Over the past few days, contributors to WashingtonPost.com's "On Faith" site have been responding to the question of why God allows Haiti to suffer, spurred by Pat Robertson's horrible assertion that Haiti had it coming because of their alleged pact with evil spirits tow hundred years ago. I read them so you don't have to.
You can probably guess what a lot of the luminaries of modern religion had to say; several variations on the theme of "there's-no-way-we-can-understand-God's-will-so-let's-all-be-nice." (Note: I am all for being nice. You will, in this post, note me criticizing several folks who, in the midst of saying intellectually or morally offensive things, also say some very nice things about helping the suffering. I will be addressing their theological justifications for the tragedy, not their calls for compassion, which I of course support wholeheartedly.)
Here's a good example of what I will call the Theodicy Dodge, when religionists skirt an honest confrontation with the idea of the omnipotent God allowing the mass death and misery of innocents. Rabbi David Wolpe submits:
Yet we know that to offer an explanation in the face of pain is itself a kind of cruelty. Nothing, no sophistry, no genuine theology, no well meant preaching, can stand in the heat of human anguish. The scale of pain in this world dwarfs, at times, any attempt at explanation. So we turn form "why" to "what." Not why does God do this, but what would God have me do. We move, at times of crisis, from explanation to action.
You see, just by the act of asking the question, we're hurting Haiti even more. Stop asking!
Or take a look at this bit from Jennifer Butler of Faith in Public Life:
I side theologically with those who have said God is good and never the author of evil, and suffering is the result of a sinful world and fallen creation.
This is just an example of an impotent God, or a malicious one who will only manifest through good works after millions are dying or in the midst of the most hellish misery. No point in wondering why we're in this mess, but God sure is showing his stuff in the good works of others. Sorry about those tectonic plates, though. Wish I coulda done something, but you know, 'never the author of evil,' so...
This all seems innocuous enough, but oftentimes the Theodicy Dodge has an insidious undertone. Take Christian Scientist Phil Davis, who writes:
I don't want to undervalue the importance of relief efforts ongoing right now in Haiti. These are vital and so much more is needed. But if we are trying to figure out where God is in all this, I would say we are asking the wrong question. I ask myself often, where am I with God? And how is my life reflecting His Love, especially in a world capable of such horror.
Now this must be very comforting to the Haitians. Forget all the starvation, disease, violence, and death. Hey, man, are you getting right with the Big Guy? Davis isn't saying explicitly that the Haitians brought this on themselves by not "reflecting His Love," but he does imply that this whole disaster is meant as a kind of tectonic jostle to get people to start paying the LORD more attention.
Some explanations border on the truly bizarre. Take Jim Wallis of Sojourners:
The God I serve, the God of the Bible, does not cause evil. God is not a vengeful and retributive being, waiting to strike us down. Evil happens, whether at the hands of corrupt people or because the earth shifts along a fault line and the world rumbles.
When evil strikes, it's easy to ask, where is God. The answer: God is suffering in the midst of the evil with those who are suffering. Throughout the Scripture, we find a picture of a God who is with the people, even in their darkest hours.
I can't imagine what God he is talking about. "The God of the Bible" he references is pretty demonstrably a maniac, an unbridled psychopath slaughtering entire civilizations, sanctioning slavery and rape, and that's just the first book. And God is suffering today? I think the Haitian people need not weep for that. I would imagine that quake or no quake, sin or no sin, God's going to come out of this just fine.
For more inexplicable wackiness, here's Cal Thomas:
The Creator of the universe has His own purposes and is not required to explain them to us.
But don't let that stop you from trying, Cal.
But if one is looking for a "reason" why natural disasters happen, it is because the world is fallen.
So it is somebody's fault.
God did not make the world the way it is with fault lines running through the earth and through our hearts. We did by seeking our own way, inviting sin into perfect lives (Adam and Eve) and a perfect environment (The Garden of Eden).
Get this straight, everybody. God has reasons for doing everything and having control over everything, except the things he didn't do and can't control.
The resident Hindu on the panel, Ramdas Lamb, isn't so crass as to directly assign blame to the residents of Haiti. At least, not in their current form. But in previous lives? Anything goes.
. . . we go through many lifetimes and must all experience the pleasures of life as well as its pains. We must all experience poverty and wealth, sickness and health, happiness and suffering, life and death. It is the only way we can experience and know reality in its completeness, and it is not something that can happen in a single lifetime. . . . I see those who experience such suffering as going through one of the most difficult of life's lessons and courses.
