Rita Cabrera, of Pisco, Peru, lost an aunt in the collapse of the Church of San Clemente, during the recent earthquake that destroyed the church, killing 60 worshipers and two of the five priests. The quake killed more than 500 people and destroyed 34,000 homes, 16,000 of which were in Pisco. Yet, Ms. Cabrera felt “blessed,” because at least she didn't lose any other family member.
This sort of “logic” born of unbearable pain and shock is, of course, very familiar to atheists, and exceedingly irritating. The people of Peru, and of Pisco in particular, have been hit by a random catastrophe like those that have struck human populations since the dawn of time. It is a tragedy that calls for human empathy and for material support to the survivors, but does it really justify a flight from elementary reason in the name of grief?
We don't live in the ancient times when people had no idea of what caused earthquakes and other natural calamities. It may have made (some) sense then to attribute the latest disaster to Zeus' anger over not getting his way with yet another human female, and to attempt to calm the god down with prayers and sacrifices. But it seems an unbearably sad reflection on the educational status of modern humanity that in the internet age the people of Pisco look for “small miracles” to justify clinging onto a faith they should instead seriously question.
The leader of the Church of San Clemente, Alfonso Berra de Urralburu, for example, considers it a miracle that he escaped unscathed, even though the walls were crumbling down all around him. Apparently, it doesn't occur to Mr. Urralburu that such a sense of cosmic gratitude is a direct slap in the face to the two priests that did die that same day, not to mention the dozens of his worshipers that didn't make it out of the building alive.
Ah, but we have evidence of yet other small miracles (is that an oxymoron?), so everything must be right after all. The “evidence” is the fact that a statue of Jesus “somehow” remained intact. Yes, and we are supposed to be thankful to a god that cares more for his own image than for the lives of those who were there praying to him. It seems to me that such a god nicely fits the definition of a psychopath.
Urralburu said that this tragedy was actually an opportunity. “We will use this chance to modernize ... These things have a way of purifying us.” Indeed, but god could have simply told you to take a bath and call in the painters, no? Did he really have to make tens of thousands homeless so that you could “modernize” one of his places of worship? This is not just nonsense, it is an insult to human dignity and suffering, camouflaged as caring and empathy. As Voltaire aptly put it, Ecrasez l'Infame!
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
Speaking of Voltaire, I recently saw a lecturer for the Atlantic Theological Seminary in Halifax on educational TV- an actual class lecture. He was examining the Lisbon earthquake. Turns out that greed drove the inhabitants of Portugal to live crowded together in ramshackle buildings prone to collapse, so it was human sin after all!
ReplyDeleteHey wait! Aren't you going to Halifax next week? You could straighten the guy out!
ReplyDeleteAll religion, even Buddhism, is solipsistic in the end.
ReplyDeleteI did a blog post on the same topic here: http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com/2007/08/battered-wife-syndrome.html
ReplyDeleteMore than sixty people die, and yet it is a miracle that the Jesus statue survived. Sorry, but I would be more impressed if all of the people lived and the Jesus statue was destroyed.
I think that the woman expressed gratitude at the sensation of relief, that her burden was less, in fact, then her maximum, and she knew that a much worse situation was potentially there for her.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that there are physical reasons for the actual earthquake does not change the sense of the synchronicity of where we are and how we get affected by an event such as that.
Let's just say that there is a third alternative to literalist mythology of "Zeus" of old school religion and the modern absolutism of rationalism, a secular religion which believes it knows that all we have is a random universe of physical events with no meaning at its base.
You can say that I cannot prove it. I will say that you cannot prove it wrong, either.
interesting that you brought up this topic, M. Just happens that it was also the question in MN a few weeks ago when a huge bridge collapsed, injuring over 100 killing a yet undetermined number. And that question being, do catastrophic events occur necessarily because of wrong doing..are they indications of the wrath of God? A small section of a commentary that I read on the bridge collapse went like this:
ReplyDeletePutting My Daughter to Bed Two Hours After the Bridge Collapsed
What Do Tragedies Like This Mean for Us?
