Why would God allow the Tsunami

[iain]

A question that been asked (even by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England) is why an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow people to suffer in the Tsunami.

Since then I've heard a large number of religious commentators telling my that this is a silly question to ask. They point out, quite rightly, that thousands of people die every day, that life seems unfair, that the question is not a new one. They tell me how God is with the survivors and with the victims, how God can help us through this tragedy.

The one think I haven't heard any of them do is answer the question. I don't want this thread to be an atheist/Christian slanging match; I am genuinely interested in the Christian answer to the question of why an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving God allows suffering, even when that suffering has no human cause and is not related to the moral goodness or religious beliefs of the sufferers.

 

[Iacchus]

Why? I suppose for the same reason that He's allowed Tsunamis to come ashore since time immemorial. Of course this may sound very naturalistic, but this is the natural world we're speaking of here. But then again if there was no transcendent spiritual world which rises above the natural (hence no God), our suffering would have amounted to nothing, and would cease upon death ... Either that or, we each find what we want most in the afterlife, in which case that becomes the means of relieving our suffering as well.

 

[elle_inquisitor]

When I have posed this question two responses I have heard is " God must have a very good reason and as humans we can not possibly comprehend" and " they are in a much better place now". Neither has provided me with much comfort.

 

[geni]

Wll you could argue this was a good thing;. The preeure had to be released some time and it was better that it was now than say in ten years time when the earthquake would have been even bigger. Ok so this argument has nothing to do with god but does show that there are other factors to consider.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I read another religious explanation in my newspaper today, essentially, it was identical to that of Iacchus: God made a freely functioning world, wit hfreely functioning people in it.

As all religious explanations that are logically consistent with the real world, it suffers from only one fault: It is indistinguishable from materialism, except from it's abstract and unsuported claim of a deity.

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

I read another religious explanation in my newspaper today, essentially, it was identical to that of Iacchus: God made a freely functioning world, wit hfreely functioning people in it.

As all religious explanations that are logically consistent with the real world, it suffers from only one fault: It is indistinguishable from materialism, except from it's abstract and unsuported claim of a deity.

Hans

And yet how do we know anything without the abstractness of mind? If we understood this, then we would understand that not even materialism is supportable. So, there's plenty of room for God there too.

 

[Dub]

Wll you could argue this was a good thing;. The preeure had to be released some time and it was better that it was now than say in ten years time when the earthquake would have been even bigger. Ok so this argument has nothing to do with god but does show that there are other factors to consider.

A good thing??? I heard this warped logic shortly after 9/11 too. People were 9/11 could have been worse because more people could have been in the buildings, more planes, and even that it could have been a nuclear bomb. Almost every situation 'could' have been worse. I'm sure all the people that lost their homes, loved ones, entire family and their lives are reassured because 'it could have been worse'.

 

[Dub]

I have read from several religious commentators that this happened because God merely created the natural world and now allows it to run on its own accord. This however, is inconsistent with a major part of the religion; namely that God does intervene to help us in the form of miracles. With no intervention, there can be no miracles. Either God can and does intervene with human and natural affairs or God doesn't. After a tragic event such as this, the news often carries stories of miraculous survival. These are often touted as 'proof' of God's intervention as there was 'no way' the person(s) would have survived otherwise. Also, why do people pray for others safety? If God doesn't intervene with the natural world, what use would pray be?

So which is it - does God intervene or does he not?

 

[Powa]

God either caused the tsunamis or allowed them. Either way it's not very loving towards the people who were killed.

 

[Brahe]

God either caused the tsunamis or allowed them. Either way it's not very loving towards the people who were killed.

This is only a problem for people who believe in gods who intervene and who care. Unfortunately, many theists do believe in such gods despite such obvious evidence to the contrary.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And yet how do we know anything without the abstractness of mind? If we understood this, then we would understand that not even materialism is supportable. So, there's plenty of room for God there too.

Abstractness does not imply non-materialism. To "know" something is simply the ability to gather and correlate information; entirely explainable within materialism.

Hans

 

[geni]

A good thing??? I heard this warped logic shortly after 9/11 too. People were 9/11 could have been worse because more people could have been in the buildings, more planes, and even that it could have been a nuclear bomb. Almost every situation 'could' have been worse. I'm sure all the people that lost their homes, loved ones, entire family and their lives are reassured because 'it could have been worse'.

That would be the strawman and apeal to emotion logical fallicy. We don't know much about earthquakes but what we do know seems to suggest that the longer between quakes the bigger they are. If this quake had happened in ten years time not only would it have been bigger but since most of the countries hit have growing populations and torist industries more people would be killed anyway. of course you could argue that advanceing technology would have reduced causulties but I find this doubtful. This does not of course in any way lessen the tragedy.

 

[iain]

lacchus,

I'm interested in what you're saying, but I don't think I'm understanding you fully right now.

But then again if there was no transcendent spiritual world which rises above the natural (hence no God), our suffering would have amounted to nothing, and would cease upon death

That's probably true, but I can't see where the explanation for God allowing suffering fits in. Why would God not have created a world where we don't suffer?

