Why would God allow the Tsunami

[Robin]

Gerard Baker’s theist repsonse in the Times, is quite interesting. He starts with a hefty appeal to emotion:

What is harder to take is the smug way the ubiquitous “God is dead” crowd in the media have seized on the tragedy as some sort of vindication of its creed. It is unedifying to say the least to behold scientists and philosophers on both sides of the Atlantic waving the shrouds of hundreds of thousands of victims as a debating trophy.

Apparently atheists are being hard-hearted by even asking the question. Next he makes a point similar to that made in the OP:

If, then, what the atheists are attacking is the notion of an all-seeing, all-powerful benign deity, constantly engaged in and altering the tide of human events, they do not need a tsunami to prove their point. The knowledge that just one child somewhere was dying of cancer would bring the whole fantasy crumbing down.

But I thought that the definition of God as “an all-seeing, all-powerful benign deity, constantly engaged in and altering the tide of human events” is exactly what the major religions have in mind. Which part have we atheists foolishly misunderstood? The all-seeing part, all-powerful part?. Perhaps the ‘benign’ part. Most likely he is suggesting that God is not constantly engaged in interventions – but believers of most faiths would be very surprised to learn this.
Then he widens the focus by confounding natural disasters with man-made disasters:

Put it this way: imagine for a moment, that there were not only no earthquakes, floods and storms, but that there was no innocent suffering and never had been in the history of the earth. Imagine if, every time a faulty gene was on its way to being transmitted to an unborn child, the hand of God dipped in and the gene was corrected. Imagine a God frantically circling the globe redirecting every train headed for a faulty bridge, reprogramming every failed computer in a hospital operating theatre, and printing money every time some undeserving chap got down on his luck.

Then delivers his knock-out blow:

Such a fair, challengeless world might be a wonderful place to live. But I don’t think that it would be recognisably human. If we have reason to doubt the point of our existence in this world, surely we would understand it even less in that one. And if I were God, and had created Man, I am not quite sure that I would see the point either.

Quite a false dichotomy there. He appears to be saying that were there no meaningless, random cruelty of nature this would lead to a ‘challengeless’ world. I don’t think so

 

[LostAngeles]

The New York Times has an Op-Ed by Safire on this matter. It'll probably become registration required soon, so I'll post the main points here.

...Turn to the Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible. It was written some 2,500 years ago during what must have been a crisis of faith. The covenant with Abraham - worship the one God, and his people would be protected - didn't seem to be working. The good died young, the wicked prospered; where was the promised justice?

The poet-priest who wrote this book began with a dialogue between God and the Satan, then a kind of prosecuting angel. When God pointed to "my servant Job" as most upright and devout, the Satan suggested Job worshipped God only because he had been given power and riches. On a bet that Job would stay faithful, God let the angel take the good man's possessions, kill his children and afflict him with loathsome boils.

The first point the Book of Job made was that suffering is not evidence of sin. When Job's friends said that he must have done something awful to deserve such misery, the reader knows that is false. Job's suffering was a test of his faith: even as he grew angry with God for being unjust - wishing he could sue him in a court of law - he never abandoned his belief.

And did this righteous Gentile get furious: "Damn the day that I was born!" Forget the so-called "patience of Job"; that legend is blown away by the shockingly irreverent biblical narrative. Job's famous expression of meek acceptance in the 1611 King James Version - "though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" - was a blatant misreading by nervous translators. Modern scholarship offers a much different translation: "He may slay me, I'll not quaver."

The point of Job's gutsy defiance of God's injustice - right there in the Bible - is that it is not blasphemous to challenge the highest authority when it inflicts a moral wrong. (I titled a book on this "The First Dissident.") Indeed, Job's demand that his unseen adversary show up at a trial with a written indictment gets an unexpected reaction: in a thunderous theophany, God appears before the startled man with the longest and most beautifully poetic speech attributed directly to him in Scripture.

...

The poet-priest's point, I think, is that God is occupied bringing light to darkness, imposing physical order on chaos, and leaves his human creations free to work out moral justice on their own.