By John Piper August 1, 2007
.."Tonight for our family devotions our appointed reading was Luke 13:1-9. It was not my choice. This is surely no coincidence. O that all of the Twin Cities, in shock at this major calamity, would hear what Jesus has to say about it from Luke 13:1-5. People came to Jesus with heart-wrenching news about the slaughter of worshipers by Pilate. Here is what he said.
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
Jesus implies that those who brought him this news thought he would say that those who died, deserved to die, and that those who didn’t die did not deserve to die. That is not what he said. He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, wetoo will perish. This is a stunning response. It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God.
All of us have sinned against God, not just against man. This is an outrage ten thousand times worse than the collapse of the 35W bridge. That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. God makes the sun rise and the rain fall on those who do not treasure him above all else. He causes the heart to beat and the lungs to work for millions of people who deserve his wrath. This is a view of reality that desperately needs to be taught in our churches, so that we are prepared for the calamities of the world.
The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world..."
http://www.desiringgod.org/
cal
"Let's just say that there is a third alternative to literalist mythology of "Zeus" of old school religion and the modern absolutism of rationalism, a secular religion which believes it knows that all we have is a random universe of physical events with no meaning at its base." -- Roy
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I cannot let such a mischaracterization slip past unnoticed. Rationalists do not believe in a random Universe; rationalists believe in an orderly universe that is susceptible to understanding through the use of the scientific method. The "absolutism" you refer to is an absolute refusal to appeal to superstition inherited from a culture which lacked our tools for interrogating the universe. It is the absolute refusal to appeal to "goddidit" as any sort of explanation.
Secondly, rationalism doesn't ascribe meaning to the universe not because of a dispositive assertion of meaning's existence, but because it is self-evident that rationalism is not equipped to find meaning. It is equipped to learn the mechanical aspects of the universe. Castigating rationalism for not providing meaning is much like castigating religion for not discovering the laws of thermodynamics. To borrow Gould's term, science and religion command "separate magisteria".
Finally, the fact that rationalists questions themselves and their premises constantly prevents it from becoming a religion, as you slurred it. It's a little thing called "peer review", and perhaps if religion and religionists practiced it, the long slide into irrelevance would not be so inevitable.
T: It is the absolute refusal to appeal to "goddidit" as any sort of explanation..."
ReplyDeleteIn so much as would we not appeal to "Einstein did-it" as any kind of explanation for the actual mechanics of atomic theory, the explanations and the general understanding of a given phenomenon does not DO AWAY with the actual need for a "Mechanic." Every event in the universe that requires an an "intelligent explanation" must in the very least appeal for an intelligent cause.
As an example of factors that indicate intelligence keeping our eco sys afloat , there has been basically the same general level of water on the earth or it's atmosphere for as long as such types of matters could be measured.
It appears to be a way too calculated or preventively maintained of a matter to just let it go as "no one-did-it". That would most obviously be an over simplification to the opposite extreme.
for a perspective..
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to keep an adequate level of water in the reservoir N. of Santa Fe? Now just multiply the complexity of that particular problem (and a very singular one at that) by about 10 k.
cal
You can say that I cannot prove it. I will say that you cannot prove it wrong, either.
ReplyDeleteAs an illustration of how worn-out and stupid such a claim is, I present my unfailing conviction in the existence (and wisdom, and benevolence, of course) of Invisible Pink Unicorns.
They're invisible, so you can't see them, obviously. And they're pink, despite being invisible, because this is the knowledge revealed only to the faithful. You can become one of the faithful rather easily; contact me and I'll send you the form you can fill out and let you know who to make out the cheque to. And it goes without saying that they're unicorns; who else would be invisible and pink? Use your head!
Obviously, the Invisible Pink Unicorns cannot be proved; they are of course far above such Earthly concerns as "evidence" and "testing claims". And you cannot disprove them, can you?
"He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, we too will perish. This is a stunning response. It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God."
ReplyDeleteWhich of course is to say that it doesn't have anything to do with reality and doesn't make any sense at all!
I do not deserve to die. And neither do you, no matter how badly I want to strangle you sometimes! (unless you have committed multiple homicides or something like that.)
