendering creation subject to decay, predation, and catastrophe rather than inherent malevolence in God's design. Medieval scholasticism, exemplified by (1225–1274), built on Augustinian foundations, viewing natural evils as instrumental to greater goods like ecological balance or human virtue through adversity, while maintaining their ultimate traceability to . The Enlightenment era saw further evolution, with (1646–1716) arguing in his 1710 that natural evils are necessary permutations in the "," permitting metaphysical harmony despite apparent disorder. In , particularly post-Darwin, the concept intensified scrutiny due to evidence of pre-human animal suffering and geological upheavals predating moral agents, complicating sin-based etiologies and prompting alternative theodicies like skeptical theism or evolutionary processes as venues for soul-making. Analytic philosophers such as (1917–1981) highlighted natural evil's incompatibility with traditional absent demonic causation, while (born 1932) extended defenses primarily to , leaving natural variants reliant on broader eschatological resolutions.

Distinction from Moral Evil

Key Characteristics of Moral Evil

Moral evil consists of harms or wrongs resulting from the deliberate choices or culpable negligence of free moral agents, such as humans, who possess the capacity for rational deliberation and intentional action. This distinguishes it from natural evil, as moral evil inherently involves agency and accountability, where the perpetrator can be held responsible for violating objective moral standards through acts like , lying, or . For instance, the 1994 , which claimed approximately 800,000 lives through orchestrated mass killings, exemplifies moral evil due to the intentional orchestration by human perpetrators exercising to enact widespread violence. A core characteristic is the role of free will, enabling agents to select between morally right and wrong courses, often leading to suffering that could have been averted absent such choices. Philosophers argue that moral evil arises from the misuse of this freedom, as seen in defects of character like greed or dishonesty, which motivate actions harming others or society. Unlike impersonal natural processes, moral evil is blameworthy because it stems from foreseeable consequences that rational agents could have rejected, imposing ethical culpability. Moral evil often manifests in both direct acts of commission, such as or , and omissions, like failing to prevent foreseeable harm when one has the power to do so. In theological contexts, it is tied to the corruption of the human will, where agents prioritize over communal good, perpetuating cycles of observable in historical events like the transatlantic slave trade, which transported an estimated 12.5 million Africans under conditions of deliberate brutality from the 16th to 19th centuries. This agency-based origin allows for potential mitigation through moral education or restraint, underscoring its voluntaristic nature absent in natural phenomena. Moral evil is distinguished from by its origin in the volitional acts or omissions of rational agents, encompassing sins such as , , and deceit, which involve culpable human choices. In contrast, natural evil arises from deterministic natural mechanisms independent of , such as tectonic shifts causing earthquakes or viral mutations leading to pandemics, where no intentional wrongdoing by humans or other agents is required. This boundary preserves the attribution of blame solely to moral agents for the former, while natural evil implicates broader cosmological or biological regularities. Overlaps emerge when intersects with natural processes, amplifying without fully subsuming one category into the other; for example, a hurricane (natural evil) may cause fewer deaths in regions with robust, ethically constructed , but in building codes or can elevate fatalities, blending outcomes. Similarly, diseases like can propagate naturally through contaminated water but intensify via failures in oversight or wartime destruction of systems. These instances highlight hybrid causation, where acts as a multiplier on natural events, yet the primary mechanisms remain distinguishable—tectonic forces or pathogens initiate the harm, while modulates its scope. Causal links between the two are debated in philosophical and theological contexts, with some theodicies proposing that primordial moral evils, such as humanity's ancestral disobedience, disrupted the natural order, introducing , predation, and into an originally harmonious . Conversely, natural laws enabling free —necessary for virtues like in aiding victims—inevitably produce unintended evils like floods or famines, forging a permissive rather than direct causal chain. Empirical examples include (moral or shortsighted policy) eroding soil stability and precipitating landslides, thereby converting moral into downstream natural hazards. Such connections underscore that while boundaries hold conceptually, real-world dynamics often reveal moral evil as a catalyst altering natural trajectories, though attributing comprehensive risks conflating distinct etiologies without of universal from alone.

