The Argument of Natural Horrors?

John takes another jab at the imperfections found in nature (so to speak), as he commonly does, in which he attempts to make it out that the Christian God (or at least a benevolent and loving one) would not create a natural world filled with predation, poisonous creatures, and parasites.

I really have little to no interest going into detail about theology or what exactly "God" is, or how it correlates with Christian doctrines. Perhaps there is some God out there beyond what religious texts may describe, and it's in this case that Christianity is not exclusive in its authority, even if we were to lend credence to the resurrection of Christ as valid and true. As Mohandas Gandhi once said: "The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different."

Should we really expect that world full of these organisms could possibly be classified as imperfect? Not even that; could the existence of these organisms be proof in and of themselves that because the world is unfeeling and cruel, that a loving God is impossibly comprehensible, and at most, non-existent?

I'm going with no. It's probably been brought to John's attention before, but the existence of these animals and microbes is not enough to support a conclusion such as this. Just by natural study alone, and from basic ecology, these types of organisms have to exist in order to regulate the reproductivity of an entire population. Nature, by mere intuitional knowledge, is not limitless in its supplies and resources, as with every other aspect of life (which is essentially, what this discussion is concerning). I suppose that John could then argue that God should have just set the stage for creating an endless abundance of goods and necessities in order to prevent this from happening. And while Young Earth Creationism provides an answer for this theologically, there is so much violation of scientific inquiry involved that it cannot be regarded as such, or even remotely related.

There are two other counter-points to this apparent "problem": 1) Survival is brought up through some fatalities; competetition must thrive in nature in order for specific species to occupy their own particular niches', and no two species can share the same niche', it is theirs alone, 2) Without standards of fairness, you have an established hierarchy which gives way to proper recycling of natural resources and matter itself (i.e., the food chain).

Can John really state that if two animals occupy the same niche' which happens to be (hypothetically speaking) in endless abundance, that these animals will live in a state of what could be considered perfection? In a world that must occupied by speciality in almost every aspect of life, you cannot logically expect for there to be no competetive strive. It will always exist. Even if you were to imagine a world where two species could occupy the same niche' without any problems, how on Earth could they be two different species, and for what purpose? Where is the unique eccentricity to nature when such circumstances become the order of operations? Without niches, you lose variability. Without variability, there can be no sense of awe, and without a sense of awe, the world becomes boring and dull.

So in all actuality, the processes of natural selection and evolution do not do major disjustice to religion. In some ways, they complement it.Inevitably, there are allot of uncomfortable details involved in the grand scheme of things, but that's to be expected. Here's a connection to make: Consider the economic system of the United States of America. We are a nation that bases its economic power on competition. For the mostpart, a person either succeeds or fails by their financial management skills and competence, and especially their methodology of business marketing. At times, it becomes the case that a large corporation delibrately chooses to wipe out its much smaller and more significantly underfunded competitors just to open up oppurutnities for a concealed monopoly of sorts. One such example is Wal Mart, for instance.

Sympathizing for those who can't compete and are forced to exit the market isn't going to change the reality of the situation. We can't use emotional reasoning in hopes that reality will magically conform. Surely John must realize this as an atheist, so this argument in fact might as well be chucked into the trash. Why? Let's put yourself in a situation where every individual was to receive equal pensions and wages, and everything was at a "fair" level...But hold on! We've heard of this before? Where?!! Oh of course, the Soviet Union!

Luckily, I happen to live in a country where freedom is not only respected, it is advocated and actively practiced (depending on what sector and particular demographic you're referring too, of course...). My country's basic governmental philosophy is democracy. We believe that freedom encompasses most of the nation's individual sectors (the military is limited significantly and is not covered by the same principles of freedom as stated in the Constitution). Our free-market system allows people to enter into business management and to basically compete with other businesses using their own innovative ideas, services, and products, and how they choose to offer this to the consumer populace. Consumers are after that which is most efficient as a product, is the most practical as a service, and is the most creative as an idea. So, our basics for democratic freedom coupled with our economy give businesses independence from the government unlike our Communist and Socialist counterparts, which in turn leaves individual businesses operating on all different levels of what consumers would together as a population consider to be of efficient quality. Businesses in many ways will either meet the demands of consumers, or will cease in operation. While we have been granted equal rights of freedom as citizens, we must also occupy our niches in determining our own successes, and sometimes many of us just end up getting slaughtered in the end. It's not a truth we want to face sometimes, but it is the reality of the situation.

A common answer to the debate over Free Will (which also ties into what John is talking about here) is that "God didn't intend for mankind to be made up of robots, so he gave us free will to make the right or wrong decision." In a way, this just might be the answer, (although he may not appreciate it) to his question, assertion, or whatever. The U.S. government allows us to make the right or wrong decisions, and we as a country are considered to be the most free nation in the world. Clearly, choosing the hypothetical, and essentially crafting it after a model country such as Russia or China, would be restrictive of freedoms, variation, and would replace it with conformity and boring dullness. Therefore, the natural world and all of its death-related situations, ends up being a rather nice place to live in.