I do give you credit though Cal. You have actually posted something relevant to the topic this time.
Another example of how religious people find meaning and make "sense" of trajedies. That is by being non-sensical.
Cal, do you get to log witnessing hours for the drivel you post on Massimo's blog? If so, I think you are cheating. Better to communicate with someone likely to be hoodwinked by your poppycock!
A follow up to the excellent comment by thumpalupacus on randomness and rationalist.
ReplyDeleteThere wasn't actually anything random about this recent earthquake in Peru at all. Except maybe the precise time of its occurence.
The event happened to take place in one of the most geologically active locations in the world, where the Nazca plate is subducted beneath the Andean plate. That tremendous amount of pressure had to give way at some point, and it did. It was predictable, (except perhaps for the precise timing), which by definition makes it a non-random event.
Randomness would require that a earthquake take place anywhere on the planet regardless of geologic activity. They rarely do.
Neither the fact that the quake toppled a Catholic church killing parishioners and priests is completely random. The probability that a Catholic congregation would be struck by such a trajedy in Peru is higher than an Islamic mosque being the victim. Simply because of the course history took. Spanish Catholics conquered Peru, not Islamic armies, leaving more Catholic churches than any other type.
Nothing random about it. Except of course for the precise timeing that that immense pressure was released. Although a geophycist might even correct me on that point.
sheldon,
ReplyDeleteJohn Piper is a bright and sincere theologian. But if we don't deserve to die, why is the mortality rate exactly 100%?
There must be something to that.
ie missionary stuff...
came across a young couple stranded in the middle of the I 25 and 40 interchange a few nights ago. Their motorcycle had mechanical trouble and they had to pull it off to the center of the median at the busiest, possibly most dangerous spot in all of Albq. I swung back around and picked them up took them to a gas station. As we believe we should, I asked them if they knew of Jesus and if I could share something with them. At first I just handed a small book on God's gift of salvation to the young lady who had been sitting in the front seat. The fella getting out of the back seat speaks up and says" Hey, um... can I have one of those too?" I'm like, "SURE!"
Sometimes, Sheldon, we (believers) have no idea who is really interested in knowing about God down in their heart. Outward appearances and attitude don't always convey what people are really hoping for. But like this 20 something couple, stranded on the most dangerous spot imaginable, most everyone who is out there, who may happen to look disinterested (to me) might be just like this couple stuck in the most dangerous spot of their lives. But how would I know? As for 'dangerous spots', I often have felt that those who wage a well thought through defense against Christianity can be the most sincere (in strange sort of way) and are more or less "seekers". You guys do something that many people do not do. You
almost constantly keep the matters of life, death, hell, heaven, ethics always before you. So at least you care and are not apathetic. I can respect that in a person. so I think you deserve some kind of a response, albeit it may not be the most perfect or as well rounded theologically as someone like Piper might give...
cal
"...the explanations and the general understanding of a given phenomenon does not DO AWAY with the actual need for a "Mechanic." -- Cal
ReplyDeleteI accept that explaining a phenomena doesn't tell how it arose. Gravity is the example springing to mind most quickly. We know it exists, and we can compute its forces, but we do not know whence it arises. We do not know why gravity bends space.
However, that does not of neccessity demand a maker. Neither of us, Cal, knows whether or not the Universe was created or whether it has always existed. I confess ignorance of that answer, and though I have hypotheses, in the absence of evidence I cannot ascribe its existence to any cause, or causes.
"As an example of factors that indicate intelligence keeping our eco sys afloat , there has been basically the same general level of water on the earth or it's atmosphere for as long as such types of matters could be measured."
To argue that finely-tuned ecosystems are evidence of intelligence is in reality evidence of an Intelligent Designer is a non sequitur (not to mention a rehash of Paley). It simply doesn't follow that a system can only be in balance by the will of a Balancer. There are many example in inanimate nature of balance being attained, for instance in life cycle of stars. Of course you can, and probably will, argue that that too is evidence of a designer, but that reveals nothing of nature, but much about the a priori conceptions you may bring to the table.