Manifestations and Examples

Natural Disasters and Geophysical Events

and geophysical events exemplify natural evil through their capacity to cause extensive human suffering, property destruction, and loss of life without involvement of . These phenomena, driven by planetary processes such as tectonic plate movements, atmospheric , and volcanic activity, have resulted in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 deaths annually on average over recent decades. From 1900 to 2015, such events accounted for over 8 million fatalities and more than $7 trillion in economic damages globally. Earthquakes alone have caused over 700,000 deaths between 2000 and 2021, representing 58% of fatalities from all in that period. Earthquakes, arising from the release of stress along fault lines in the , frequently lead to the collapse of structures, ground , and secondary hazards like landslides, amplifying indiscriminate harm to populations. The , with a magnitude of 7.0 on January 12, killed between 100,000 and 316,000 people, primarily due to poorly constructed buildings in a seismically active zone near . Similarly, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake off , , on December 26, with a magnitude of 9.1, triggered tsunamis that drowned approximately 230,000 people across 14 countries, devastating coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters high. These events highlight the vulnerability of human settlements to geophysical forces, where tectonic shifts—essential to geological recycling—unleash energies equivalent to thousands of atomic bombs in seconds. Volcanic eruptions and associated phenomena, such as pyroclastic flows and lahars (volcanic mudflows), further illustrate natural evil by burying or incinerating inhabitants without warning. The 1985 eruption of in on November 13 produced lahars that killed about 25,000 people in , as melted glacial water mixed with ash to form lethal debris flows. Earlier, the 1883 eruption in between August 26 and 27 ejected 21 cubic kilometers of material, generating tsunamis that claimed over 36,000 lives and caused global atmospheric effects like vivid sunsets from dispersal. Volcanic activity, rooted in and ascent, sustains Earth's through nutrient release but periodically overwhelms local ecosystems and human . Tropical cyclones, including hurricanes and typhoons, contribute to natural disaster tolls via extreme winds, storm surges, and flooding, often intersecting with geophysical vulnerabilities like coastal subsidence. The 1900 Galveston hurricane on September 8 struck with winds over 140 mph and a 15-foot , killing 6,000 to 12,000 people in the United States' deadliest event. In the Atlantic basin from 1492 to 1996, tropical cyclones caused over 55,000 deaths, with storm surges responsible for more than half. Globally, such storms arise from warm ocean waters fueling low-pressure systems, yet their impacts—exacerbated by in low-lying areas—underscore the raw causality of atmospheric physics in producing widespread affliction.
EventDateLocationEstimated DeathsPrimary CauseEconomic Impact (Adjusted)
2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake/TsunamiDec 26, 2004 et al.230,000 from undersea quake$15 billion
Nevado del Ruiz EruptionNov 13, 198525,000Lahars (mudflows)Not specified
1900 Galveston HurricaneSep 8, 1900, 6,000–12,000, winds~$1 billion (2024 equiv.)
2010 Haiti EarthquakeJan 12, 2010100,000–316,000Building collapse$8 billion

Biological and Animal Suffering

Biological suffering manifests in non-human animals through mechanisms such as , predation, infectious diseases, , and resource deprivation, resulting in physiological distress and behavioral indicators of pain without involved. Vertebrates, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and , exhibit nociceptors—specialized sensory receptors that detect potentially damaging stimuli—and display avoidance behaviors, vocalizations, and physiological responses (e.g., elevated ) consistent with pain experience. persists in mammals post-injury or , as evidenced by prolonged hypersensitivity and reduced activity in models beyond . These responses arise from evolutionary adaptations for , yet impose evident costs in terms of impaired and energy expenditure. Predation inflicts acute suffering via physical during pursuit, capture, and consumption, often involving prolonged struggle, lacerations, and partial consumption while alive in like or small mammals. Ecological data indicate predation as a dominant mortality factor, particularly for juveniles; for instance, it accounts for over 95% of documented deaths in young reptiles, with similar patterns in birds and mammals where offspring survival rates to adulthood frequently fall below 10%. Prey populations experience heightened vulnerability during weakened states, amplifying injury-related pain through repeated failed escapes or infections from wounds. and compound this, as nutritional deficits from competition or seasonal scarcity lead to muscle wasting, immune suppression, and organ failure, with affected individuals exhibiting and increased predation risk. Infectious diseases contribute to widespread debilitation, causing , fever, and neurological symptoms that elicit responses observable in altered , reduced , and social withdrawal. Bacterial, , and fungal pathogens proliferate in dense populations, leading to epidemics; for example, wildlife tuberculosis or outbreaks result in progressive paralysis and convulsions prior to death. Parasitic infections, ubiquitous in wild hosts, induce chronic suffering through tissue invasion, blood loss, and malnutrition; protozoan parasites like those causing trichomonosis in birds lead to oral lesions, difficulty feeding, and , often fatal in nestlings. Helminths and ectoparasites similarly impair hosts by competing for resources or vectoring secondary infections, with rates exceeding 50% in many and populations. These natural processes sustain via population regulation but entail pervasive individual-level distress across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Philosophical and Theological Challenges

