How is that apparent? Because my opinion differs from yours (or theirs)? No, I have not "brushed them aside." I have given them due consideration, examined their arguments, and come to my own conclusions. (Conclusions, by the way, which many other reputable persons share.) Isn't that what a thinking person is supposed to do? Use their critical thinking faculties?
Then, how do you as an atheist (I’m making this assumption, so if I’m wrong, please correct me) account for evil [...]
To begin with, the word "evil" is highly charged and also vague. Specifically, since you are asking about "Evil" with a capital "E" - I know that you didn't spell it that way, but the lack of a qualifier like "certain" (as in "certain evils") or of a restrictive subordinate clause (as in "evil caused by natural forces" or "evil attributable to Man") forces me to infer what you meant. So, for the purpose of my reply, let me make it clear that I am referring - not to moral evil - but rather to natural catastrophes.
So, how do I account for natural catastrophes (earthquakes, etc.)?
Ask a geologist! He can explain why we have earthquakes far better than I.
By the way, many "thoughful Christian thinkers" - including the present Pope - also believe that natural catastrophes have natural causes. Also that solar eclipses are not caused by a dragon swallowing the sun...
[...] and what comfort can you give those who are enduring suffering and catastrophes?
How would I comfort a victim of such catastrophes? I would try to alleviate their material suffering and be of good cheer! I would also attempt to take concrete measures to protect us all against such catastrophes (installing tsunami warning systems, etc.)
Regards,
re: “How is that apparent? Because my opinion differs from yours (or theirs)?”
No - because you implied that because disease and catastrophes exist - therefore God is sadistic - without any supporting arguments. I completely agree with you that a thinking person should give due consideration and examine arguments, but you gave no indication that you had done so.
Now, you’ve just said you did and I take your word for it.
So, which Christian thinkers’ books and essays dealing with the subject of suffering and pain (and catastrophes) did you read and consider and examine? Where did you feel their arguments fell short? Just curious.
re: “let me make it clear that I am referring - not to moral evil - but rather to natural catastrophes.”
I stand corrected. However, your use of the word, “catastrophe” implies something “bad” has occured. If earthquakes or floods are all merely “natural” events, just part of the naturalistic universe - then why use the word “catastrophe”? If thousands of people happen to be killed in an earthquake, isn’t this just part of the naturally occuring struggle for “survival” - weaning out the weak and making room for more successful organisms?
re: “By the way, many “thoughful Christian thinkers” - including the present Pope - also believe that natural catastrophes have natural causes.”
I also agree that catastrophes can have natural causes.
re: “Also that solar eclipses are not caused by a dragon swallowing the sun...”
Where did I ever say that? Where does the Bible say that?
re: “How would I comfort a victim of such catastrophes? I would try to alleviate their material suffering and be of good cheer! I would also attempt to take concrete measures to protect us all against such catastrophes (installing tsunami warning systems, etc.)”
Those are all admirable things to do, however, that is not what I’m asking. That is my fault and I should have been more clear myself in my question.
I’m still unclear as to why you should be upset for victims of “catastrophes” - weren’t they just organisms who happened to be in the “wrong” place when the natural earthquake occured? Why is that a bad thing? Why help them? If children die isn’t that just part of living in a naturalistic world? Why try to cheer them up? Why try to create better warning systems? What’s the purpose of that? To save people’s lives? Why is that a good thing?