Theologians explain the suffering caused by Hurricane Sandy

November 1, 2012 • 3:40 am

Natural disasters are a field day for the faithful. They either explain why we deserved these “natural evils”, or desperately rationalize why they happened in a world supposedly supervised by a beneficent and omnipotent God. If that can’t provide a good explanation, they appeal to the inscrutability of God, or say that everything will be set right in the afterlife.

This, of course, gives atheists the chance to once again note that natural evils don’t comport with most people’s idea of God.

Hurricane Sandy has inspired an orgy of agonized self-examination at PuffHo this week. The biggest piece is by Jaweed Kaleem, “Hurricane Sandy presents complex questions about God for clergy and the faithful as victims cope.” (Kaleem should learn to write more concise titles.)

He notes that some clergy have already claimed that the hurricane was a punishment from God, but we needn’t detain ourselves with that kind of idiocy. Let’s look at the More Sophisticated Responses.

But many Christians and people of all faiths would ask why, if God is all-knowing and created the Earth and life, he would cause the kind of suffering a hurricane or any natural disaster is bound to create. It’s a question Rabbi Harold Kushner, the former head of Temple Israel in Natick, Mass., has spent decades exploring.

“How do you understand what is happening to you?” said Kushner, who wrote the book When Bad Things Happen to Good People after the death of his son from a premature aging disease. Speaking from his home, where the electricity had just gone out and more storm-related problems were likely to come, Kushner, 77, said he had come to understand “God as moral,” but “nature as not.”

But nature is a product of God’s will. It’s like saying that somebody kills you with an axe, and then excusing the incident by arguing that “the axe is not moral but the murderer is.”

“Nature is value-free,” said Kushner, a rabbi of the conservative Jewish tradition. “It can’t tell the role between the deserving the undeserving. God’s role is not to decide where the hurricane goes and how severe it is. God’s role is to motivate people to help neighbors and improve methods to predict hurricanes. God is found not in the problem, but in the resilience.”

I am so glad that Rabbi Kushner knows exactly what God is up to and where He is found, given that many other theologians claim that God is inscrutable. Sadly, the “resilience” entailed by forecasting hurricanes occurred only in the last few decades, after God had already killed lots of “unresilient” folks.

Kaleem gives other examples of Hurricane Apologetics:

Similar stories of difficulty and perseverance can be found in the Quran, said Yasir Qadhi, a Muslim cleric and dean of academic affairs at Houston-based AlMaghrib Institute.

“How does one explain evil? If God is all-knowing and all-just and merciful, why are there murders, rapes and typhoons? Philosophers and theologians of all stripes have grappled with this,” said Qadhi, who lives in Memphis, Tenn., and regularly teaches on the East Coast.

“In Islam, there’s no such thing as pure evil. Every action of God may be pure good or may have some good and negative, but there’s always a benefit to every action of Allah, whether we understand it immediately or not,” said Qadhi. “It is by combating evil that we show goodness. Were there no poor people, how could people show their mercy? Were there no hurricane, how could we come together to help each other and be neighbors?”

Were there no Auschwitz, then. . . what? If my cousin hadn’t gotten cancer and died at 14, then. . . what?

Qadhi’s argument that evils are there to give other people the chance to shine is reprehensible. He continues:

“Somebody might ask, ‘Why would God do that?’ Firstly, we cannot understand God’s wisdom. Allah tests us in this world to give us positions in the next. It is by answering those tests that we prove our faithfulness,” said Qadhi, who added that the Quran says “Allah never burdened the soul with more than it can bare [sic].”

This shows nothing about God, but something about the deviousness of the theological mind.  Don’t ask questions—God forbid that we ask whether Allah might not exist—but shut up and suffer.  The more you accept your lot, the more faithful you are.  Can anybody with rationality and empathy buy such tripe?

In another PuffHo piece, “Where was God when Hurricane Sandy Struck?“, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach prefers to ignore the hard questions and spout some platitudes:

What was G-d thinking when he sent Hurricane Sandy and what could have been its purpose?

In truth, I don’t much care, because our role as humans is not to understand G-d’s plan in the face of horror and tragedy, but to challenge God and demand that human life always be protected and preserved. . .