Formulation of the Problem of Natural Evil

The problem of natural evil arises in as a challenge to , positing that instances of caused by impersonal natural forces—such as earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, and predation—appear incompatible with the existence of a who is omnipotent (able to prevent such events), omniscient (aware of them), and omnibenevolent (willing to do so). This formulation distinguishes natural evil from , which stems from human or agent-based choices, emphasizing that natural evils occur independently of free and thus evade defenses reliant on human . Philosophers formulating the problem often argue that such evils, lacking apparent justification tied to greater goods like character development or , suggest either divine impotence, indifference, or nonexistence. The logical version of the problem asserts a strict inconsistency between theism's core attributes and observed natural evils. It can be structured deductively: (1) An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would prevent all gratuitous natural evils (those not necessary for any outweighing good); (2) Gratuitous natural evils exist, as evidenced by events like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed approximately 230,000 people without evident moral culpability or redemptive purpose; (3) Therefore, no such God exists. This approach, rooted in earlier critiques like David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), contends that the coexistence of divine perfections and preventable natural suffering forms a logical contradiction, akin to asserting a square circle. Critics of this version, such as Alvin Plantinga, counter that logical possibility remains if natural evils serve hidden purposes, but the formulation itself prioritizes the apparent deductive force without requiring probabilistic assessment. In contrast, the evidential version, advanced by William Rowe in works like "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" (1979), shifts to inductive probability, arguing that the sheer scale and apparent pointlessness of natural evils make theism unlikely rather than impossible. Rowe's key premise highlights "instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing any greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil," such as a fawn (E1) dying agonizingly in a forest fire from non-human causes, exemplifying gratuitous natural suffering predating human moral agency. The argument proceeds: (1) Such pointless natural evils occur; (2) An omnibenevolent God would eliminate them unless justified by superior reasons; (3) No plausible greater goods justify their persistence, as alternatives (e.g., redesigned laws of nature) seem feasible without cosmic disruption; (4) Thus, the probability of God's existence given these evils is low. This evidential framing, supported by empirical data on events like the 2010 Haiti earthquake (over 200,000 deaths from tectonic shifts), underscores that while theism is not disproven, natural evils constitute strong evidence against it, demanding theists to justify why a capable deity permits widespread, seemingly unnecessary suffering.

Implications for Divine Attributes

The existence of natural evil, encompassing suffering from geophysical events, diseases, and predation independent of human agency, intensifies philosophical scrutiny of traditional theistic conceptions of divine attributes, as it cannot be readily attributed to human free will. Unlike moral evil, natural evil—such as the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake that killed approximately 800,000 people or the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that claimed over 200,000 lives—appears to originate from impersonal natural processes, raising questions about why an omnipotent deity would permit such occurrences. This distinction, highlighted by philosophers like J.L. Mackie, suggests a logical inconsistency between natural evil's persistence and a God possessing maximal power, knowledge, and moral perfection. Regarding , natural evil implies limitations on divine power, as an all-powerful being could theoretically intervene to avert disasters without violating logical impossibilities, yet events like widespread famines or pandemics recur unabated. For instance, the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed 50 to 100 million individuals, exemplifies suffering that omnipotence might preclude if aligned with benevolence, prompting arguments that either God lacks the ability to redesign natural laws (e.g., tectonic activity essential for Earth's habitability but causative of earthquakes) or such redesign would entail greater evils. Critics like contend this undermines the attribute, as omnipotence entails the capacity to actualize any logically free of such harms. Natural evil also challenges omniscience, presupposing that a with complete foreknowledge anticipates every instance of —such as a fawn's prolonged agony in a forest fire, as described by William Rowe—yet permits it to unfold. This foreknowledge, combined with non-intervention, suggests divine permission of evils without evident justification, complicating claims of perfect wisdom that would prioritize prevention. Philosophers argue that omniscience heightens the incompatibility, as awareness of preventable natural calamities without action implies either indifference or an inscrutable rationale beyond human comprehension. The attribute of faces the most acute implication, as natural 's infliction of intense, gratuitous suffering on innocents, including non-human animals, appears incompatible with a perfectly good being's moral obligation to eliminate unnecessary pain. Rowe's evidential formulation posits that instances like a child's terminal cancer—lacking discernible greater goods—render divine goodness improbable, as benevolence would necessitate against such horrors. This has led some to propose revisions to the attribute, suggesting God's goodness operates within broader cosmic purposes, though detractors maintain it erodes the classical view of unqualified moral perfection.

