BBC - If God exists, why did he allow the Haiti earthquake

[roger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8467755.stm

Kind of an interesting article, in that the author (philosopher Bain) doesn't allow the religious to get away with hand waving arguments such as "God works in mysterious ways". I particularly like the quote from a US Bishop: "I have nothing to say that makes sense of this horror - all I know is that the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus is that he is with us". Not that I agree with the quote (being atheist) but at least he is intellectually honest enough to admit he cannot explain it. Yes, one would wish that he'd take the next step in reasoning, but if horses were vicious, rides would go begging, or something like that.

However, when I read all this, it still strikes me just how simplistic and silly all the reasoning is. Bad things make us good. So, should I go rape your daughter - it'll make you grow spiritually!

The comments are particularly lamentable. One person suggests the 'solution' of buddhism - the people are being punished for what they did in their past life. This sound moral to this person!!! Punish somebody for something they did when 1) they don't remember doing it 2) can't learn anything from the punishment.

It's just all so ugly. I don't understand how people can think such things make an ounce of sense.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The way I rationalised it when I was a christian was that in order for human beings to evolve, the earth/universe had to be created in a particular way, with particular laws of nature, and that the bad things that happened were a consequence of those laws, just as the evolution of humans was a consequence. You couldn't have the good without the bad.

Not an entirely successful rationalisation, given that I'm not a believer anymore.

 

[uruk]

It's just the human desire to find meaning or purpose in what to us is a tragic event such as this. The religious appologetics is to reconcile the event with thier notions of god. Cognitive dissonance is par-for-the-course.

From a devils advocate position, what happened in Haiti does not preclude the existance of god. It just makes most of the currently popular views of god contradictory.

If there is a god, there is nothing to suggest that a god would particularly care at the loss, or that the loss of human life has the same meaning to it as it does to us. ("Bigger picture" and all that business.)

There is nothing to suggest that a god has to comply with our limited notions or understanding.

Does that make this type of a non-interactive god the same as "no god"? To us, certainly. But that means nothing to it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It's not even just you or that new. Leibniz managed to even argue it probability terms, but the idea that this is the best possible world is a lot older than that. I mean, even Augustine essentially argued that anything better than this would involve not giving you free will, and that obviously would be worse.

What gets my goat, though, is that at the same time religion tells us that God has _already_ created a better world. And will again in the end times. Unless you want to believe that you'll have to deal with the same crap in Heavens too, and then everyone will be resurrected to deal with the same kind of crap all over again. And apparently both don't violate free will, either.

I still don't see how people reconcile "this is the best possible world" with "God has already created a far better one." How does "far better than best" work anyway?

 

[plumjam]

The comments are particularly lamentable. One person suggests the 'solution' of buddhism - the people are being punished for what they did in their past life. This sound moral to this person!!! Punish somebody for something they did when 1) they don't remember doing it 2) can't learn anything from the punishment.

Bit of a sidetrack, but if someone committed a capital offence, and became an amnesiac between committing the crime and turning up at trial, would their amnesia be reasonable grounds for dropping the charges?

 

[godless dave]

They wouldn't have such a problem if they didn't insist that the God of nature was the same God who gave comfort and inspiration to humans. Polytheism really makes a lot more sense in that respect.

 

[uruk]

The way I rationalised it when I was a christian was that in order for human beings to evolve, the earth/universe had to be created in a particular way, with particular laws of nature, and that the bad things that happened were a consequence of those laws, just as the evolution of humans was a consequence. You couldn't have the good without the bad.

Not an entirely successful rationalisation, given that I'm not a believer anymore.

I had that same notion during my affair with religion. God created the univers according to a set of rules. The events that happend in Haiti are a consequence of those rules. This still does not quite jive with the Christian view of an interactive god who has intervened rather obstensibly in the past. Or so the the Bible says.

If you get that idea and leave out the god part and just go with the "consequence of the rules" you get the same outcome both in nature and human response.

 

[uruk]

Bit of a sidetrack, but if someone committed a capital offence, and became an amnesiac between committing the crime and turning up at trial, would their amnesia be reasonable grounds for dropping the charges?

Is there a legal precedance? Has someone tried to use this in court? Seems like something that might be google-able.

And it seems it is:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=amnesia+defense&aq=0&oq=amnesia+defens&aqi=g1

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/4/541

 

[a3sigma]

My Christian cousins patiently explain to me that all of the pain, suffering, and misfortune in the world is due to the existence of sin in the world. In heaven, they tell me, there will be no sin, neither the opportunity, nor desire to sin. Ergo, no pain, suffering... etc.

This explanation seems satisfactory to them.

DC

 

[roger]

Bit of a sidetrack, but if someone was found guilty of a capital offence, and had become an amnesiac between committing the crime and turning up at trial, would their amnesia be reasonable grounds for dropping the charges?

Well, our justice system is built on the idea of rehabilitation along with preserving the safety of society. If the person is still in their heart a murderer, then they still need to be removed from society, and hopefully rehabilitated (I'm not aware of any evidence that we actually have any idea of how to rehabilitate a murderer, but that is a separate topic). But if in your hypothetical they are now essentially a different person, a law abiding one with decent morals (like the hundreds of thousands of dead in Haiti right now), why on earth would we still punish them?


