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

[bobcarp]

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

You should tell your friend that there were earthquakes millions of years before humans were around to sin and there will be earthquakes millions of years after humans are gone. Did the asteroid or whatever killed off the dinosaurs occur because of their sinful ways?

 

[AvalonXQ]

You should tell your friend that there were earthquakes millions of years before humans were around to sin and there will be earthquakes millions of years after humans are gone. Did the asteroid or whatever killed off the dinosaurs occur because of their sinful ways?

Yes. The dinosaurs were killed off because you like dinosaurs, and you're a filthy sinner.
REPENT.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Yes. The dinosaurs were killed off because you like dinosaurs, and you're a filthy sinner.
REPENT.

You know AvalonXQ, sometimes the men don't know when you're acting.

 

[a3sigma]

You should tell your friend that there were earthquakes millions of years before humans were around to sin and there will be earthquakes millions of years after humans are gone. Did the asteroid or whatever killed off the dinosaurs occur because of their sinful ways?

No good. Their rationale applies only to human sin and suffering. And, of course, the universe is only 6,000 years old. And, after the Rapture, there is no future time.

It all makes perfect sense, it you accept a few absurd premises. And there's no arguing with those who do.


DC

 

[Robin]

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.

Well suppose there was a God, and God wanted to create beings exactly like you and me (and the rest of the human race).

In order to do so he has to create a world exactly as it is right now, otherwise you and I (and the rest of the human race) would not be exactly as we are now.

 

[Robin]

You know AvalonXQ, sometimes the men don't know when you're acting.

C.S. Lewis, in Problem of Pain, quite seriously advanced the thesis that animals might have had their own "Fall" prior to Man's "Fall".

Being a clever writer he masked the silliness of the idea by inventing an even sillier objection to it and answering the objection with a witty comeback.

 

[quarky]

Possible explanation in reply to the OP, under the assumption that God was involved in this earthquake directly, as in "OK, today, earthquake in Port Au Prince, for this reason ____:"

Voodoo pisses Him off.

DR

Voodoo really is a pisser for the Haitians. I'd go so far as to say its their #1 problem. Spirits have too much control on fate and destiny in many minds there.

I hate to say it, but the Haitians would be better off if they all found the LDS church. Or even Scientology.

 

[blobru]

C.S. Lewis, in Problem of Pain, quite seriously advanced the thesis that animals might have had their own "Fall" prior to Man's "Fall".

Being a clever writer he masked the silliness of the idea by inventing an even sillier objection to it and answering the objection with a witty comeback.

Abiogenesis 3:7+ -- And so the amoeba, having been tempted by the subtil virus, did eat of the forbidden bacterium; and God, being wroth, split it in two, saying: "thus shall ye reproduce, protozoan! And if your kids ever evolve anything different, I'll do them, too! Now slink the hell out of here; and don't let the grate hit you on the pseudopod!"

 

[Legato]

Hi Legato.
Since you're playing God's advocate here, I'll take the Devil's side:

Ah, my ancient sparring partner!

-- yet the prevention or mitigation of natural disasters doesn't logically compromise human free will.

God has infinite knowledge, and infinite power, but he is also infinitely benevolent. He knows all possible universes. He chose the best one logically and physically possible which still allows free will. My point is that this is a possible explanation for natural disasters, that it's logically possible for a God to be all-knowing, all powerful and all-good, and yet there be disasters.

-- yet "evil" is experienced locally, through the senses, in time (the supposed perfection of the whole notwithstanding).



-- if it is "as of nothing", why have it in the first place? why is suffering necessary?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. Reward is infinite, suffering is transient, and it is the minimum required for both free will and the best of all possible worlds.

-- and every baby born deserving torment: this theodicy seems more evil than what it seeks to explain.

The most sensible theistic solution to the problem of evil, I think, is that god is not all-powerful. But then, of course, is god really "God"? (And so on...)

I agree that giving up one of the big three would do the trick; each one giving slightly different consequences for the universe. I do like Manichaeism - it makes a lot more sense.

 

[paiute]

Duh

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". .

In case you haven't been paying attention for the last century or so, it is pretty clear that God just freaking hates Haiti.

 

[blobru]

Hi Legato.
Since you're playing God's advocate here, I'll take the Devil's side:

Ah, my ancient sparring partner!

How's Job?

-- yet the prevention or mitigation of natural disasters doesn't logically compromise human free will.

God has infinite knowledge, and infinite power, but he is also infinitely benevolent. He knows all possible universes. He chose the best one logically and physically possible which still allows free will. My point is that this is a possible explanation for natural disasters, that it's logically possible for a God to be all-knowing, all powerful and all-good, and yet there be disasters.

"But God, ye olde sod," I might say to your colleague if He existed, "with infinite power, you could create a universe of infinite delight; yet I stubbed my toe this morning, and have a tender tooth; not to mention Haiti, etc. Infinite delight incompatible with free will? Then how about almost infinite delight? Ye know, without the stubbed toe, tender tooth, Haiti, etc. Just the occasional slightly less than perfect breeze off the slightly less than perfect lake by the not quite perfectly burbling trout stream, almost but not quite ideal thrushsong in the o so close to flawlessly straight and shady pine; the strawberry daiquiri an iota too tart for impossibly superb, the reading matter a gnat's whisker short of absolutely absorbing, the companionship a plank's length shy of rapturously divine (that extra freckle on the bridge of her cleopatrine nose, lapses from impeccable Parisienne ululating your name). C'mon, God, no more mystery -- what's the point?"

-- yet "evil" is experienced locally, through the senses, in time (the supposed perfection of the whole notwithstanding).