The Bible in Deuteronomy is clear. “The hidden things are for G-d to understand, but the revealed things are for us and our children.” Why G-d allows good people to suffer is a secret known to him. But we human beings ought to have no interest in knowing the secret. What we want, what we demand, is that the suffering stop completely so that God and humanity can finally be reconciled, after a long history of human travail and agony, in a bright and blessed future, bereft of suffering, absent of tragedy, and filled with blessing.

Ours is not to reason why, but to watch folks die—and try not to comply.

But why are we supposed to challenge G-d’s unknowable plan? Presumably G-d knows better than we why good people suffer, so shouldn’t we go along with what He wants?  Or does G-d want us to challenge him: that is, perhaps our suffering is part of an even more devious plan in which G-d tests us to see if we’re gutsy enough to stand up to his manifestly ridiculous actions?

The good rabbi, of course, doesn’t consider the more parsimonious alternative to the suffering of innocents: G-d doesn’t exist, and the suffering is simply what one expects when evolution creates creatures in an unstable world.

More evidence for that parsimonious hypothesis: also at PuffHo, Rev. James Martin, S. J.(a Catholic) offers “A Christian hurricane prayer,” part of which is this:

Creator God, we ask you to calm the wind and the waves of the approaching hurricane, and spare those in its path from harm. Help those who are in its way to reach safety. Open our hearts in generosity to all who need help in the coming days. In all things and in all times, help us to remember that even when life seems dark and stormy, you are in the boat with us, guiding us to safety. Amen.

The first part didn’t work, for God didn’t guide the hurricane away from the east coast of the U.S. or Caribbean islands. Our loving God has once again killed lots of people (132 by the last count). I suppose Sophisticated Theologians™ would explain hurricanes as the inevitable and unavoidable result of the salubrious way that God has arranged the weather, but couldn’t he have steered those winds in another direction? Was he really in our boat?

Not one of these theologians has suggested that the historical difficulty of explaining certain evils as part of God’s plan may suggest that God doesn’t exist at all.

Loosen those wallets

October 31, 2012 • 3:03 pm

Click to enlarge. What would you give for this, knowing that every penny will go to Doctors Without Borders? (As lagniappe, I’ll throw in a sheet of Steve Weinberg’s mathematical calculations that he doodled during our workship.)

More in about four weeks. No bidding yet!

Oh, and yes, that’s Baihu’s genuine pawprint (Ben Goren, also a signatory, donated the book).

Sean Carroll assesses the Stockbridge workshop

October 31, 2012 • 12:29 pm

Over at Cosmic Variance, organizer Sean Carroll gives his take on the “Moving Naturalism Forward” workship that both Massimo Pigliucci and I reported on this week (Sean gives all links to our posts). In his post, “Nudging naturalism just a bit forward,” Sean gives an honest take on the organization of the meeting, and says there are three more posts to come on the substance.

As I’ve hinted, I think the conference suffered a bit from the dominance of the philosophers over the scientists, perhaps because most of the philosophers seemed unable (at least to me) to say anything in less than 15 minutes of monologue. That was off-putting to several of us scientists, who are used to having rapid, give-and-take conversations.  And, if I can add another personal take, the philosophers seemed far more entrenched in their views than did the scientists (the exception was Steve Weinberg, who seemed pretty sure of himself, but I didn’t mind that since he seemed pretty correct in his views—except about free will!).

Another problem is that scientists like me are intimidated by philosophical jargon, and hence didn’t interrupt the monologues to ask for clarification for fear of looking stupid. I therefore spent a fair amount of time Googling stuff like “epistemology” and “ontology” (I can never get those terms straight since I rarely use them). Perhaps it would have been better had I been more willing to interrupt and ask for clarification, or if the moderators had asked people to explain what they were saying with less jargon. I think the jargon will be a problem when the discussions are finally put up on YouTube (they will be).  As Sean said in his post:

We proceeded in the style of a family having a boisterous dinner together, with everyone speaking up whenever they had something to say. It worked quite well, but it might have worked even better if the course of the dialogue had funneled through a central person. Janna Levin, who also recognized this tendency, served as the moderator for the very last session, and I thought it was the best-run of them all.

