Tsunami-sosumi
Whistling and swearing, the sailor said: "There'll be something to pick up here." (Voltaire, Candide ch. v)
Holding God accountable. After the Tsunami I noticed in the Web
logging world first but then in other media, commentary that took to
hold the divine accountable for the wave in one fashion or other.
The routine run of these commentary plow a boundary around the
position that there can not be a wise and benevolent God if disasters
like the one on 26 Dec 2004 occur among us. That loss, pain and
suffering contradict the existence of a good and living God.
Religionists - the theocratic minded see disaster as punishment,
directed at wickedness. The slackness of their own people, or as
proof of their enemies disfavor. Always in contrast to their own
believers favor, the facts such as can be determined are sorted to fit
this.
Our minister over at First Congregational W.DC, Rev. John Mack,
made that a topic of the sermon Sunday. I imagine most preachers dealt
with the Tsunami in degrees. Rev. Mack seemed personally confronted by
the doubting. He reiterated the true voice of God is to be found
not in the wind or shaking of the earth but in a still small
voice. The position of God, he pointed out lies in the whole of
creation. It's a very large whole, but noting how John's gospel begins
with a brief retelling of Genisis. For the purpose of establishing that
providence coexists with creation.
I had run along similar lines of thought during the week. I
noted these articles, as I saw them, but found myself dismissive of the
debate. It never seemed to me that Man gives God mission, or outlines
God's duty. Neither fealty nor prayer, constitute orders to an
adjunct. If it seems a cop-out not to see God as something
rubbed out of an oil lamp, and owed fortune from, I can only reply:
that wouldn't be God. The ocean - the land beneath it is the
terrestrial sphere. The disaster at hand is part of Mans relation to
nature. Nature the realm where man exists fragily and transiently is
not moraly willfull, it is chaos, offers no recognition to particular
life, but is not evil. Mankind's mortality is not the cause or result
of nature, but part of it. I think some would like to view ambient evil
(suffering) as freefloating response to original sin -- something
deserved, even to the good and innocent. The toiler by the sea, and
child. Opposed I suppose to evil that springs from man's ill opinion
and desire. What some might call man's nature, borrowed as it seems
from wolves, where virtue is known by the identity of the pack.
Another post where my writing became too unwieldy
to gently lay relevant links in line. So I'm leaving them all off
here. If you do read any of these - read the pdf by Dynes first.
That link is in the text where it belongs mysteriously. The Metafilter
thread on Tom Delay's unfortunate session opening prayer last week is
here just for fun. If I did not already consider him a borderline
psychotic things like that would worry me.
As some of these articles mentioned all this has been chewed
through before in a dialogue between Voltaire and Rouseau concerning
the Lisbon Earthquake. In 1755 on November 1 between earthquake Tidal
wave and Fires perhaps 70,000 people lost their lives. It was the
first disaster to the western world to occur in the modern era and one
of the worst. After the quake Voltaire wrote a short poem with a
brief introduction called 'the Lisbon earthquake'. It was intended as
response to writings by Pope (essay on man), and Liebnitz. It proceeded
against Optimisim: that this is best of all possible worlds. That what
is, is good or right. This is the precurser to today's technological
optimism, What we call progress. A belief that technology through
innovation will solve all mankinds problems a process that
automatically leaves our affairs on a higher level. This is a
different from adaptation a way of thinking of evolution (or
evolutionary change) as a response to nature - which despite an innate
complexity may be viewed as lateral in essence and not reflecting
mastery. Voltaire writes: "when man groans under such a load of woe, he
is not proud, he feels only the blow. Later: Or else the God who being
rules and space untouched with pity for the Human race indifferent,
from both love and anger free still acts consistent to his first
decree". This is Voltaire's dubious view of Enlightenment Deism -
Man deals with but a small portion of creation, Where god created
immutable moral and physical laws then withdrew. Man left in his proper
and particular place place. Voltaire asks: if this is the right way to
see God, What are we to understand or believe about God?
Rousseau replied in a letter to Voltaire dated 18 Aug
1756. He wished to reaffirm the principle of providence - that a
caring God is the agent of a human destiny, It is irrevocable that mans
destiny unfolds in a world of laws of matter, motion and reason.
It's an open question what reason could develop outside discoverable
material causality. Rousseau also wanted to point out that our ills are
generally of our own making. Either direct of mans active inhumanity to
man. This is what some recently would regard evil, specifically a
supernatural evil supernaturaly placed into some mens hearts our
enemies; whomever, but never ours. Or else indirect ie through
inattention, unreasoned engagement with natural world. Our expectation
that our least manmade environment is set free from natural forces. The
natural world persists. Nature is a chaotic machine whose gears are
partialy visible and turn relentlessly. In response Voltaire
wrote Candide.
While doing an obligatory Google sweep on this subject before leaving it. I turned up a paper by Russell Dynes : Dialogue between Voltaire and Rousseau on the Lisbon earthquake: the emergence of a sociol science view.
Dynes offers a number of interesting and critical observation about
this debate between the two philosophers. One is a notion that
disasters are in addition to all other things a social construct
"occuring...within a specific social and cultural context" from which
we draw what meaning we can of it from it Significant to the Lisbon
earthquakes memory it struck hard at the wealthier parts of Lisbon.
Another is the prevalent notion of disasters as technological failings
seeking after a technological fix. Dynes also considers the role of the
modern state a role government would not have played until the advent
of the monolithic nation state. Disasters are among all else disruption
and threat to social order. In response the state has assumed role of
responsible agent for recovery and prevention, if not of disaster
itself then at least of its worst effect.
Put into Dynes frame of mind. I recalled that I always
previously held a special contempt for those governments unable or
unwilling despite the monopolies they hold, of coercive force of state
resources, respond effectively to natural disasters. No helicopters
fly, no one is pulled from the mud, no water or food is delivered. The
elites fade back into the recesses and finger their riches
nervously while neighboring nations step in. The scale of this
catastrophe is such that all nations must consider themselves affected
and step in, and that step will be a further step of destiny.
[I know I'm posting this on Monday even though it has a post date of Friday. This is due to optimism, but not providence.]
10:20:20 AM  ;;
|
|