-- if it is "as of nothing", why have it in the first place? why is suffering necessary?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. Reward is infinite, suffering is transient, and it is the minimum required for both free will and the best of all possible worlds.

Must be my precious "free will" that refuses to make the necessary connexion between it and an earthquake.

-- and every baby born deserving torment: this theodicy seems more evil than what it seeks to explain.

The most sensible theistic solution to the problem of evil, I think, is that god is not all-powerful. But then, of course, is god really "God"? (And so on...)

I agree that giving up one of the big three would do the trick; each one giving slightly different consequences for the universe. I do like Manichaeism - it makes a lot more sense.

Sense? If one "perfect" god can't even waylay an earthquake, or fix me a daiquiri, two are going to be a total cockup!

 

[Aepervius]

Ah, my ancient sparring partner!



God has infinite knowledge, and infinite power, but he is also infinitely benevolent.

All Gods also have a zero finite size. Multiplying the power by the size to find out gods's energy and possibility of acting, we find it to be zero, therefore agreeing with our observation of non-intervention of gods into natural affair. QED.

 

[Legato]

blobru,

The point is that your near-perfect world is not one of the logically, physically possible ones. I wish it were. I like a good daiquiri as much as the next advocate. Plus, doesn't it taste a little more piquant with a dash of someone else's suffering. For it to be possible for people to do good, be good, there have to be challenges and suffering. Free will to do good or evil cannot exist without these choices. Think of all the good that is being done in Haiti as we speak, the number who have turned from their evils ways? The rest will have received their just infinite reward.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . Think of all the good that is being done in Haiti as we speak, the number who have turned from their evils ways? The rest will have received their just infinite reward.

This is the old argument that God either creates or allows disasters and birth defects "for his glory," a bit of jargon that, if I read it right, means what you say in the quote above, i.e. it makes people care for each other and turn, in their weakness, to God. However, as I've already pointed out, there's enough suffering in everyday life, including particularly the pain of berevement, to draw us closer together. There's also enough human-caused suffering - everything from single murders all the up to genocides - to make people realized that life is precious. If these aren't enough, I doubt natural disasters are going to do the trick.

I can also turn your idea of "all the good being done in Haiti" on its head: Think of all the people who once believed and who are now bitterly disillusioned. Is a man who pulls the lifeless body of his child from the rubble that was once his home really going to be drawn closer to God?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I can also turn your idea of "all the good being done in Haiti" on its head: Think of all the people who once believed and who are now bitterly disillusioned. Is a man who pulls the lifeless body of his child from the rubble that was once his home really going to be drawn closer to God?

Actually, yes, some are. And some aren't.
But extreme circumstances require us to think hard and make real choices. They are a catalyst for the testing of faith that has become complacent as well as a birthplace for new faith.

 

[Marduk]

What's so hard to understand?

Sure, God hates Haitians, yes...


But he hates a damn Kurd, too, right?

The Big white God only loves white people, its so obvious, when was the last time there was a natural disaster that affected mainly white people of European descent ?

now that we know this we need to station white folk in predominantly black areas as a human shield, I volunteer to cover the Caribbean

 

[quarky]

The Big white God only loves white people, its so obvious, when was the last time there was a natural disaster that affected mainly white people of European descent ?

now that we know this we need to station white folk in predominantly black areas as a human shield, I volunteer to cover the Caribbean

I like the way you think.

 

[DOC]

God causes us all to die. Some just die sooner. Natural Disasters could be a way God gives us wake up call as to the brevity and fragility of life. Otherwise we just might float along with our nihilistic tendencies until our deathbed.

It's easy to forget God when your in good health with money in the bank.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

These discussions bring one of my favorites to mind ..


American Gun (2002)


Pastor: " Remember, the Lord doesn't give us a greater burden than we can bear. "

Martin Tillman: ( His daughter was shot and killed in a random act of violence )

" You mean if I were a weaker person, Penny would be alive? "

 

[blobru]

blobru,

The point is that your near-perfect world is not one of the logically, physically possible ones. I wish it were. I like a good daiquiri as much as the next advocate. Plus, doesn't it taste a little more piquant with a dash of someone else's suffering. For it to be possible for people to do good, be good, there have to be challenges and suffering. Free will to do good or evil cannot exist without these choices. Think of all the good that is being done in Haiti as we speak, the number who have turned from their evils ways? The rest will have received their just infinite reward.

Legato: God, if She/He/It/They existed, would have done well to chose such an advocate (are you with Leibniz, Lewis & Sons?); your arguments are faithful restatements of their well-known apologies. And so too, unfortunately, are they every bit as illogical and unconvincing.

I won't deny the piquant savour, savoir of an enemy savior at saber-tip, yet the Haitians are not my enemies. You say, in defense of God's existence, they "have received their... reward": gone on to a better place, one presumes. Yet when I describe this better place, you tell me it is not "logically, physically possible", that it can't ever exist. Then... where have they gone? If this is, really, the best of all possible worlds... hasn't heaven gone all to hell?

And my free will does just fine, thank you, in daiquiri-land. There are endless choices -- a little more rum, little less juice; less fruit, more ice -- endless obstacles -- "(where do we keep the cocktail shaker?) Honey!" -- endless suffering -- "whoops... almost dropped a strawberry" -- all possible without the benefit of earthquakes. But even if, by God's mysterious logic, we can't have our drink and drink it too, can we not have earthquakes also... just this once... please? There's lots and lots of other good to do, improvements to make. It doesn't always have to come from evil.

Or ever, for that matter.