Theistic Responses

Traditional Theodicies (Augustinian and Irenaean)

The , articulated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE), attributes natural evil to the consequences of , which disrupted the perfect harmony of God's creation. Augustine maintained that God fashioned the universe as wholly good, with evil manifesting not as a substantive entity but as a privation boni—an absence or corruption of inherent goodness. Moral evil originated from the misuse by angels and, subsequently, Adam and Eve's disobedience in the , as described in Genesis 3. This Fall extended corruption to the natural realm, engendering phenomena like earthquakes, famines, diseases, and predatory behavior among animals as retributive penalties or cascading effects of humanity's rebellion against divine order. Natural evils thus preserve the integrity of —intervening to prevent them would negate the reality of sin's accountability—while serving a remedial purpose: they underscore human dependence on God and pave the way for redemption through Christ's atonement, ultimately yielding eschatological harmony. The , originating with of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE) and refined by in the , reconceives natural evil as integral to a teleological process of human maturation, termed "soul-making." distinguished between humanity's initial creation in God's imago (basic rational capacity) and the prospective attainment of similitudo (full moral likeness), requiring an arena of trial and growth rather than instantaneous perfection. In this framework, the world is intentionally immature and governed by consistent natural laws that, while predictable, generate evils—such as tsunamis, predation, or illness—when clashing with human vulnerabilities, thereby furnishing raw material for ethical development. Suffering prompts virtues like courage, empathy, and perseverance through free choices in response to adversity, transforming rudimentary souls into refined agents capable of genuine love for God and others. This "vale of soul-making" justifies divine permission of natural evil by orienting it toward eschatological fulfillment, where perfected beings realize a higher good unattainable in a paradisal state devoid of contrast or effort. Unlike Augustinian retribution, Irenaean thought emphasizes forward-looking pedagogy, though it grapples with the distribution of intense suffering, including pre-moral animal pain.

Contemporary Defenses (Skeptical Theism and Evolutionary Theodicy)

Skeptical theism maintains that epistemic limitations preclude reliable judgments about the existence of divine justifying reasons for permitting natural evils, thereby undermining evidential arguments that such evils are gratuitous. Philosopher Michael Bergmann, in developing this defense, contends that instances of natural evil—such as earthquakes causing widespread suffering without discernible moral fault—appear pointless from a perspective, but this "noseeum" inference (from not seeing a reason to there being none) fails due to the vast disparity between finite cognition and divine . Bergmann draws on analogies like a child's inability to grasp parental decisions in dire circumstances, arguing that theists are warranted in skepticism toward claims that no greater good or prevention of worse evil justifies God's allowance of geophysical disasters or biological harms. This approach, formalized in responses to William Rowe's evidential argument from seemingly pointless suffering (including fawn deaths in wildfires as exemplars of natural evil), posits that the probability of undiscernible divine purposes is high enough to neutralize atheistic inferences from such events. Proponents emphasize that skeptical theism targets the inductive step in natural evil arguments, where observers extrapolate from inscrutable cases to God's probable nonexistence, without denying the of suffering's intensity or prevalence. For example, volcanic eruptions burying villages or predatory chains inflicting prolonged agony on prey are not evidence of divine indifference, as human faculties, evolved for survival rather than metaphysical insight, cannot survey the full causal web of cosmic goods. Bergmann notes that this is narrowly applied to God-justifying reasons, preserving ordinary moral knowledge and perception of moral evils, while critiquing overconfidence in atheistic readings of natural processes. Evolutionary theodicy addresses natural evil inherent in biological processes, such as predation, disease, and extinction over billions of years, by arguing these are indispensable for evolving conscious, relational creatures amid fixed natural laws. Theologian Southgate, in his compound framework, asserts that evolution's "vale of soul-making" dynamics—predation fostering adaptive traits and enabling complexity—represent the sole pathway to goods like embodied and , outweighing interim sufferings when viewed eschatologically. Southgate contends that animal suffering, evident in records of mass extinctions (circa 252-201 million years ago) or ongoing parasitic infections causing host debilitation, serves no direct punitive role but emerges from lawful mechanisms permitting creaturely flourishing and divine creativity. He integrates Irenaean soul-making with , proposing God anticipates and redeems evolutionary costs through and future restoration, where non-human victims of receive compensatory wholeness. This defense highlights empirical data from , such as the Cambrian explosion's burst of predatory morphologies around 541 million years ago, as evidence that suffering-intensive processes generated irreplaceable values like neural complexity prerequisite for theistic relationship. Southgate rejects pre-Fall idylls, attributing natural evil's origins to creation's inherent rather than intervention, and emphasizes divine —self-limitation to robust laws—avoiding miracles that would undermine predictability essential for ethical development. Critics within the framework note tensions with attributing pre-human deaths to , but proponents like Southgate prioritize causal realism in , where selection pressures (e.g., 99% species extinction rate over 3.8 billion years) forge resilience without implying flawed design.

