Does God Send Disasters?
on Aug 29 in Uncategorized by adminYesterday word got round to me that one of my uncles said Hurricane Irene was bearing down on New York City because they had passed a law permitting same sex marriages. This affected me so deeply that I just had to write something pertaining to it, not only because it smacks of deep misunderstanding but because I know that my well-intending family member is not the lone propagator of such opinions. Therefore, without any further ado let’s dive into the analysis.
Evidential Basis
My first question is what type of evidence do those who make such an assertion have? Do they have videos of a giant hand churning the Atlantic Ocean, satellite images of celestial beings affecting jet streams, or perhaps some Doppler recordings of a huge energetically dense anomaly appearing just before the hurricane was born?
The answer to all of these questions is of course no. The only evidence they have for God creating any of the horrible disasters is a very old piece of writing that says God did such things to the Jewish nation – and the enemies thereof – long ago. However, the slightest consideration will reveal that such is in no way evidence.
To begin with let us assume for the sake of argument – and I know for some this is a massive assumption – that the Old Testament really is a 100% accurate account of the workings of God. Having taken this position let us then ask, “Merely because God destroyed Sodom with sulfuric meteors and made the earth swallow the family of Achan does that prove God is the agent behind all disasters – including those of our modern day?”
The answer is that even granting the Old Testament stories to be true doesn’t prove all disasters are acts of God against the sinful. Those earlier stories could have just been special instances. Indeed, in the New Testament even Jesus himself says that bad things do not necessarily happen to someone because they are evil (Luke 13:1-5), and the records of his life prove this to be true (John 19:4-6). So what then becomes the proof that these are acts of God? The proof is nothing but feelings.
In the above I granted the validity of the Bible as a revealer of divine nature, but in reality this is itself a difficult proposition. What proof is there that the stories of the Old Testament are accurate records of God’s interactions with humanity? Some would say because the sites mentioned in the Bible are real sites. However, merely finding the locations in which the stories are said to occur on a map in no way proves the events said to have happened there did, for the lore of all cultures is centered round places important to that culture.
Not only this, but how can one be sure that the events said to have happened at a location did so for the reasons given? For example, let’s assume for a moment that sulfuric meteors really did rain on a group of cites, that a flood really did cover the earth, and that 185,000 Assyrians really did die in one night – how can we know that God did it?
Each and every one of us explains the operations of realty according to the rules given us to by our culture. What if the cities of the Dead Sea just happened to be the unfortunate victims of a random meteor shower, how would that event have been interpreted by their conservative neighbors who hated them for their luxurious lives and disrespect of tradition? The same is true for the other two options as well. Maybe there really was a flood and – like in almost all ancient cultures – this was attributed to a displeased deity by those in the moment and those who came after. As for the Assyrians, what if the food supply they brought with them had some form of deadly bacteria, or what if there really was an earthquake and it made a fissure out of which came a toxic gas which choked them while they slept; how would such events been interpreted by the devout Jews who had been praying all night for God to kill their enemies? At any rate, it is painfully obvious that the Bible – however inspirational and life affirming it may be to some – is in not of itself a proof of what God has or has not done; the Bible is the proof of what men and woman long ago believed God to have done.
Having seen how insufficient the Bible is as a proof that God is the root of the murderous furies nature unleashes upon us, let us then turn to the findings rendered by careful observation of weather systems – perhaps science will prove God the author of hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and the like.
Upon reviewing the scientific literature it becomes clear that all the disasters humans experience can be accounted for by understanding the properties of matter. Earthquakes always occur along fault lines, hurricanes and tornadoes have seasons – as well as conditions that must be present in order for them to occur, and lightning strikes are always coupled with some form of atmospheric disturbance.
If these dreadful events were the working of malicious or just spirits why do they not occur at random? If the weather is but the toy of spiritual beings could they not cause earthquakes anywhere, make hurricanes pop into an out of existence whenever, and send bolts of rage upon those who slight them without the presence of atmospheric friction? Indeed they could, but this is not what we see happening. Instead reality moves in orderly, consistent, and for the most part predictable patterns, with all the casual elements either directly or indirectly measureable.
To assert that rational invisible beings are somehow involved in natural disasters is to assume a causal agent that one has no proof at all for. Therefore, the evidential basis is pure speculation arising out of a high degree of respect for a collection of texts whose content is itself unable to be proved; this is an unwise manner of interpretation that applies unsound reasoning to arrive at its ends. Thus, when one says that God is responsible for X or Y disaster they are merely measuring the event by feelings and cultural ideals which they have never taken the time to test.
Philosophical Objections
The first objection that comes to mind is the selective nature of the ‘divine rage.’ It always seems that these punishments rain only on those ‘evil’ ones who happen to be in the right place; near a fault line, in tornado alley, on some coast or island, etc.
If God is so horribly concerned about the unethical conduct of human things why does holy anger not fall upon the dastardly fools that truly deserve it? Why were there not earthquakes sent to rattle the Nazi regime who were unjustly murdering people whose only crime was being out of harmony withthe policy of the Nazi party? Why doesn’t lightning fall upon the heads of the slime who rape children, or manipulate the elderly out of their life savings?
It is highly suspicious when divinity only punishes those offenders who happen to be in the right place within the natural order for natural disasters to fall on them. It is, in fact, inconsistent and inconsistency is often a sign of illogic and misunderstanding.