Concerning your words regarding "seekers", I'll say this: though I disagree with your views on the existence of god, you are unlike most Christians that I've met in that you seek out contrary opinion (if only to argue against it, heh). That too is laudable, and though you are often off-topic, and occasionally incomprehensible to me, you seem like a good joe, no matter what everyone else says. :P
And to Sheldon, thanks for the kind words.
ReplyDelete"John Piper is a bright and sincere theologian. But if we don't deserve to die, why is the mortality rate exactly 100%?
ReplyDeleteThere must be something to that."
Cal,
Thanks again for demonstrating how absurd religious thinking can be. At least now you are on topic.
Mortality is simply an inevitable fact of life by senescence, if not interrupted by contingent events leading to premature death.
Because something is a fact does not imply mean that it something that should be.
So the parishioners in the church in Peru deserved to die? So the victims of the south Asian Tsunami deserved to die? Or what about the six million Jews who died in the holocaust? Or the people who died in the 9-11 attacks? So anybody who happens to come across any kind of misfortune leading to premature death deserves to die?
And then you worry about unborn fetuses being aborted. After all, if taken to term, according to your "bright and sincere theologian", they will "deserve to die" once born. So what is the problem?
"deserve" from the dictionary: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital
If you can't see how absurd your above statement is, then I guess you need to clarify what you mean by "deserve".
No, rationalists do not believe that there was any underlying meaning to who precisely got selected to die in that tragedy.
ReplyDeleteThey believe that only the physical world is orderly and that there is no way that the "Handwriting on the wall", a series of cracks that happened to mimic writing and say something meaningful about a current event experienced by chroniclers of the Bible, is anything other than a meaningless coincidence, amusing, but not worthy of consideration.
You rationalist are the ones that need the "Twilight Zone Kodak Moments", as I call it, as I needed them when I was an orthodox rationalist, to break you out of a parochial Enlightenment mindset that was its own "Bridge Too Far" into the hubris of reductionism and virulent anti-spiritualism, all of which has led us into, but not quite out of, communism, capitalism, and any other triumphalist -ism that purports to have all the answers to how to live, a Bible for atheists, as it were, with a complete set of standardized accusations, complete with rationalizations, permitting hubris and righteousness on the part of the (in the end)irrationally anti-rational rationalist.
So, is synchronicity real? Or just something that we cannot believe in unless we are protected by our identity of primeval shamanhood, in which case we would be "racist" and "imperialist" as good rationalists to say that what the shamans believe is nonsense?
Roy
I should have said, "irrational anti-irrationalists". They can take their place with the "fascistic anti-fascists" and the "sexist anti-sexists" and the "racist anti-racists" in a world that continues to turn on itself as if the world was a great place to write yourself another theater of the absurd play.
ReplyDeleteRoy
"No, rationalists do not believe that there was any underlying meaning to who precisely got selected to die in that tragedy."
ReplyDeleteNo we don't. We have all heard of the phrase "Thats how the cookie crumbles."
To believe that there is some deep underlying meaning in these events would precisely be like looking for some deep meaning in the crumbs of a cookie on the table. Why did this cookie crumble this way, pulverizing this part, but leaving relatively big pieces from this part. Maybe its the nuts, so what are the nuts telling us? Hmmmm.....
Roy --
ReplyDeleteMay I refer you to Steely Dan?
Throw out your gold teeth and see how they roll
the answer they reveal:
life is unreal.
I find this much more succinct than your ramblings, and minus your invective it is more palatable. Not to mention it's got a great beat and I can dance to it.
To answer your question: No, I do not consider synchronicity as anything more than coincidence. But to equate the rejection of shamanism with racism is silly and you know it. If you wish me or any other rationalist to accept your position, why don't you shitcan the appeals to emotion and bring some facts?
"As we believe we should, I asked them if they knew of Jesus and if I could share something with them."
ReplyDeleteCreepy...
Hey, Roy. Was it you who bought that cheese sandwich with a "Virgin Mary" on it from eBay? What about the Jesus image wardrobe? The Jesus garage spill? Must have been you, I suppose, since you can read some wall you're talking about...
