Theodicy in Disguise: Metaphysical Naturalism and the Justification of Evil and Suffering

This proposal articulates a rather odd theodicy- naturalistic theodicy. More specifically, metaphysical naturalistic theodicy. It is odd because of the obvious. Metaphysical naturalism is the position that “nature is all there is and there is no God.”[1] As it pertains to evil and suffering, they are inescapable stubborn facts of reality. Based on Darwinian evolutionary theories, Michael Ruse, for instance, states that pain and suffering are intrinsic to the fabric of life and not incidental factors in the evolutionary process.[2] Curiously, this nontheistic approach to evil and suffering reflects similar features of conventional theodicy. In exploring natural evil from a naturalistic perspective, for example, one may conclude that if God wanted to create free organism through the natural process of evolution, suffering, violence, and conflict were unavoidable. This is not to say that metaphysical naturalism is secretly espousing a theism (even in an alternative form). It is simply an example of the ultimate objective of metaphysical naturalistic theodicy, i.e. the justification of evil and suffering. There is no real problem of evil. There is only how human beings must deal with the natural order that brings pain and suffering.

The primary issue here is not merely a rejection of theism. Rather, the issue is that metaphysical naturalism provides justification and meaning to evil and suffering which is equivalent to the goals of theodicies. The meaning and justification of suffering is that it what it is, it is how we develop and struggle for survival. To say that suffering is a natural part of the world denotes basic acceptance. If “survival of the fittest” (through violence, dominance, luck, etc.) is all there is, then the various forms in which these actions for survival take are not unjust, evil, or indictable. They are natural and should be excepted amongst the human species. It is acceptable for persons who are marginalized from technological advances to be left behind. It is acceptable for one group’s wellbeing to be prized over the other. It is acceptable for certain segments of the population to shield itself from the effects of climate change at the expense of other segments. And this applies to a spectrum of other social forms of oppression and exclusion.

Metaphysical naturalism is void of key theological principles regarding evil and suffering: 1) evil and suffering are contrary to intended divine purposes for the world, 2) a constitutive moral nature of the universe, and 3) the responsibility of God and humanity to fight against, transform, and/or eliminate evil and suffering. Drawing from American Pragmatic tradition (especially philosophy of Charles Peirce), this presentation will explicate the various ways metaphysical naturalism exhibits theodicy tendencies and how these features provide cover for acts of oppression and exclusion. It will also outline an alternative approach to evil and suffering that both takes suffering seriously and articulate a metaphysical framework for transformative actions against evil and suffering.    

[1]Michael Ruse, “Naturalism, evil and God” in Chad Meister and Paul K. Moser, eds. The Cambridge Companion to The Problem of Evil (Cambridge University Press, 2017), 249.

[2] Ibid, 255.