A Catastrophe Theology Credo
Years ago, I presented a paper on Catastrophe Theory and applications of that kind of model to educational systems. Over the last few years, I've had occasion to suspect there is an equivalent model for the theology of disaster in which the main factors are restrained omnipotence, human free will, and the obvious balance which must occur between them.
Consider first of all the human level concept of disaster: insurance policies and suchlike list these as 'Acts of God' - hurricanes, earthquakes, typhoons, floods, volcanic eruptions. Pandemics, epidemics, plagues, and that most recent of terrors, the tsunami – all these are included as well in man's catalogue of disaster. They are events which one would not generally attribute to human agencies. The 'Force Majeure' clause in contracts includes war, terrorism and other forms of extreme human-initiated activity (armed rebellion, rioting and revolution - the 3Rs of violence - for example).
Consider secondly the human response on an instinctive level for things which seem beyond human control – O God, why me, why us, why them, why these? And on a more philosophical level: how can God exist if this entity is all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful and there are bad/evil outcomes?
I'm sorry, but I'm impatient with apologists for God's conduct as much as I'm impatient with atheists who use this particular argument as an argument against the existence of God. I believe there are possible answers which many have attempted to show. One: there is indeed no God. Two: there is a God and He is not all-knowing. Three: there is a God and He is not all-good. Four: there is a God and He is not all-powerful. Five: there are no evil (or good?) outcomes and we've missed the point. And variations on these themes, showing their strengths and weaknesses.
I believe there must be a God of some sort. You can't say simplicity trumps complexity in terms of entities (i.e. Occam's Razor) and then say complexity trumps simplicity in terms of entities (i.e. evolution). This is not the full extent of my beliefs, but it is a starting point.
I believe the truth is that only a transcendent mind can be omniscient, and that you can't understand a transcendent and omniscient mind. However, it can understand you and your limitations of knowledge.
I believe that free will for humans automatically means there will be non-optimal (or non-good or even bad) outcomes. (Reason: no will can be free without impinging on another free will given finite space and resources for exercise of will. Corollary: if no human is perfect, free will is a disaster waiting to happen.)
I believe that the universe as we know it is able to allow two competing forces to work concurrently: human reason and human will. Humans have a great desire to figure things out; how fortunate that the universe seems amenable to reason. Humans have a great desire to impose their will on other entities; how fortunate that this is circumscribed by some kinds of almost-universal laws. For worlds in which this state is not true, just look at Jack Vance's Dying Earth series.
There is a rather silly old chestnut about whether it is possible for God to make a rock He cannot lift. It is supposed to deny omnipotence one way or the other. It is also too easily refuted. My theory is that the God who can create a universe containing free-willed entities has in fact created a universe in which He can allow for free will. His omnipotence to break the laws of that universe is circumscribed of His own volition by His allowances for said free-willed entities.
And that is perhaps why disasters happen. He will not often intervene where He has bound himself to allow for free will. So people are at liberty to live in the shadows of volcanoes, or along beaches in the Ring of Fire; so too are people able to voluntarily entrust themselves to machines made by other people, and to processes created by others – economical, social, mechanical or otherwise. Most final of all, they are able to deny His existence freely, thus creating for themselves a world where the only miracle is the miracle of anything happening at all.
Remember though that the percentage probability of man's existence is 100%, and that there are consequences to this.
Consider first of all the human level concept of disaster: insurance policies and suchlike list these as 'Acts of God' - hurricanes, earthquakes, typhoons, floods, volcanic eruptions. Pandemics, epidemics, plagues, and that most recent of terrors, the tsunami – all these are included as well in man's catalogue of disaster. They are events which one would not generally attribute to human agencies. The 'Force Majeure' clause in contracts includes war, terrorism and other forms of extreme human-initiated activity (armed rebellion, rioting and revolution - the 3Rs of violence - for example).
Consider secondly the human response on an instinctive level for things which seem beyond human control – O God, why me, why us, why them, why these? And on a more philosophical level: how can God exist if this entity is all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful and there are bad/evil outcomes?
I'm sorry, but I'm impatient with apologists for God's conduct as much as I'm impatient with atheists who use this particular argument as an argument against the existence of God. I believe there are possible answers which many have attempted to show. One: there is indeed no God. Two: there is a God and He is not all-knowing. Three: there is a God and He is not all-good. Four: there is a God and He is not all-powerful. Five: there are no evil (or good?) outcomes and we've missed the point. And variations on these themes, showing their strengths and weaknesses.
I believe there must be a God of some sort. You can't say simplicity trumps complexity in terms of entities (i.e. Occam's Razor) and then say complexity trumps simplicity in terms of entities (i.e. evolution). This is not the full extent of my beliefs, but it is a starting point.
I believe the truth is that only a transcendent mind can be omniscient, and that you can't understand a transcendent and omniscient mind. However, it can understand you and your limitations of knowledge.
I believe that free will for humans automatically means there will be non-optimal (or non-good or even bad) outcomes. (Reason: no will can be free without impinging on another free will given finite space and resources for exercise of will. Corollary: if no human is perfect, free will is a disaster waiting to happen.)
I believe that the universe as we know it is able to allow two competing forces to work concurrently: human reason and human will. Humans have a great desire to figure things out; how fortunate that the universe seems amenable to reason. Humans have a great desire to impose their will on other entities; how fortunate that this is circumscribed by some kinds of almost-universal laws. For worlds in which this state is not true, just look at Jack Vance's Dying Earth series.
There is a rather silly old chestnut about whether it is possible for God to make a rock He cannot lift. It is supposed to deny omnipotence one way or the other. It is also too easily refuted. My theory is that the God who can create a universe containing free-willed entities has in fact created a universe in which He can allow for free will. His omnipotence to break the laws of that universe is circumscribed of His own volition by His allowances for said free-willed entities.
And that is perhaps why disasters happen. He will not often intervene where He has bound himself to allow for free will. So people are at liberty to live in the shadows of volcanoes, or along beaches in the Ring of Fire; so too are people able to voluntarily entrust themselves to machines made by other people, and to processes created by others – economical, social, mechanical or otherwise. Most final of all, they are able to deny His existence freely, thus creating for themselves a world where the only miracle is the miracle of anything happening at all.
Remember though that the percentage probability of man's existence is 100%, and that there are consequences to this.
etched with acid at 7:34:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home