Non-Theistic and Scientific Perspectives

Atheistic and Naturalistic Critiques

Atheists argue that natural evil—suffering arising from impersonal natural processes such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and diseases—poses a severe challenge to theistic claims of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, as these events inflict widespread, apparently gratuitous harm without involvement of human agency or moral choice. Philosopher William L. Rowe formulated an evidential case emphasizing instances of intense, pointless natural suffering, such as a fawn perishing in prolonged agony from burns in a wildfire, which an all-powerful deity capable of prevention would plausibly eliminate if morally perfect. This argument holds that the sheer volume and distribution of such evils, including predation and parasitism in ecosystems, render the existence of a loving God improbable, as no evident greater good justifies their occurrence. From a naturalistic standpoint, proponents like Paul Draper contend that the hypothesis of an indifferent universe governed by probabilistic physical laws better accounts for natural evil than , which predicts a world ordered toward minimizing undeserved . Under , events like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which killed approximately 230,000 people via tectonic zones, result from contingent geological processes essential to but indifferent to life. Similarly, biological , such as the driving parasitic infections that torment hosts unnecessarily, emerges as a byproduct of unguided selection pressures rather than divine design. Atheists maintain that positing a to explain these phenomena introduces unnecessary complexity, as empirical sciences— for disasters and for disease—provide parsimonious, testable mechanisms without invoking agency. Critics within , including Quentin Smith, further assert that "evil natural laws"—regularities permitting vast predation and extinction events, like the Permian-Triassic mass extinction that eradicated over 90% of marine around 252 million years ago—tilt evidential probability toward atheism, as a benevolent designer would enact laws precluding such inefficiency and cruelty. Naturalistic frameworks avoid the theistic dilemma by viewing suffering not as a moral failing of creation but as an emergent property of a value-neutral cosmos, where human ethics arise evolutionarily rather than from cosmic purpose. This perspective underscores that natural evil's prevalence aligns with predictions of blind causality over intentional benevolence, weakening theistic reliant on soul-making or free-process defenses.

Empirical Explanations from Science

Scientific explanations attribute natural evils—such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, diseases, and predation-induced suffering—to impersonal physical and biological processes operating according to established natural laws, without invoking purposeful . These phenomena arise from the dynamics of Earth's geology, atmospheric systems, and evolutionary mechanisms, as evidenced by extensive empirical observations and modeling. For instance, geophysical events like earthquakes result from the movement of tectonic plates driven by and gravitational forces, leading to stress accumulation and sudden release along fault lines. The theory of , supported by seismic data, paleomagnetic evidence, and GPS measurements showing plate velocities of 1-10 cm per year, accounts for over 80% of global earthquakes occurring at plate boundaries. In biological contexts, diseases emerge from the co-evolution of pathogens and hosts under , where microbes replicate rapidly—often in hours or days—outpacing host adaptations and exploiting genetic vulnerabilities. Pathogens such as and viruses evolve traits to maximize , resulting in host suffering from , , and organ damage, as seen in historical pandemics like the 1918 influenza, which killed an estimated 50 million people through rapid viral mutation and airborne spread. Genetic predispositions to conditions like sickle-cell anemia persist because heterozygous carriers gain resistance in endemic regions, illustrating how selection balances disease susceptibility against survival advantages. Animal suffering, including predation and , functions as a driver of in ecosystems, favoring traits that enhance survival and reproduction amid resource scarcity. Predators cull weaker individuals, maintaining and , as observed in studies of wolf-deer interactions where predation rates correlate with prey density and vulnerability. This process, devoid of teleological intent, leads to widespread pain from injuries, hunger, and , with ecological models estimating that up to 90% of wild animal deaths involve predation or disease rather than . Such mechanisms ensure ecosystem stability but entail inherent suffering as a byproduct of competitive maximization over evolutionary timescales.

