Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00117)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Drpsionic@a... wrote:
> The best response to all this I've heard was from an atheist
> who said that no one in the studio she was being interviewed
> in would have stood aside and let the tsunami happen if they
> could prevent it, yet people will still believe in and even
> worship a god who could. Such a god is unworthy of worship
> and deserving only of contempt.

That statement only makes sense if one assumes there is a deity who 
(1) cares about the well being of villagers in Asia and/or (2) is 
somehow obligated by acts of supplication to act or not act in some 
certain way and (3) that the villagers did in fact place that deity 
under obligation. The disaster seems to indicate that none of those 
premises is correct. The ancient Hebrews worshipped volcanoes but 
that did not stop Sodom and Gomorrah from being destroyed. They 
reached the reasonable conclusion that the volcano felt no obligation 
to spare their communities amd yet clung to the less reasonable 
belief that it could be somehow put under obligation if people 
behaved in a restrained manner. The fact that Antiochus Epiphanes 
and then Pompey and then Titus were able to march with impunity into 
their Temple at Jerusalem and stomp around in profane and 
disrespectful fashion without any adverse consequences coming to them 
(unless you count Pompey's subsequent murder in Egypt) clearly 
indicated to them that there was something wrong witn the assumptions 
they had made about their tribal deity. They explained this in ways 
that make little sense to me but they were not moved to contempt. 
Their explanation was that there was "unrighteousness" hither and 
yon, much of it secret. After the Holocaust they apparently finally 
decided that they were not going to place their deity under 
obligation to them. Unfortunately that seems to be about all one can 
say for sure based on the evidence.

Something no one seems to point out is the god of modern technology 
and how it was not appropriately used to prevent the disaster.

The Thai Government fired their Chief Weather Forecaster for saying 
nothing about the impending disaster. Did the cat nave his tongue? 
It seems reasonable that had the governments in question had advance 
warning the loss of life could have been significantly reduced if not 
eliminated. The earthquake that caused the disaster occurred seven 
hours before the wave hit land. Surely in seven hours time at least 
some of the 100,000 or so who were killed could have been moved to 
safety.

If that sounds unreasonable, consider this: There is a system in 
place in the eastern Pacific to warn of tsunamis headed for the west 
coast of the US. Apparently this system was built in response to the 
tsunamis that hit Hawai'i and Alaska in years past. If the 
technology is known, and has been implemented and deployed, why have 
not the Japanese, who are every bit as advanced technologically as 
the US, implemented such an early warning system in their own 
neighborhood? Why did not Thailand's Chief Weather Forecaster 
initiate an international effort to implement such a system long 
ago? If they can import other forms of technology into Asia, why not 
early warning systems for tsunamis?

The mosques in the area were sufficiently well constructed that they 
were not destroyed by the disaster. If Asia's architects can and do 
build structures that can withstand the full force of a tsunami, then 
why would it not be reasonable to build them so that they could also 
shelter the locals from the same natural disaster? The buildings 
would have a dual use, in other words. These buildings are large 
enough to hold everyone five times a day for prayer. It seems 
reasonable they could also hold everyone in the event of an impending 
disaster. That would eliminate the need to get everyone out of town 
on short notice.

I suspect the fault is not in our gods but in ourselves.