Not only this, but why is it that God is only concerned with types of evil which are external? In Matthew Five Jesus makes clear that the secret sins are just as bad, if not worse, than those which are visible. If God is so quick to rain punishment upon those who are not externally compliant, then why not smite the self-righteous church goer whose example is destined to damn millions or the greedy politician whose actions turn the policy of the nation against the poor and needy? Once more, we find a large degree of inconsistency, especially if the destruction of human things by natural elements is intended to indicate the type of behavior which God deems acceptable.
The second objection to the idea that God rains natural disasters upon human things which fail the holy law is the indiscriminate nature of the punishment.
In the army of Rome ‘decimation’, a type of military discipline, was occasionally used to promote compliance when a severe breach against the commander or code was made. The way it worked was that whenever it was deemed necessary the commander would summon all those thought guilty of a crime and divide them into lots of ten. Once in groups of ten, they would all draw lots and whomever the lot fell upon would be mercilessly clubbed to death by the others. Then, whoever was not beat to death would have their wheat taken away and replaced with barley.
Now, granted, this practice was rare but one cannot help but wonder if it is just. Suppose for a moment that I am an innocent man who just happens to be included in the round up of the guilty, and due to the manner in which the punishment is meted out I end up being clubbed to death for the crimes of my fellow soldiers. Would such be fair? Of course it would not be.
This idea, the idea of collective punishment, is still present in our modern military – though it takes a much milder form. My dad has told me stories where his entire unit would be issued some unpleasant punishment because one or two people had failed to live up to their duties.
Now, the question then becomes, “Is it just for God to punish the innocent with the guilty – does God kill living things simply because they were associated with a guilty party?” There are certainly some examples of this in the Bible, the most notable of which – in my opinion –is the genocide of the Amalekites for the crimes their ancestors had done against Israel when the Jews were leaving Egypt (1 Samuel 15). However, this still does nothing to answer the question of how fair such an action is.
It is real easy to sit back in the heart of America and comment on how just it is for God to punish others, however if one places themselves into the shoes of those victimized by natural disasters it is much harder. Suppose you were a mother in Haiti whose child was washed away by a Tsunami, or the spouse of someone who was crushed to death beneath ten tons of debris after a violent earth quake. Now, imagine further that you and your family were simply bystanders who in no way participated in any form of ‘evil’ action. In such a situation as these it would be much harder, if not impossible, for you to sit quietly by and accept such horrors to be acts of God – you’d have to be Job.
If indeed hurricane Irene was an act of God sent against an evil New York one can only wonder why all the other cities along the coast were included in such a wrathful outburst. Not only this, but it is even more astonishing that the other cities received the brunt of the gale, for by the time Irene reached New York it had lost a tremendous amount of steam.
Irene is not the only disaster that fails to make sense if one insists upon interpreting them as acts of God. The little children – who cannot even conceive of such things as right and wrong – washed away by Tsunamis, the churches and spiritual people who lost all they had when the levees failed at Louisiana, those who starve to death due to the coming of locust swarms, and countless others; when one says these are the direct actions of the Creator they adopt an indefensible position – at least if they want to simultaneously maintain that God is also just and compassionate.
Philosophical Reconciliations
For many the above will seem a brazen denial of God or an expression of devout atheism, however that is an unnecessary inference. There are many ways one can reconcile the above idea – the idea that God does not micromanage the natural world – with whatever philosophical stance they may have taken toward existence.
To those who have adopted an atheistic stance the above is manifestly obvious, and in no way conflicts with their philosophy. Indeed, rather than needing to reconcile such facts to their position these facts contribute significantly to it.
To those who have adopted a Deistic idea of God – that God set reality into motion and then left it alone – or a Pantheistic idea of God – that all things visible and invisible are parts of the divine themselves – the absence of a micromanager is also not disturbing.
To the Deist it is exactly what one would expect from a God who has created the machine and left it running. Just as the creations of rational human things occasionally create loss of life due to their workings, so too do living things occasionally get caught in the gears of the divine machina.
Meanwhile, since the Pantheist sees all things as God there is no force which is not God. Therefore, even though the events we call disasters are rather unpleasant from our perspective they are not bad. All that is is just the body of God, and just as cells are eternally coming into and going out of being within our body so do living things take form and pass out of it within the Body of God. Not only this, but since all is God there is no death, there is only a mere changing of form with nothing lost and nothing to fear.
Even those from the Abrahamic religious traditions can reconcile the free flow of nature with the existence of their specific conceptions of God for God is not to blame for nature’s painful behavior.
When God made the earth it was perfect, but it was somehow defiled by the actions of those who were placed in charge of it. These actions caused a rift between divinity and this segment of reality so that it was left to flow on its own accord due to the nature of its construction. After this separation reality begin to break down, as all things placed beyond the perpetuating Source of Life must do, and the natural disasters we now experience are like unto an axle breaking on an old car or the engine failing on a tug boat that has run its course.
Further, since God is the ultimate in justice and compassion, God can and will compensate all those who have lost anything due to the malfunctions created by their forbearers if only they will harmonize with Divinity and stop perpetuating those malfunctions. In fact, God would like to have already intervened but couldn’t not do so because when one removes consequences they eternally perpetuate problems, and because all of the universe has to see that any portion of reality out of connection with the Divine will disorder and die not due to some arbitrary divine fiat but because that is simply what happens – much like a leaf dies when removed from the vine.
I can think of other ways to reconcile the existence of something divine with the fact that nature acts on its own accord and is indifferent to our needs, but those listed are sufficient to show that the mere acceptance of what seems to me to be the only logical conclusion – that nature’s actions are caused by internal properties instead of external agencies – does not in any way necessitate the adoption of an atheistic outlook.
There are no comments yet, add one below.