And yet how do we know anything without the abstractness of mind? If we understood this, then we would understand that not even materialism is supportable. So, there's plenty of room for God there too

I don't understand what you mean by "the abstractness of mind" (I thought I did, but my intepretation doesn't make any sense in the context of your next sentence).

 

[iain]

Wll you could argue this was a good thing;. The preeure had to be released some time and it was better that it was now than say in ten years time when the earthquake would have been even bigger.

By the same reasoning it's a very bad thing because the pressure could have been released in a large number of small quakes that we would hardly have noticed.

 

[sackett]

That disaster has made at least some of them think

Just this morning I heard a public radio piece on religious people vs. the tsunami. Besides the usual "God moves in mysterious ways, amen" palaver, one -- just one -- believer opined that maybe God was finite and couldn't do everything. He said that he was willing to "defend God" with this argument.

Interesting. Finally somebody who believes in Yehuowow has reached the (to me) obvious conclusion that He can't do everything. About effing time.

 

[Beanbag]

God did the tsunami because he liked the economy of scale. Over 100K snuffed out in a few minutes.

I'm curious, though. World estimated population in 2000 is 6,081,000,000 according to globalgeografia.com. Biblehelp.com asserts that 1 in 113 people will die this year (they've got a really morbid counter that purportedly shows you how many people died since you opened their site)

world population / annual death rate gives 53,814,159 deaths per annum. Divide that by 365 days a year and you get 147,436 deaths per day.

Hmmm. Looks like god had a 2-for-1 day special. Assuming roughly 150,000 casualties from the tsunami, the percentage of deaths would have gone up only around .002% this year.

There's always that sailor's prayer, which goes to the effect:
"Lord, the ocean is so big, and my ship is so small."

Regards;
Beanbag

 

[Mr Clingford]

I do not have answers, only observations and conjectures.

If 'all-loving' means that God doesn't allow any harm in any way to happen to humans then it appears that he isn't 'all-loving'.

God has chosen to create this universe; we have discovered a lot about how it works, viz various scientific laws. Were it not for laws, various cosmological constants, etc then we would not exist. Humans, though, are part of the circle of life, death and new life; we are formed of elements born in stars; our death liberates carbon etc that becomes new life. It appears that in God's universe humans are subject, like everything else, to these laws. We are not exempt and God chooses not to violate these laws so humans suffer and humans die horribly. God appears to value freedom very highly indeed.

ETA So much in this universe is interconnected; eg the earth's molten core produces a magnetic field which shields us from cosmic rays, unlike Mars which therefore doesn't have life (or very little). The geologically active nature of the earth means that there is life but it takes some back through earthquakes etc.

God, therefore, may have numbered the hairs on a head, but doesn't stop those hairs falling out or the owner of those hairs dying.

 

[Tricky]

I do not have answers, only observations and conjectures.

If 'all-loving' means that God doesn't allow any harm in any way to happen to humans then it appears that he isn't 'all-loving'.

God has chosen to create this universe; we have discovered a lot about how it works, viz various scientific laws. Were it not for laws, various cosmological constants, etc then we would not exist. Humans, though, are part of the circle of life, death and new life; we are formed of elements born in stars; our death liberates carbon etc that becomes new life. It appears that in God's universe humans are subject, like everything else, to these laws. We are not exempt and God chooses not to violate these laws so humans suffer and humans die horribly. God appears to value freedom very highly indeed.

Sounds very Deist. If everything (including humans) is subject to the laws of the universe, then how can one differentiate between "God" and Nature? It is only by violation of the "Laws of the Universe that the personality of God could be revealed.

 

[LostAngeles]

I don't know.

I do know this.

Over 100,000 people died because of the tsunamis.
The tsunamis were caused by an large earthquake.
The large eathquake was caused by pressure between two continental plates.
The pressure had to do with how the plates move across the earth.
The plates move across the earth over magma (last I heard) because of how the earth formed.
How the earth formed exactly is beyond my lay-knowledge.

This leads me to two conclusions. Either God knew and wanted things this way when the Earth was made or that because of how the earth formed, the plates drift across the magma, which causes pressure, with can result in earthquakes of a great magnitude, which can be detected and also cause tsunamis, which can be predicted when the earthquake is detected and therefore, some kind of warning should have been sent out, tourism/diplomacy be damned.

(Which reminds me, I need to check up on those reports about Australia and Thailand if I'm going to continue being pissed off at them. (The diplomats and scientists, respectively.))

 

[Mr Clingford]

Sounds very Deist. If everything (including humans) is subject to the laws of the universe, then how can one differentiate between "God" and Nature? It is only by violation of the "Laws of the Universe that the personality of God could be revealed.

I don't understand what you mean here; would you expand/restate a bit please.


Perhaps there are more important things than life; people do consider some values to be worth dying for (freedom, for instance, is one which both theists and theists might agree on)