This, to me, is enormously insensitive and cynical. The accuser can't be blamed for casting blame on those who are suffering right now, because they clearly had nothing to do with the tragedy. But the victims are still burdened with the implied guilt that they must have done something wrong, even if it was in another life, of which they have no control and no memory. You're fine in the eyes of the cosmos, but boy, what a dick you must have been the last time around.
To be fair, Lamb explicitly says that he doesn't see it as a cause-and-effect karmic situation, though his espoused theology implies it. But he does minimize the severity of the disaster by chalking it up to a "lesson," as though it were just one more rough patch to tough out. Don't feel too bad, Haitians (this line of thinking implies), all us comfortable First-Worlders will have the house fall down on us in another go-around. Sure glad it's not now!
In the midst of all this theological wrangling and weirdness, it's almost a relief to come upon what might qualify as refreshing honesty from believers. Seventh-day Adventist James Standish, though chock full of Bronze Age superstition (the devil must exist, lest there would be no evil in the world, etc.), at least makes no excuses for his supreme being.
In this life, all too often the wicked prosper and the good suffer. In contrast to our most popular rewrites of faith, Scripture itself has much to say about understanding the injustice in a world created by a loving God. But if you preach it you will almost guarantee you will never have a megachurch, and if you write it, its unlikely you'll have a bestseller. But by ignoring these themes, modern faith has become impotent in the face of tragedy.
Even more clearly, R. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention, makes no bones about the potential for God's destructiveness and his willingness to assert his moral authority (emphasis mine).
God does judge the nations -- all of them -- and God will judge the nations. His judgment is perfect and his justice is sure. He rules over all the nations and his sovereign will is demonstrated in the rising and falling of nations and empires and peoples. Every molecule of matter obeys his command, and the earthquakes reveal his reign -- as do the tides of relief and assistance flowing into Haiti right now.
A faithful Christian cannot accept the claim that God is a bystander in world events. The Bible clearly claims the sovereign rule of God over all his creation, all of the time. We have no right to claim that God was surprised by the earthquake in Haiti, or to allow that God could not have prevented it from happening.
God's rule over creation involves both direct and indirect acts, but his rule is constant.
But there are highlights. Both Bishop Shelby Spong and Paula Kirby make short work of the entire question posed, tracing the development of human knowledge and our ability to make rational sense of events, leaving no need for renting out intellects over the reasoning behind God's maliciousness or neglect. Susan Jacoby brings this point home concerning the superiority complex that comes with discerning God's attitude:
I listened to an earthquake survivor this morning on the "Today" show, and he concluded that he was rescued from the rubble because "God must have a plan for me." Right. And what about God's plan for the dead and the mutilated? How can anyone cherish these childish, narcissistic notions about a loving god who elects him to survive and others to perish?
Herb Silverman writes what many frustrated readers had likely been thinking throughout this whole series:
If an all-powerful god either caused the earthquake in Haiti or stood passively by as thousands perished, he would be a god more worthy of blame than praise. Some days the best thing you can say about God is that he doesn't exist.
And Daniel Dennett pens what might as well be the thesis for this very post:
The idea that God is a worthy recipient of our gratitude for the blessings of life but should not be held accountable for the disasters is a transparently disingenuous innovation of the theologians.
I must admit, I was a bit agog that the On Faith site even asked the question, which was specifically, "Does God allow Haiti to suffer?" Well, if we assume he's even there, of course he does! Turn on your television! He's allowing it right now. The idea that any believers might try to wriggle out a "no" or "who knows?" from that question is laughable, and as Dennett and Jacoby note in their own ways, can only be the product of tortured logic and severe cognitive dissonance.
UPDATE: Richard Dawkins has just weighed in, and tells it like no one else can. He seems as angry as I was when I first came upon these responses. A taste:
Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for 'sin' - or suffering as 'atonement' for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.
7J5H7HXKDCC5
Comments
Paul,
Come on man! You used way too much space to make the point <i>people just do not know what it is they want to say</i>.
I think you know what you want to say and that is why you have used so much space poking fun at what others have said.
But, Paul, I must criticize you my friend.
When will you begin to try and understand all of the reasons for which God has been (your words) a maniac?
Understanding that must be answered by comprehending God's reason for creating man. If we do not live for the purpose He created us for, we are anathema. God shows us He will destroy those things (in this case, people) that do not exist for the purpose He created it for. All things are made by God for God.
B.T.W., that is not a reference to Haiti. Though, I would appreciate your thoughts on my article concerning Robertson's remarks.