And this is what annoys me about these arguments. That's a pretty trivial conclusion to draw. It's like punishing a pig to death for killing it's owner. It's not particularly rational or humane.

In any case it's not my intention to argue the premise, but merely to share an article with like minded people. Just like one can discuss the best way to implement the Bush doctrine without being obligated to discuss Obama's stance on world politics.

 

[Beerina]

The way I rationalised it when I was a christian was that in order for human beings to evolve, the earth/universe had to be created in a particular way, with particular laws of nature, and that the bad things that happened were a consequence of those laws, just as the evolution of humans was a consequence. You couldn't have the good without the bad.

Not an entirely successful rationalisation, given that I'm not a believer anymore.

Don't need gravity to be so bad. Don't need flies and bugs eating the eyes of starving babies. Pain doesn't need to be so...painful. Don't need to hide assurance of life after death from people.

 

[plumjam]

Is there a legal precedance? Has someone tried to use this in court? Seems like something that might be google-able.

And it seems it is:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=amnesia+defense&aq=0&oq=amnesia+defens&aqi=g1

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/4/541

Well, I was using it more as a philosophical point, but thanks for the links.
From the second one:

The psychologist went on to opine that he "did not have a mental illness impairing his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct" at the time of his alleged offenses.

I think that gets to the nub of it. Even if you are amnesiac / reincarnated, it doesn't get you off the moral hook, so long as you were mentally competent to know you were doing something wrong at the time you decided to do it.
This fits with normal moral intuition, I reckon.
Anyway, I don't want to derail, so I'll withdraw.

 

[roger]

I had that same notion during my affair with religion. God created the univers according to a set of rules. The events that happend in Haiti are a consequence of those rules. This still does not quite jive with the Christian view of an interactive god who has intervened rather obstensibly in the past. Or so the the Bible says.

If you get that idea and leave out the god part and just go with the "consequence of the rules" you get the same outcome both in nature and human response.

See, and there my mind still boggles. Rules is rules. You aren't supposed to jaywalk, so let's not rescue that baby that just crawled out into the interstate. That would be monstrous to allow to occur. Yet somehow, even though we are as babes as regards all this God stuff, he let's that **** happen to make us stronger, to follow the rules, or whatever nitwit explanation might be offered.

edit: I'm not calling you a nitwit. Sorry if I happened to offend. I held similar vague ideas during the brief time I was religious

 

[TimCallahan]

Concerning natural disasters on a personal scale, I once read a book on why God would allow birth defects and genetic diseases. The author concluded that God allowed them "for his glory." The translation of this bit of assinine jargon seems to be that we will care more for each other in the face of such adversity, drawing us not only closer to each other, but to God as well.

Putting this glibly heartless doctrine in practical terms, one woud say to a woman who has just lost a baby whose existence was not only brief, but filled with pain, "God gave your baby Tay-Sach syndrome, for his glory, i.e. so that you could become a more caring mother."

 

[kuroyume0161]

Bit of a sidetrack, but if someone committed a capital offence, and became an amnesiac between committing the crime and turning up at trial, would their amnesia be reasonable grounds for dropping the charges?

There would be 'evidence' that the amnesiac committed the offense and that evidence would be used during trial to determine the guilt of that person.

On the other hand, there is no evidence of past lives or reincarnation so using that to explain or even force the continuation of a person's suffering is reprehensible. Restitution is demanded more than simply 'dropping the charges'.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

The comments are particularly lamentable. One person suggests the 'solution' of buddhism - the people are being punished for what they did in their past life. This sound moral to this person!!!

I love meeting people who believe this. I punch them in the face and steal their wallet. By their own logic, they must have done something to deserve it.

 

[plumjam]

I love meeting people who believe this. I punch them in the face and steal their wallet. By their own logic, they must have done something to deserve it.

And you'll have just booked yourself a front-row seat for the 2128 Tampico earthquake, which is gonna be an 8.2.
Nice place to be crushed though.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

And you'll have just booked yourself a front-row seat for the 2128 Tampico earthquake, which is gonna be an 8.2.
Nice place to be crushed though.

If my liver holds out that long...

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Not long ago, my mam lent me a book she said was really good. It was The Shack which is supposedly about reconciling the idea of a loving God and suffering in the world. Needless to say, the "arguments" in it were ones that you could drive a truck through. Either she's going senile and has forgotten I'm an atheist, or it just didn't occur to her that I wouldn't love the book regardless. She's not the type to give it to me to try to persuade me back to the fold.

 

[WaterBreather]

If God exists, why did he allow the Haiti earthquake?
...
to prove that death is not the worst fate
death proves life
if we lived in an immortal paradise forever
we would not value life
with the same
exquisite aftertaste
that the possibility of death inspires
...
that does not mean one should pursue death and sin as the pedophile suggests
...
down exists because up requires it to
but birds do not need to fly headfirst into the ground to prove this
...
;-j