January 7, 2005
WRONG QUESTION
Simple English for the Church of England (Tom Utley, The Telegraph, January, 7th, 2004)
Priests of every denomination have been telling us since Boxing Day that great natural disasters tend to shake believers' faith in the existence of God. The Archbishop of Canterbury said something of the kind in his convoluted article in this week's Sunday Telegraph (though he did not say, as the original headline on his piece mischievously suggested, that he himself doubted God's existence after the tsunami struck the shores of the Indian Ocean).I hesitate to argue with so many priests, but I feel that somebody ought to point out that what they are saying is simply not true. Certainly, a great many people who did not believe in God in the first place have seized on the tsunami as further evidence that He does not exist. But I have yet to come across anybody who has said: "I used to believe in God until the tsunami struck, but I don't any more." From the earliest days of the Church, believers have had to get used to the fact that terrible things happen in this world, for which theological explanations are very hard to find. The Earth's crust, the winds and the waves have carried on obeying the laws of physics, bringing indiscriminate suffering on the just and the unjust, newborn babies and blackguards alike.
Only a very fragile and dimwitted faith would be shaken by an event that was just the latest in a series of natural disasters - earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and tsunamis - stretching back to the dawn of time.
Who but an idiot would say: "I could go on believing in God if the tsunami had killed only 10 people [or 2,000, or 20,000]. But, hey, it killed at least 150,000 - and probably a great many more. So there can't possibly be a God"?
Such idiots, if they exist, must be few and far between - and, as I say, I have yet to meet a single one of them. I reckon that all those priests, including Dr Rowan Williams, are just plain wrong when they say that the tsunami has shaken people's belief in God. If anything, it has had the opposite effect. Like so many natural disasters before it, it has made people more, rather than less receptive to the idea that a supreme being may exist.
Chesterton was a master at showing how so much modern, rationalist thought defies both common sense and the everyday experience that lies before our eyes. Were he alive today, he might point out that the closely-held tenet of secularists that religion is a kind of psychological crutch that allows simple, people to explain the inexplicable hardly makes sense in an age when there are well-known, easily accessible scientific explanations for natural phenomena like tsunamis. Who hasn't been given a lesson in shifting tectonic plates in the past few weeks? The fallacy in their reasoning is they assume the question deep in peoples’ minds is: “How did this happen?”. In fact, the real question such calamities bring to the fore is: “Why are we here?”
Posted by Peter Burnet at January 7, 2005 6:55 AMLike so many natural disasters before it, it has made people more, rather than less receptive to the idea that a supreme being may exist.
I find this hard to believe. What is the line of reasoning for this phenomenon? Only a omnipotent god could destroy so many innocent lives, because an indifferent material universe is incapable of such an act?
The author underestimates the amount of fragile and dimwitted faiths out there among the faithful. I know firsthand of such people, although it isn't natural disasters but personal disappointments that deliver the crushing blow. I happened to be listening to the "Savage Nation" shortly after 9/11, and was surprised to hear the Savage one himself doubting God's existence - he later settled on a belief that God exists but is not omnipotent. (I think Savage qualifies as a dimwit).
The author also misses the point when he talks about the scientific sophistication of today's believer, and how that should insulate him from the magical thinking it takes to believe that bad things don't happen to good people. Faith is not an intellectual phenomenon, but an emotional one. The intellect may be willing to accept such a qualified faith, but the heart is often weak. The heart will put demands upon faith that the intellect cannot control.
Hmmm. Theodicy. What is that?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 7, 2005 12:35 PMRobert:
"The intellect may be willing to accept such a qualified faith, but the heart is often weak. The heart will put demands upon faith that the intellect cannot control."
I invite you to read those two sentences of yours very carefully and then confirm them to us. They really don't seem to sit well together, although the problem may just be that I am one of those guys with fragile and dimwitted faith and weak hearts.
Posted by: Peter B at January 7, 2005 2:54 PMTranslated: the heart wants faith to provide a sense of security. The intellect knows that it cannot. Think of the German translator guy in "Saving Private Ryan". In his intellect he was all for the character building challenge of combat, full of high rhetoric about the glory of battle. When he finally saw combat, he froze. He chickened out. The heart wasn't there.
You'll never really know how your faith will survive tragedy until you experience it. Of course, many people's faith will survive and grow from tragedy, other people's faith will wither and die. You can't tell by what the intellect says.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 7, 2005 3:40 PMPS 148:7-13
Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:Fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word:
Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars:
Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl:
Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth:
Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children:
Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.
He made the natural order of the world, beautiful and dangerous, fulfilling his word. Sometimes we get in the way and we get hurt. His compassion for us is unlimited, but we bear the responsibility for our mistakes. We bury our dead and move on, next time we build on higher ground.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 7, 2005 11:03 PMRobert S
What mistake did the young children who were killed make?
What mistake did the tourists visiting the beaches make?
Where can you live in the world and feel totally safe from natural disaster?
This is the silliest, lamest explanation yet.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at January 8, 2005 2:45 PMThe important point was: "Sometimes we get in the way and we get hurt." The mistakes we make are often of the type we were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is no moral judgement applied to the man who is killed by a drunk driver, but invariably he could have done something to have defended himself. A larger vehicle for instance. He made a mistake. It was not a moral error. It was a prudential error.
Next time the village will be built on higher ground.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 9, 2005 7:18 PMI just saw a piece on Fox news about a village of illiterate tribsemen who live on in wood shacks on a beach in Thialand. It seems their tribal lore includes a statement that if the sea goes way out fast, it will come way in fast, so run for high ground. They suffered only one casualty.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 9, 2005 10:16 PM