Discussion thread for the blog entry "The 2010 Haitian Earthquake: God?" by theowarner.

Permalink: http://blog.theleagueofreason.co.uk/philosophy/the-2010-haitian-earthquake-god/

theowarner wrote:And, by 'divine justice,' I don't mean a crude, juridical judgment over the Haitian people like Mr. Robertson imagined; I mean a larger story of design and nature in which God constitutes living things and the world in which they live in such a way that both suffering and relief are possible and, like a teacher who cheats for his or her student, God's intervention to cause comfort or prevent suffering would be an act of injustice.

But why would an omnibenevolent being design a world in which suffering is possible in the first place? And why would he let the forces of nature punish the good and the bad indiscriminately? In other words, why create a system where he can only create justice by cheating his own system?? That seems rather absurd.

theowarner wrote:We might be left to wonder if we ought to blame God for failing to prevent all earthquakes and then, all natural catastrophes, all catastrophes, all smaller, more domestic catastrophes, all moments of pain, all moments of discomfort, all moments that aren't sheer, perfect, orgasmic joy; and then we might be left to wonder if such blame is rightfully leveled at God for failing to prevent the Haitan earthquake, how much worship ought we level at God for all the earthquakes his design didn't cause?

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. So we ought to thank god because it could be worse? Are you serious? The typical christian apologist excuse is that we chose to bring suffering to ourselves. God simply gave us the freedom to do it. But this doesn't explain sickness, harmful mutations, natural disasters and any other force of nature that kills or harms people indiscriminately. The only explanation they can come up with is that we all deserve death. This is usually the point where they start showing just how morally bankrupt their ideology is.

OnkelCannabia wrote:

theowarner wrote:And, by 'divine justice,' I don't mean a crude, juridical judgment over the Haitian people like Mr. Robertson imagined; I mean a larger story of design and nature in which God constitutes living things and the world in which they live in such a way that both suffering and relief are possible and, like a teacher who cheats for his or her student, God's intervention to cause comfort or prevent suffering would be an act of injustice.

But why would an omnibenevolent being design a world in which suffering is possible in the first place? And why would he let the forces of nature punish the good and the bad indiscriminately? In other words, why create a system where he can only create justice by cheating his own system?? That seems rather absurd.

Absurd? Well, I don't know. Well, let's get into some of these words you're using... "punishment." Are you also suggesting that God was punishing Haiti ... only, unlike Robertson, you would say the punishment was unfair? It seems to me that "punishment" is the wrong word.

Anyway, I think the point is: there is such thing as the natural world and the natural laws. Do you dispute that? When you look for an explanation of this event, are you dissatisfied with: "in Nature, earthquakes occur?"

Now, as for why suffering is possible... would it be just to ask a creature to achieve compassion in a world where suffering was impossible?

OnkelCannabia wrote:

theowarner wrote:We might be left to wonder if we ought to blame God for failing to prevent all earthquakes and then, all natural catastrophes, all catastrophes, all smaller, more domestic catastrophes, all moments of pain, all moments of discomfort, all moments that aren't sheer, perfect, orgasmic joy; and then we might be left to wonder if such blame is rightfully leveled at God for failing to prevent the Haitan earthquake, how much worship ought we level at God for all the earthquakes his design didn't cause?

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. So we ought to thank god because it could be worse? Are you serious? The typical christian apologist excuse is that we chose to bring suffering to ourselves. God simply gave us the freedom to do it. But this doesn't explain sickness, harmful mutations, natural disasters and any other force of nature that kills or harms people indiscriminately. The only explanation they can come up with is that we all deserve death. This is usually the point where they start showing just how morally bankrupt their ideology is.

Yes, it is stupid.... that's why I pointed out these sorts of implications and extension in logic.

theowarner wrote:

OnkelCannabia wrote:And, by 'divine justice,' I don't mean a crude, juridical judgment over the Haitian people like Mr. Robertson imagined; I mean a larger story of design and nature in which God constitutes living things and the world in which they live in such a way that both suffering and relief are possible and, like a teacher who cheats for his or her student, God's intervention to cause comfort or prevent suffering would be an act of injustice.

But why would an omnibenevolent being design a world in which suffering is possible in the first place? And why would he let the forces of nature punish the good and the bad indiscriminately? In other words, why create a system where he can only create justice by cheating his own system?? That seems rather absurd.

theowarner wrote:Absurd? Well, I don't know. Well, let's get into some of these words you're using... "punishment." Are you also suggesting that God was punishing Haiti ... only, unlike Robertson, you would say the punishment was unfair? It seems to me that "punishment" is the wrong word.

Anyway, I think the point is: there is such thing as the natural world and the natural laws. Do you dispute that? When you look for an explanation of this event, are you dissatisfied with: "in Nature, earthquakes occur?"

Now, as for why suffering is possible... would it be just to ask a creature to achieve compassion in a world where suffering was impossible?

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. If I haven't completely misunderstood your words, you were trying to say that an omnibenevolent god would be justified in letting natural disasters happen, because that's simply how he created the world. I don't see the logic there. If he creates a world where the forces of nature harm innocent ppl and he doesn't fix it, he's letting innocents die. When we humans heard about the earthquake we started making donations and tried to help these ppl, but for god it is okay to just say "tough luck"?

If california gets a big earthquake will all of california feel it?
____________________
affiliateelite ~ affiliateelite.com ~ adgooroo ~ adgooroo.com

OnkelCannabia wrote:I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. If I haven't completely misunderstood your words, you were trying to say that an omnibenevolent god would be justified in letting natural disasters happen, because that's simply how he created the world. I don't see the logic there. If he creates a world where the forces of nature harm innocent ppl and he doesn't fix it, he's letting innocents die. When we humans heard about the earthquake we started making donations and tried to help these ppl, but for god it is okay to just say "tough luck"?

This hinges on the "omnibenevolent" bits.

theowarner wrote:We suppose, first of all, that God really could prevent an earthquake, which I'm not entirely willing to accept; when we recognize that omnipotence and omnibenevolence can be, perhaps, better expressed as 'maximally powerful' and 'maximally good,' and when we recognize that no attribute of God can trump another attribute of God, it's fairly easy to accept that that God did not stop the Haitian Earthquake could easily be an expression of divine justice.
But why would an omnibenevolent being design a world in which suffering is possible in the first place? And why would he let the forces of nature punish the good and the bad indiscriminately? In other words, why create a system where he can only create justice by cheating his own system?? That seems rather absurd.

Therein lies the rub.

theowarner wrote:Anyway, I think the point is: there is such thing as the natural world and the natural laws. Do you dispute that? When you look for an explanation of this event, are you dissatisfied with: "in Nature, earthquakes occur?"

In Newton's model of a "clockwork universe" in which god has set the universal machine into motion under the guidance of physical and natural principles, god takes a "hands off" approach to everything that follows. In this scenario god's benevolence wouldn't be called to question, and this sounds like the root of the argument.