Re: What kind of God would allow a deadly tsunami?

1 reason my moral evil may seem to pose more of a problem for theodicy than natural evil is that there seems to be greater contingency involved with the former & thus more opportunity for God to act in non-miraculous ways. I.e., even allowing for QM & choas theory, God would have to do something miraculous to prevent an earthquake but not (perhaps) to change Oswald's decision to pull the trigger. (Yes, he really did do it!)

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steven M Smith
  To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:38 PM
  Subject: Re: What kind of God would allow a deadly tsunami?

  George,
  Interesting perspective. When I first read the quote, I saw it as an indictment of the sort of 'Where was God?' pablum that was mass forwarded by email after the horrors of 9/11. I found much of that to be theologically offensive.

  I couldn't agree with you more with respect to the numbers and the theodicy problem. The only difference is that large disasters tend focus everyone's mind on the issue at the same time. Thus we get editorials in the Washington Post as opposed to a single letter-to-the-editor in the local weekly (or a private conference with a pastor.)

  What interests me most in your reply is the statement about "problems of moral evil that in some ways are more serious" than (by implication) natural evil. Probably showing my theological naïveté, I had assumed that moral evil was somewhat explained by the sum of bad choices made by a fallen humanity estranged from God (i.e. We [mankind] have no one to blame but ourselves) whereas natural evil in the Creation must be attributable directly to God the Creator (since I reject the hypothesis that man's sin 'broke' the entire creation). As a geologist, I think we have a good hypothesis for the proximal cause - an earthquake generated by a sudden release of stress and the subsequent movement of a subducting oceanic plate creates a force that is transmitted into the overlying water column. But at a deeper level, that causal explanation seems inadequate for the tragedy.

  There is a corollary issue with disasters that concerns me. Some friends of a friend of mine (hearsay if I ever heard say!) were vacationing in Thailand on that morning. Hearing screams and the roar of approaching waves, they ran from their bungalow, climbed separate trees, and were both spared. In their accounts of the event, they credit God's special providence for the miraculous intervention that preserved their lives. While I can rejoice in their survival, I struggle with the idea that God chooses to intervene sporadically in disasters to miraculously save a select few while so many were seemingly abandoned. Miracles of this sort seem to be inherently unfair!

  Per your offer, I would appreciate a 'preprint' of your sermon.

  Thanks,
  Steve
  [Standard Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are my own and are not to be attributed to my employer.]
  _____________
  Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
  Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
  Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
  Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
  -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
   http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/

  "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
  I am not in favor of banalities, odious or otherwise, but the type of language used in this quote seems to be a pre-emptive strike against anyone who disagrees with the author on the theodicy problem. The tsunamis introduce noting new to the problem: The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 raised exactly the same challenges to religious belief, & the Holocaust presents problems of moral evil that in some ways are more serious. & in fact there's no threshold number of sufferers or deaths beyond which the theodicy question takes on a qualitatively different character: The same issues would be raised if only 10 people had been killed by the tsunamis.
    
  None of which is to say that there aren't serious theological issues that have to be wrestled with here. The sermon I preached yesterday addressing this matter should be up on the St. Paul's website, http://stpaul-akron.org/Sermons.htm , by Wednesday. If anyone would like to see it earlier, let me know & I'll send a copy as an attachment.
    
  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Steven M Smith
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:13 AM
  Subject: What kind of God would allow a deadly tsunami?

  Here is an interesting article from the Opinion Journal in the WashPost On-line:
  Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006097

  Tremors of Doubt
  What kind of God would allow a deadly tsunami?

  Quote from article ... "When confronted by the sheer savage immensity of worldly suffering--when we see the entire littoral rim of the Indian Ocean strewn with tens of thousands of corpses, a third of them children's--no Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God's good ends. We are permitted only to hate death and waste and the imbecile forces of chance that shatter living souls, to believe that creation is in agony in its bonds, to see this world as divided between two kingdoms--knowing all the while that it is only charity that can sustain us against "fate," and that must do so until the end of days."
Received on Mon Jan 3 19:52:24 2005