Job's moral outrage caused God to appear, thereby demonstrating that the sufferer who believes is never alone. Job abruptly stops complaining, and - in a prosaic happy ending that strikes me as tacked on by other sages so as to get the troublesome book accepted in the Hebrew canon - he is rewarded. (Christianity promises to rectify earthly injustice in an afterlife.)

Job's lessons for today:

(1) Victims of this cataclysm in no way "deserved" a fate inflicted by the Leviathanic force of nature.

(2) Questioning God's inscrutable ways has its exemplar in the Bible and need not undermine faith.

(3) Humanity's obligation to ameliorate injustice on earth is being expressed in a surge of generosity that refutes Voltaire's cynicism.

So in short, Job comes down to "God is in the Tub*, work it out yourself."

...

Voltaire was funnier, though.

*borrowed from Television Without Pity's TAR recaps.

 

[Loki]

A nice summary of the basic issue of theodicy here

Goes over the various believer responses, and points out their basic inadequacies.

The basic conclusion of this piece? Let's just stop talking and get on with solving the real issues !

I would propose a truce between believers and unbelievers so they can stop fighting over the credit for the goodness of the rescue workers, whether it should be assigned to God or to man, so that we can remove God—and the critique of God—from the equation entirely for a while and save our energy to support the recovery unencumbered by this perennial debate, however important and profound.

He also points out the obvious and clear conclusion for believers (whether they chose to accept it or not is their problem) :

Here’s the terms of the truce: Unbelievers will stop pointing out the inadequacies of the believers’ theodicy, their justification for God. And believers will stop claiming credit for God for everything good that happens, unless they are willing to condemn Him to a perp walk for all the crimes committed on earth, many in his name.

 

[RussDill]

(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.))

It seems that given knowledge of the sea floor layouts, past events, and a lack of sensors, it was not believed that the quake would cause tsunamis. You can read the bulletins yourself. You can probably find them by googling off this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6756409/

 

[LostAngeles]

It seems that given knowledge of the sea floor layouts, past events, and a lack of sensors, it was not believed that the quake would cause tsunamis. You can read the bulletins yourself. You can probably find them by googling off this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6756409/

Yeah, I found a few reputable and a few not-so-reputable sources on these matters. It's entirely possible that I'm just looking to play the Blame Game.

 

[shecky]

Interesting thought by President Bill Clinton, made off the cuff, out loud, not during a interview, at a recent Larry King show.

http://kcrw.com/cgi-bin/ram_wrap.cgi?/ls/ls050109le_Show

(RealAudio file) at about the 38:00 mark, sayeth former prez:

"He ought to get represenatives of all the faiths affected by this... a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, A Christian... put them on... ask them how they view this [tsunami disaster] against their faith... it would be fascinating... and ask them what is the response... of the mindless tragedy... and innocent slaughter... what is the way they look at it. ...[they have] very different views... I'll bet people would watch it all over the world in huge numbers... bet a lot of people switching religions (chuckles)...

edited by me for content from audio source

 

[Ladewig]

whoops.

ignore this post.

 

[Iacchus]

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

Hans

Are you suggesting that a "world of abstracts" does not exist?

 

[Iacchus]

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?

What is the other side of suffering but joy and ecstasy?

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).

How do we know the truth without mind to acknowledge it? We can't. Therefore it is "our mind" which is a witness to all things.

 

[iain]

How do we know the truth without mind to acknowledge it? We can't. Therefore it is "our mind" which is a witness to all things.

Perhaps, but I don't see the relevance. I'm of the view that we call the mind is a way at looking at the physical brain and the processes within it, rather than a separate entity.

 

[iain]

Are you suggesting that a "world of abstracts" does not exist?

What do you mean by it existing? We can conceive of abstracts, but there isn't a place where they can be found - they don't have any existence beyond electrical/chemical patterns in our brains.

 

[Iacchus]

What do you mean by it existing? We can conceive of abstracts, but there isn't a place where they can be found - they don't have any existence beyond electrical/chemical patterns in our brains.

So what's the difference between the tiger in the real world and the tiger that chases us in our dreams? Doesn't it have to exist in the abstract sense before it can even affect us?