Jim says, "God shows us He will destroy those things (in this case, people) that do not exist for the purpose He created it for. All things are made by God for God."
A couple of questions then:
How could things exist for a purpose other than what he created it for? Did he make a mistake in creating them?
All things are made by him. So that includes the devil and his associated evil, right? That makes him the author of evil too. If you also believe he created the earth, then he is responsible for natural disasters, hence this IS god's fault.
Thanks for the review, Paul. My summary of the same would have a last paragraph that took the WaPo to task for assuming there is a god. Don't let them get away with that fundamental error.
Putting aside the fact that there is no "god", that none have ever been proven to exist, there is only one concept of a "god" that I could stomach if I did.
I call it the "poker dealer god": life is a one-hand game of five card straight poker. You take what you're dealt, no wild cards, no draws, and play it the best you can. You get judged on how you play your hand, not what you're dealt.
In other words, if the poor don't work hard to raise themselves, they don't get their "great reward" after they die; if the rich are not charitable, they get their butt barbequed in hell, and so on. What you get after you die depends on your efforts while you are alive, how you improved yourself and how you helped others.
It certainly better explains events like Haiti and the 2004 tsunami than do the self-righteous hypocrites using others' misfortune to score political points and claim a smug "superiority".
If Haiti's earthquake is truly God's punishment, why are we acting against His Judgment and helping these Haitians?
As good God fearing Christians, shouldn't we just ignore God's punishment of the wicked? Stop sending money to Haiti, they deserve it, it is God's will.
Enough sarcasm, there is no God or Devil doing this, s*** happens, regardless of how you pray or send money.
SB
Hey Jim, Why did this omniscient god of yours create people who do not live for his purpose? So he can get his kicks destroying them?
Great article, Paul. You hit the nail on the head.
@Jim:
"Understanding that must be answered by comprehending God's reason for creating man. If we do not live for the purpose He created us for, we are anathema. God shows us He will destroy those things (in this case, people) that do not exist for the purpose He created it for. All things are made by God for God."
Among other things, your argument assumes the existence of a god. Thus, for those of us who do not believe in gods, it's a completely irrelevant and empty assertion. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult fact to grasp.
Great article Paul. I write a response to the "On Faith" series on my Examiner page. I wrote one on this topic in particular last week: examiner.com/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m1d21-Atheism-101-The-Problem-of-Evil
Miranda Celeste Hale, Rick S. and Lynn,
I have an answer for each of your questions. However, I do not care to banter on this little comment window. I will post an article on Richmond Evangelical Examiner, tonight, Jan. 25 @ 7p.m. (EST) specifically relating to your questions.
Paul,
what I find amazing about secular humanism, agnostics, atheist,...etc. is you all are so angry at God.
Is it because, you don't know how to reconcile with the fact there is a God, that some of you (on this post) say, "There is no God"?
I think for many of you, being a Christian would mean you will not be able to self-actualize. So, you remain ignorant in what the Bible says and how to understand God's reasons for all of the blood shed. All of the blood shed you fail to comprehend is your ace in the hole. You somehow believe ignorance will keep you safe from condemnation. So, you cary that chip on your shoulder. You live life to the fullest, never attempting to really study like so many of your former peer group who set out to dispose of the Bible and found there to be evidence for it, rather than against it. And you hope "There PROBABLY is no God"
as you self-actualize. If there is a God, you may feel He is not going to judge you because you were ignorant.
Jim, I feel I should tell you that you don't find me responding to your comments much because I simply find the premises absurd. Of course atheists are not angry at God, no more than we are angry at Santa Claus or Zeus, which is of course not at all, because they're not real. Separately, we may find repugnant the things that many believers *attribute* to their imaginary deity, or things they may do in the name of that deity. I imagine that you actually already understand this crucial distinction, but choose to ignore it in order to find some zinger to use against us scroogey atheists. I promise I am not ignorant of what the Bible says or what countless religionists say about what God is or is not, or does or does not want. It just so happens that it is all equally made up.
Paul,
I do choose to ignore your belief that there is no God. Especially when your campaign signs say "There PROBABLY is no God". None of you are certain. I am. Not by virtue of simply having read the Bible, either.
You don't have to answer my comments. I don't answer most of the comments on my page, either.
You say you know what the Bible says. I can see you may be aware of what it says. Just like I can say, I am aware of whom Paul is. However you don't know what the Bible is saying anymore than I know you. You are only aware of what the Bible says.