References

  1. [1]
    The Concept of Evil - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Nov 26, 2013 · Evil in the broad sense has been divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do ...
  2. [2]
    Kinds and Origins of Evil - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Dec 10, 2021 · Natural evil refers to metaphysical and/or empirical evils whose origins are “natural”—i.e., grounded in the natures of things and/or the ...Speaking of Evil · Origins of Evil: Moral and Natural · Systemic Evil · Symbolic Evil
  3. [3]
    Evidential Problem of Evil, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    In the present work, therefore, a natural evil will be defined as an evil resulting solely or chiefly from the operation of the laws of nature. Alternatively, ...
  4. [4]
    The Problem of Natural Evil - CRI/Voice Institute
    There are two kinds of "evil" or "bad" things that happen in our world, moral evil and natural evil. The moral evil usually poses no problem for us, at ...
  5. [5]
    The Problem of Evil - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Sep 16, 2002 · For not only can the argument from evil be formulated in terms of specific evils, but that is the natural way to do so, given that it is only ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] A Theist Defense of Natural Evil - Aporia
    Philosophical discourse on the problem of evil has focused largely on moral evil, or evil inflicted by moral agents on one another. As a result, natural evil, ...<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Natural Evil or Moral Evil - Reasons to Believe
    Sep 30, 2003 · Moral evil stems from human action (or inaction in some cases). Natural evil occurs as a consequence of nature—earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  8. [8]
    [PDF] St. Augustine's Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil
    Natural evil is seen by him as a species of moral evil: that which is effected by non-human persons. Cf. The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Oxford University ...
  9. [9]
    The Problem of Natural Evil and Animal Suffering
    Dec 19, 2022 · The evidentialist problem of evil is one that seeks to show from observation and experience that there are evils which make God's existence less ...Missing: sources | Show results with:sources<|separator|>
  10. [10]
    The Nature of Evil
    Natural evil may be conceived of as simply part of nature and not evil at all. However, there are those who think that it may be possible to accept that God ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] A Holistic Response to the Problem of Evil
    Oct 1, 2022 · Skeptical theism, if applicable to the arguments from evil that appeal to these evils, could help with this problem. One potential problem for ...
  12. [12]
    The Concept of Evil - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Nov 26, 2013 · Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast ... evil offer important insights into the nature of evil. For ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Augustine, Plantinga, and Hick Submitted to Dr. Martin
    Dec 1, 2022 · very similar definition of natural evil. He defines natural evil as “evil that results from the operation of natural processes in such a way ...
  14. [14]
    Christian Explanations for the Origin and Purpose of Natural Evils
    Christian explanations for the origin and purpose of suffering, pain, and death belong to the theological discipline of theodicy. ... Natural evil is that ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] God Freedom and Evil
    The result is natural evil. So the natural evil we find is due to free actions of nonhuman spirits. Augustine is presenting what I earlier called a theodicy ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Alvin Plantinga on the problem of evil: an examination - SciSpace
    Unlike moral evil, natural evil has nothing to do with actions and freewill. It inflicts on man a mysterious pain and discomfort. It is mysterious because its ...
  17. [17]
    Biology and the Problem of Natural Evil (Chapter 4)
    According to King, we are amassing a large database in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, ranging from chimpanzees and elephants to dolphins, giraffes ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Logical Problem of Evil. The existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God.
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Augustine's
    For moral evil is not some thing that. God created, but a corruption in our will. This leads to another subtle point. Free will is a good thing that God created ...
  20. [20]
    Leibniz on the Problem of Evil - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Feb 27, 2013 · And Leibniz argues that God's permissive willing of evils is morally permissible if and only if such permission of evil is necessary in order ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    [PDF] ANIMAL SUFFERING, EVOLUTION, AND THE ORIGINS OF EVIL
    In this article, I will review a number of an- cient and contemporary responses to the problem of evil as it concerns animal suffering and suggest a possible ...
  22. [22]
    What is the difference between natural evil and moral evil?
    Jan 4, 2022 · Moral evil is evil that is caused by human activity. Murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement, hatred, jealousy, etc., are all moral evils.
  23. [23]
    What are the differences between moral and natural evil?
    Moral evil is what is caused both by human activity and certain inactivity. This is called sin. Active examples of moral evil are murder, rape, child abuse, ...
  24. [24]
    Nature of Evil - Thomistic Philosophy Page