I agree with that; Janna did a great job.

The last session of Day Two involved a discussion of representation and “aboutness” (what it means for one thing to be about something else, and how in the world such a thing can come into existence naturally). It was the only time, I think, when a subgroup of the table ran off into a technical area and left others behind; in particular, the philosophers were hashing out issues of extreme importance to them. As a result, several of the philosophers said that it was their favorite part of the workshop, while most of the scientists were lost. Maybe it’s okay to allow that more focused kind of discussion as a rare event, but I would have liked to wrangle it in such a way that everyone was equally present.

Yes, I didn’t understand a word of that discussion and eventually tuned out.

But, as I’ve said, the meeting enabled all of us to make contacts—indeed, friends—with lots of intellectual confrères, and that, in the end, may be the most valuable thing of all, for those contacts will, I’m confident, move naturalism forward.

Where’s moggie?

October 31, 2012 • 11:28 am

Did you spot the cat in today’s earlier post? Several readers did, but if you haven’t, here it is: two outlined cats contributed by reader Gayle (who provided the earlier picture) and Justicar:

In pink shape, lower left, you’ll find a gray and white moggie:

A closeup:

A free journal issue on experimental evolution

October 31, 2012 • 10:41 am

Biology Letters is offering free access to its latest issue on “experimental evolution,” an issue edited by Thomas Batailon, Paul Joyce, and my friend Paul Sniegowski. You can see the table of contents at the link above, and here are the free articles:

Feature Articles

Introduction – As it happens: current directions in experimental evolution
by Thomas Bataillon, Paul Joyce and Paul Sniegowski

Temperature, stress and spontaneous mutation in Caenorhabditis briggsae and Caenorhabditis elegans
by Chikako Matsuba, Dejerianne G. Ostrow, Matthew P. Salomon, Amit Tolani and Charles F. Baer

Mutational effects depend on ploidy level: all else is not equal
by Aleeza Gerstein

Genetic background affects epistatic interactions between two beneficial mutations
by Yinhua Wang, Carolina Díaz Arenas, Daniel M. Stoebel and Tim F. Cooper

Epistasis between mutations is host-dependent for an RNA virus
by Jasna Lalic and Santiago F. Elena

The role of ‘soaking’ in spiteful toxin production in Pseudomonas aeruginosa
by R. Fredrik Inglis, Alex R. Hall and Angus Buckling

Experimental evolution of multicellularity using microbial pseudo-organisms
by David C. Queller and Joan E. Strassmann

Model and test in a fungus of the probability that beneficial mutations survive drift
by Danna R. Gifford, J. Arjan G. M. de Visser and Lindi M. Wahl

Evolution of clonal populations approaching a fitness peak
by Isabel Gordo and Paulo R. A. Campos

Evolutionary rescue of a green alga kept in the dark
by Graham Bell

Competition and the origins of novelty: experimental evolution of niche-width expansion in a virus
by Lisa M. Bono, Catharine L. Gensel, David W. Pfennig and Christina L. Burch

Related Content

Discussion Meeting issue ‘Genetics and the causes of evolution: 150 years of progress since Darwin’ organized and edited by Michael Bonsall and Brian Charlesworth

‘Genomics of Adaptation’ Guest Edited by Professor Jacek Radwan and Dr Wiesław Babik

Evolution articles
Special Feature articles

Happy Halloween!

October 31, 2012 • 8:41 am

Is there anyone to bring me candy in my sickbed?

Google has a swell doodle today, and it’s interactive. Go to their site and play with it.  It starts off looking like this, but see what’s behind the doors.  Note, if you do it right you’ll find both a cat and a cephalopod!

And a halloween cat from reader Grania (be sure to see as well the Henri video from earlier today).

Find the cat (note: comments on this one disabled)

October 31, 2012 • 5:04 am

Click to enlarge if you wish. There IS a cat in here.

To make it more fun, and waste a lot of your time, I’m disabling all comments, for I want you to find it without clues. And please don’t post any comments giving clues at the picture link (I can’t disable comments there); I’ll remove any such comments!

I’ll show you where it is in a few hours. And no fair putting answers on other posts!

h/t: Gayle