 

[Crossbow]

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.

Well, if the first half of last century is any guide, then it fair to say to that the Asian Tsunami is a very small issue compared with:

World War I,
Influenza Epidemic,
Ukraine Famine,
Nazi Holocaust,
World War II,
etc.

So if things like this did not phase God, then why should the recent Tsunami?

 

[iain]

Crossbow.

I agree - this is just another way of phrasing the age-old question of why a loving God allows suffering. The answer seems to involve a lot of shuffling and in some cases pointing to a musty old book and saying "that book answered it years ago, so no need to talk about it now."

Anyhow, there is a distinction from a theological view : some items on your list are caused by humans and a result of free will (obviously if you buy into that stuff). Others such as the great flu epidemic seem more natural (i.e. humans not obviously to blame).

 

[iain]

So what's the difference between the tiger in the real world and the tiger that chases us in our dreams? Doesn't it have to exist in the abstract sense before it can even affect us?

I still don't understand what you mean by "exist in the abstract sense".

 

[Zep]

Are you suggesting that a "world of abstracts" does not exist?

For at least 150,000 people is SE Asia, no world exists for them any more. I don't consider that particularly "abstract".

 

[Beerina]

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.

Presumably, in Heaven, the thoughts go something like this. Religious people, pay very close attention:

God: "Oh no! A hundred and fifty eight thousand, two hundred sixteen people are about to be killed by the tsunami caused by that earthquake that's about to occur. I know all the misery and pain and terror and angguish everyone will feel, and experience it all as if I were them. I will therefore do nothing because...I could do something and am good."

One hundred fifty seven thousand, two hundred sixteen people die.

God: "Oh my me! That was horrible! I wish I could have done something, but my ability to do something and my inherent goodness, umm, prevented me from doing something."

Two days later...

God: "Oh no! That little boy whose family was killed was just kidnapped by sex slavers before his uncle could fly in to claim him. I wish I could stop those filthy pigs from ****ing him in the ass over and over and leaving him in that dark room, but I can't stop it because I could stop it and am good."


Conclusion: Yaweh, if He exists, is a worthless sack of ****. Use that brain God gave you "in his image" and make this judgement.

 

[Iacchus]

For at least 150,000 people is SE Asia, no world exists for them any more. I don't consider that particularly "abstract".

For at least their bodies anyway. Now, if there was a world of "the abstract" which dwelt within the body, what we often refer to as "the self," where would it go?

 

[Beerina]

Gerard Baker’s theist repsonse in the Times, is quite interesting. He starts with a hefty appeal to emotion:

What is harder to take is the smug way the ubiquitous “God is dead” crowd in the media have seized on the tragedy as some sort of vindication of its creed. It is unedifying to say the least to behold scientists and philosophers on both sides of the Atlantic waving the shrouds of hundreds of thousands of victims as a debating trophy.

Apparently atheists are being hard-hearted by even asking the question.

And what is his alternative? A Theist holding up 150k dead as a debating trophy as to the magnificence of a perverted God who allowed it?

Incredible!

 

[Richard G]

God has brought disaster on nations in the past for its disobedience and worship of false gods. And the book of Revelation makes it clear He will do so again.

Jeremiah 16:9-13
9 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Behold, I am going to eliminate from this place, before your eyes and in your time, the voice of rejoicing and the voice of gladness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride.
10 “Now when you tell this people all these words, they will say to you, ‘For what reason has the Lord declared all this great calamity against us? And what is our iniquity, or what is our sin which we have committed against the Lord our God?’
11 “Then you are to say to them, ‘It is because your forefathers have forsaken Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and have followed other gods and served them and bowed down to them; but Me they have forsaken and have not kept My law.
12 ‘You too have done evil, even more than your forefathers; for behold, you are each one walking according to the stubbornness of his own evil heart, without listening to Me.
13 ‘So I will hurl you out of this land into the land which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers; and there you will serve other gods day and night, for I will grant you no favor.’

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
15 “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;
16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.
17 “But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,
18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.
19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”