    Natural vs. Moral evil ... Philosophers make a distinction between two kinds of evils according as each kind has a different cause. Aquinas distinguishes them as ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Theodicy: An Overview
    problem of moral evil, the problem of natural evil examines whether the existence of natural evil is compatible with an all-perfect, all-knowing, loving ...
  26. [26]
    Swinburne's response to the problem of evil
    Feb 23, 2006 · There are two ways in which natural evil operates to give humans those choices. First, the operation of natural laws producing evils gives ...
  27. [27]
    Why Would a Good God Allow Natural Evil? - Cold Case Christianity
    If an all-powerful and all-loving God exists, why does He permit natural evil (earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters)?Missing: empirical data
  28. [28]
    Natural Disasters - Our World in Data
    Disasters – from earthquakes and storms to floods and droughts – kill approximately 40,000 to 50,000 people per year. This is the average over the last few ...Missing: geophysical | Show results with:geophysical
  29. [29]
    Top 10 worst and deadliest natural disasters over the last 100 years
    Hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis lead to the deaths of around 60,000 people every year. According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk ...Missing: volcanoes | Show results with:volcanoes
  30. [30]
    Natural Disasters since 1900: Over 8 Million Deaths and 7 Trillion ...
    Apr 18, 2016 · More than seven trillion US dollars economic damage and eight million deaths via natural disasters since the start of the 20th century.
  31. [31]
    Natural Disasters Stats - Specialty Fuel Services
    Earthquakes are the deadliest among all natural disasters causing over 700K deaths or 58% between 2000-2021. 533 disaster events occured in the U.S. from 2000- ...
  32. [32]
    Lists, Maps, and Statistics | U.S. Geological Survey
    Worldwide, United States, and average annual statistics for earthquake counts. US and worldwide deaths per year. Earthquake counts by US State.World - M6+ in 2025 · Magnitude 8+ · World - M7+ in 2025 · Magnitude 7+
  33. [33]
    Earthquake Hazards Program | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
    The USGS monitors and reports on earthquakes, assesses earthquake impacts and hazards, and conducts targeted research on the causes and effects of earthquakes.
  34. [34]
    Which volcanic eruptions were the deadliest? | U.S. Geological Survey
    Deadliest Volcanic Eruptions Since 1500 A.D. Eruption Year Casualties Major Cause Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia 1985 25,0001,3 Mudflows3 Mont Pelée, ...
  35. [35]
    Natural Disasters & Environment: Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Floods
    In August 1883, the eruption of the main island of Krakatoa (or Krakatau) killed more than 36,000 people, making it one of the most devastating volcanic ...Missing: geophysical statistics
  36. [36]
    Volcano Hazards Program | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
    The mission of the USGS Volcano Hazards Program is to enhance public safety and minimize social and economic disruption from volcanic unrest and eruption.
  37. [37]
    The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492-1996
    The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492-1996. Climatology | Names ... NOAA Hurricane Research Division · Hurricane and Ocean Testbed · Hurricane ...
  38. [38]
    THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE UNITED ...
    All but six of the thirty deadliest hurricanes were major hurricanes. Four of those six were the inland flood-producing hurricanes Agnes, Diane and Floyd and ...
  39. [39]
    Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters
    The US sustained 403 weather and climate disasters from 1980–2024 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2024).Events · Summary Stats · Time Series · Disaster MappingMissing: geophysical | Show results with:geophysical
  40. [40]
    Persistence of pain in humans and other mammals - Journals
    Sep 23, 2019 · Beyond farm animals and rodent models, there is virtually no evidence of chronic pain in other mammals. Since evidence is sparse, it is hard to ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Defining pain and painful sentience in animals
    Jul 26, 2018 · Because proving painful sentience in non-human animals is not feasible, multiple lines of indirect evidence are needed to implicate pain.
  42. [42]
    The impact of nociception and pain: Implications for animal welfare ...
    The use of animals in nociception and pain studies has led to dramatic discoveries and has really fuelled our understanding of the basic biology of this ...<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    How do most wild animals die?
    Feb 25, 2025 · Predation accounts for more than 95% of documented deaths of juvenile reptiles, while adult reptiles are more likely to die in road traffic ...
  44. [44]
    The paradox of predation studies - PMC - NIH
    Oct 18, 2023 · We believe that predation studies often misrepresent predators as sufficient cause of death (or natural mortality) in ecological studies.
  45. [45]
    Malnutrition, hunger and thirst in wild animals - Animal Ethics
    This leads to a rise in the number of deaths due to predation. So, predation and malnutrition combine to cause suffering and death within animal populations.
  46. [46]
    Wildlife diseases: from individuals to ecosystems - Tompkins - 2011
    Aug 24, 2010 · We review our ecological understanding of wildlife infectious diseases from the individual host to the ecosystem scale, highlighting where ...