The Bible declares of itself that the Word of God is fuoolishness to those who are parishing. It also says it is spiritully discerned. That comes by desire to know and eventually you will. No one can disprove God any more than one can prove Him. It is by personal experience. I.E., I don't know spanish. But, I understood a man from Venezuela before the translation was given. You can't say it didn't happen
Yeah, that's about where I thought this would go.
Jim, it is out of intellectual honesty that we allow for the possibility that we may be wrong. That you don't allow for the possibility of being wrong despite the lack of evidence for any god, let alone yours in particular, shows your lack of intellectual honesty. It says that you want to push your beliefs on others despite how weak your story is.
When you consider a salesmen discussing an "amazing new product", you probably start from a position of skepticism, lest you fall for the scam of the week. If not, I've got an amazing new product to sell you... You probably don't put too much faith in the "testimonials" they show either, right? I mean they are easy enough to fake right? That's where atheists start out when dealing with the claims of your religion, and without evidence to prove it, we don't believe. Your Bible? it's just unprovable testimonials from people we can't even question. Sorry, FAIL!
Paul,
Your article is very interesting along with many of these comments. I see you only looking for the answers that you agree with and what you think is correct and shunning the rest. What's missing is, God also gave all of us freedon of choice. Choice to make our own decisions. Starvation? Death? Disease? War? Destruction? We are the creator of this, not God. God instructed us exactly on how and why He created us to live but we chose our own ways. Lets give birth to children that cannot be fed. Lets fights those that do not believe what we believe. Lets pollute, trash and abuse what God has given us, lets say, our planet!
Yes God created Lucifer (a.k.a. satan). He also gave him that same liberty and look what that moron did with it and what his consequences were.
Read the 10 commandments. Would these problems exist today if we lived by all 10, 24/7? No, they wouldn't because people would take care of people, feed them, care for them. There would be no greed, no coveting.
This is an excellent treatment of an important topic. Christian apologists who say that sinful humans create "Starvation? Death? Disease? War? Destruction?' are partly correct. Human beings can, and have,inflicted much suffering on ourselves and others. But how could mere humans create earthquakes, hurricanes and other so-called acts of god?
Trudy, once sin entered this planet, destruction followed. God said there will be earthquakes, wars, famines and so on but don't forget, Satan can also perform small and greart miracles along with earthquakes, floods and destruction. At this present time, God has 4 angles at the 4 corners of the earth holding back his winds of strife and final destruction. They are awiting His word. So, it's not God that's creating them but allowing them for His own good.
Lynn,
You asked, "Why did this omniscient god of yours create people who do not live for his purpose?"
Let me turn that around: What sort of 'glory' would there be for Him OR for humans if we were nothing more than worshipping automatons? Our free will is a vital part of this equation.
If we had simply 'evolved' from sun-warmed pond scum, we might be little more than what you envision we 'should' be - what the animals and plants we share this world with are - but that's not the case is it? We humans are much more than that, creatures that truly deserve God's love, compassion, and at times His anger as well.
Do you have kids, or are you more comfortable with goldfish?
Ron, are you saying that Haiti 'deserved God's anger' .....?
No, of course not. I wasn't in any way attempting to judge the nation of Haiti. For that matter, I wasn't in any way attempting to discern or explain God's mind. That's not my job. That's the job of prophets, false prophets, and (ironically) atheists.
Ron,
LOL
It's funny isn't it? how atheists spend time being angry at someone they say doesn't exist, or twist logic into pretzels explaining how God (who they say doesn't exist) is somehow immoral or amoral, or posit their own ideas of how the universe and creation ought to be different than what it is ...
You don't find them sweating over arguments about the non-existence of the easter bunny ...
I think deep down they know God is there.
Luke, let's follow through with your question/comparison as to why atheists debate the existence of gods but don't spend similar time/energy against the "Easter Bunny".
If 70-80% of the population in this country actually believed that the "Easter Bunny" was real, and if some significant proportion of those "believers" try to impose their believe system onto the US legal system (making laws affecting ALL of us, based upon what they said the Easter Bunny had written an ancient book from the Bronze Age), and if those believers were being successful at imposing such laws.. then I think you would probably join the fight against the insanity.
United States government has indeed been influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs and worldview from the beginning.
But specifically which laws are you referring to that have you so upset?
Theodicy : A vindication of God's attributes, particularly goodness, holiness, and justice, in the face of the existence of evil.
Dodging : To elude or evade by a sudden shift in position or strategy; to use evasive methods; prevarication; a contrivance; a shifty trick.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!