Monte Carlo dose calculations will potentially reduce systematic errors that may be present in currently used dose calculation algorithms. However, Monte Carlo calculations inherently contain random errors, or statistical uncertainty, the level of which decreases inversely with the square root of computation time. Our purpose in this study was to determine the level of uncertainty at which a lung treatment plan is clinically acceptable. The evaluation methods to decide acceptability were visual examination of both isodose lines on CT scans and dose volume histograms (DVHs), and reviewing calculated biological indices. To study the effect of systematic and/or random errors on treatment plan evaluation, a simulated "error-free" reference plan was used as a benchmark. The relationship between Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty and dose was found to be approximately proportional to the square root of the dose. Random and systematic errors were applied to a calculated lung plan, creating dose distributions with statistical uncertainties of between 0% and 16% (1 s.d.) at the maximum dose point and also distributions with systematic errors of -16% to 16% at the maximum dose point. Critical structure DVHs and biological indices are less sensitive to calculation uncertainty than those of the target. Systematic errors affect plan evaluation accuracy significantly more than random errors, suggesting that Monte Carlo dose calculation will improve outcomes in radiotherapy. A statistical uncertainty of 2% or less does not significantly affect isodose lines, DVHs, or biological indices.