I see Nature is neither inherently “good” nor inherently “evil”. I see her as amoral and impartial. Judgments like “good” or “evil” are context-dependent and arise from an observer who has a certain perspective of the scene.
Nature does some pretty “awful” things like giving terminal bone cancer to babies, having a mother gazelle watch as a lion eats the intestines of her still crying baby, etc.
So while we can point to Nature’s beauty, harmony, and love and call that “good” — we can just as easily point to her decay, pain, and suffering and call that “bad”.
But I see Nature as neither [or both at once] — because she must be taken in the totality of all things.
You couldn’t highlight the good bits and call her “benevolent Mother” — and you couldn’t highlight the nasty bits and call her “scorned Witch”. There’s an impartial balance and a refusal to “take sides” in Nature.
Nature does some pretty “awful” things like giving terminal bone cancer to babies, having a mother gazelle watch as a lion eats the intestines of her still crying baby, etc.
So while we can point to Nature’s beauty, harmony, and love and call that “good” — we can just as easily point to her decay, pain, and suffering and call that “bad”.
But I see Nature as neither [or both at once] — because she must be taken in the totality of all things.
You couldn’t highlight the good bits and call her “benevolent Mother” — and you couldn’t highlight the nasty bits and call her “scorned Witch”. There’s an impartial balance and a refusal to “take sides” in Nature.