The problem of natural evil is a derivative of the problem of evil so it is a good place to begin. As Rowe explains in The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism the problem of evil states that an omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being would prevent any evil in the world unless a greater good would be sacrificed or a greater evil permitted in the process. Since there are such preventable instances of suffering in the world it follows that an omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being cannot exist.
The general argument in the problem of natural evil is identical with that of the problem of evil, except that the “instances of evil” mentioned only apply to natural phenomena such as earthquakes, storms, tsunamis, etc.
It is a challenging problem if you consider the terrors of the Thailand tsunami in 2004 or the ancient volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius which annihilated Pompei. Such natural disasters have been responsible for the deaths of many innocent people, children and babies and it is hard to imagine an omniscient, wholly good being standing aside and letting such atrocities take place.
Responses to the Problem of Natural Evil
There have been many responses to this problem: the universe is better with some evil than with none, evil is necessary as a means to good and the free will response to name a few. Swinburne's response in The Problem of Evil is the most persuasive because it contains aspects of all three. He argues that free will is a good to which evil is a necessary means; but a worthwhile means because the world is a better place containing free will and evil than it would be if absent of both. That is, the free will response.
Problem with the Free Will Response
The most serious problem facing this response is that it necessarilly limits an "omnipotent" God's power. This is because the existence of natural evil does prove one thing: if there is an all good, omnipotent being then it could not have created a universe with any different laws of nature to those that exist, because it could not break logical contradictions. In which case it seems wrong that the creator of this universe would have been tied by the very laws that it is supposed to have created. For more information please see Omnipotence and Natural Evil.
Problem of Natural Evil & the Existence of God
In conclusion the best way to get around the problem of evil is to posit evil as a necessary means to achieving good ends. Swinburne's response to the problem is attractive because it allows for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being; however it faces the problem that free will seems to be a human trait and as such Swinburne's response does not answer why God would have created natural evil millions of years before humanity came into being.
A more conclusive problem is that evil should not be a necessary means for an omnipotent being because such a being would have created the logical laws in the first place. Why then would it create laws where evil is necessary as a means to good?
 |