  47. [47]
    Wild animal suffering video course – Unit 3
    Trichomonosis. Wild birds commonly suffer from trichomonosis, a disease caused by parasites. It can be a debilitating and sometimes deadly disease that usually ...
  48. [48]
    Editorial: Wildlife parasitology: emerging diseases and neglected ...
    Jul 2, 2024 · Wild canids are known as important reservoirs of zoonotic parasitic infections. Uribe et al. investigated the presence of zoonotic helminths ...
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Why William Rowe's Argument from Natural Evil Fails
    Feb 14, 2015 · any evil at all; 2) Why are there the types and kinds of evils that there are; 3) Why is there the amount of evil that there is; 4) Why is there ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] The Logical Problem of Evil and the Limited God Defense - NSUWorks
    Feb 1, 2015 · Suffering of this sort is typically called “natural evil.” The LPE may rely on the claim that the occurrence of suffering in general is.
  51. [51]
    [PDF] The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism
    In the final part of the paper I discuss and defend the position of friendly atheism. Before we consider the argument from evil, we need to distinguish ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Rowe's Arguments from Evil - PhilArchive
    E1 is a clear case of natural evil—i.e., a case in which no human agents bear any responsibility for the resulting suffering. Since there have been mammals on ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] William Rowe on the Evidential Problem of Evil - University of Glasgow
    The argument for atheism based on evil: 1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby ...
  54. [54]
    The Theodicy of Augustine of Hippo - Scandalon
    This includes natural evil as well as moral evil. Natural evil has come about through an imbalance in nature brought about by the Fall. God's love for the ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY - RE:quest
    As God did not create evil,. Augustine postulated that evil was a 'privation of good ... 'Augustinian theodicy offers a good defense of God in the face of ...
  56. [56]
    Irenaeus' Theodicy - Scandalon
    Natural evil is when these laws come into conflict with our own perceived needs. There is no moral dimension to this. However, we can be sure of things in a ...<|separator|>
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Skeptical Theism and the Problem of Evil
    The evils they focus on are these: E3: the evil of there being a period of time during which a human who is capable of relating personally to. God and ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Skeptical Theism and Rowe's New Evidential Argument from Evil
    At the very least, it ap- pears that the challenge presented by skeptical theism to Rowe's original evi- dential argument from evil has contributed to his ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Evolutionary Theodicy - Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
    The main focus is on Southgate's evolutionary theodicy and the alternative proposal by Neil Messer. ... “Natural Evil after Darwin.” In Theology after Darwin, ...
  60. [60]
    CHRISTOPHER SOUTHGATE'S COMPOUND THEODICY
    Sep 2, 2018 · He points out that for Christians the suffering of creatures is both focused and exemplified in the cross of Jesus, and he embraces Niels ...
  61. [61]
    Natural Theology | Atheism and the Problem of Evil - Oxford Academic
    Draper, Paul, 'Natural Theology', Atheism and the Problem of Evil ( Oxford , 2025; online edn, Oxford Academic, 28 July 2025), https://doi.org/10.1093/ ...
  62. [62]
    Quentin Smith on why "evil natural laws" are evidence for atheism
    Mar 29, 2022 · It is mankind that is capable of the great evils and the great goods of the world. I don't believe in "evil" natural law, if a lion brings down ...
  63. [63]
    What is an earthquake and what causes them to happen? - USGS.gov
    An earthquake is caused by a sudden slip on a fault. The tectonic plates are always slowly moving, but they get stuck at their edges due to friction.
  64. [64]
    Plate Tectonics in a Nutshell
    More than 80% of the world's earthquakes and volcanoes occur along or near boundaries of the tectonic plates.
  65. [65]
    Plate tectonics and people [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]
    Jul 11, 2025 · Most earthquakes and volcanic eruptions do not strike randomly but occur in specific areas, such as along plate boundaries. One such area is ...
  66. [66]
    Evolution and the Origins of Disease
    Natural selection is unable to provide us with perfect protection against all pathogens, because they tend to evolve much faster than humans do. E. coli, for ...
  67. [67]
    Natural selection and infectious disease in human populations - PMC
    Common immune-mediated diseases may be partly caused by evolutionary adaptations for resistance and symbiosis with potentially dangerous microorganisms. For ...
  68. [68]
    The influence of evolutionary history on human health and disease
    Jan 6, 2021 · Nearly all genetic variants that influence disease risk have human-specific origins; however, the systems they influence have ancient roots.
  69. [69]
    Evolutionary reasons why suffering prevails in nature - Animal Ethics
    Population pressure can push animals into harsher environments than they are comfortable with, and many animals suffer injuries in their attempts to obtain the ...
  70. [70]
    Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common ...
    Apr 9, 2009 · This paper provides an overview of the basic process of natural selection, discusses the extent and possible causes of misunderstandings of the process,