S: "deserve" from the dictionary: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital
ReplyDeleteIf you can't see how absurd your above statement is, then I guess you need to clarify what you mean by "deserve"."
The definition of "deserve" that most people think of in our culture is linked to a concept of entitled-ness. Was reading an article about how just the sheer array of choices affects our kids and the mindset of society at large.
The Entitlement Epidemic:
Who's Really to Blame?
July 19, 2007
http://online.wsj.com/article_email
/SB118480432643571003-lMyQjAxMDE3OD
I0MDgyMDA0Wj.html
The deserving or (not) deserving to live part, otoh, just comes from the tendency of wanting our own way. When wanting one's own way works itself out to it's logical and most definitive end, more often than not the other party winds up dead. (yesterday morn my husband's friend's business partner attempted beat one of their employees to death with baseball bat. Beat him over he head many times after he was out cold.
disgusting and sicking, if you ask me)
of course, this is not necessarily just an issue of affluent societies either. Similarly, we tend to see a lot of selfishness and treachery in the poorest areas of Mexico and abroad.
Those who care about justice, (in ref to Massimo's new commentary) however, understand what happens when one person's view of their own rights so overwhelming overpowers and undermines the rest of society that such a persons existence threatens peace and harmony for the the rest who are (tho not incompletely innocent) are at least interested getting along with the rest.
Do not think for a moment that the man who was just sentenced to death for killing and assaulting Jessica Lusford in Fla. would have any regard for law enforcement, or college professors for that matter. So prof, P, you do honestly think that a man who abuses, tortures, rapes then murders a child like Jessica does NOT deserve the death penalty?
If you've had the privilege to raise and protect little girls in your home, you ought to say, "the quicker the better"
cal
Cal,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you avoid the question! And you interject irrelevant statements that seem to have no real bearing on the issue.
The term "deserve" is one that suggests that a person is due a reward or punishement for a particular action.
A child may "deserve" a bowl of ice cream for desert if he eats all of his spinach and picks up his toys from the living room. If the parent sees fit.
It may be so that the man who killed Jessica Lusford in Florida actually does deserve to die. But according to your self-professed belief, Jessica Lusford also deserved to die!
Does it follow that anybody who by virtue of simply being a living human being, and who has not committed such a dastardly deed actually deserve to die?
You of course believe in this ridiculous theology that any human being, by virtue of simply being a human being inherits the sin of a mythical Adam and Eve, falls short of "the grace of God", and thus "deserves" to die.
But if you believe that, then as I suggested previously, those who happen to die premature deaths due to acts of nature or evil acts of men is of no consequence. After all, you believe they deserve to die. Why put any value on life of anybody if you believe that? Its absurd! Try following through on the logical consequences of what you profess to believe Cal.
Actually, Sheldon, Cal is merely reiterating Christianity's belief that humans deserve death. (Y'know, the fall fronm grace, etc.)
ReplyDeleteNo one can prove that synchronistic experience is wrong. You don't have total information about the universe, yet the premise of your statement about the "cookie" is exactly that: you take a sense impression based on your limited experience and say that is it.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted to say that, short of proof, you will put nothing into the belief about synchronistic phenomenon, that is REASONABLE and RATIONAL.
But to categorically state that something you have never tested is not true, that something you have never suggested a falsifiable conjecture about, is not true, that is not rationality.
That is RATIONALISM, an irrational anti-irrational position, which puts you in contradiction with the premises of rationality.
Yeah.
You can't prove that synchronicity is wrong, but you can say that you don't see the basis for it. [Same with other things- alien abductions, etc.]
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if you choose to believe in synchronicity, you can never eliminate the doubt that there is a simpler explanation, as so often seems to be the case.
I have seen many people walk straight down the garden path because they believe too avidly in the significance of coincidences. For example, a guy starting a business, he's never seen a deal come together so beautifully. But the guy he bought the business from sold it for a reason, which eventually he found out.
Don't get too twisted up in cute little paradoxes Roy.