Disaster challenges belief
--------------------
Where was God two weeks ago when tectonic plates shifted under the Indian Ocean, sending a tsunami roaring across the seas on a journey of death, terror, destruction and grief? Shaken by the magnitude of a natural disaster which has claimed some 145,000 lives, believers and non-believers alike ponder the question as religious leaders struggle to interpret the disaster in terms of faith and theology. How could a benevolent, all-caring God allow it to happen?
Traditional answers will get us only so far, says Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans. The question of "how you can you believe in a God who permits suffering on such a scale is very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't, indeed it would be wrong if it weren't," Williams wrote in an article published in a British Sunday paper.
Making sense of a great disaster is a challenge simply because those who are closest to the cost are the ones least likely to accept some sort of intellectual explanation, however polished, Williams wrote. And, he asked, why should they? The extraordinary fact is "that belief has survived such tests again and again not because it comforts or explains but because believers cannot deny what has been shown or given to them."
Every single random, accidental death, Williams wrote, is something that "should upset a faith bound up with comfort and ready answers. Faced with the paralyzing magnitude of a disaster like this, we naturally feel more deeply outraged and alone, more deeply helpless."
And maybe we are on our own in a world where tectonic plates shift and other natural forces occasionally cause appalling catastrophes, says Richard Dawkins, the noted Oxford professor and avowed atheist. In a letter to The Guardian newspaper, Dawkins said religious explanations for natural disasters range from the "loopy" (its payback time for Original Sin) through "vicious" (disasters are sent to try our faith) to "violent" (heretics were hanged after the devastating Lisbon earthquake of 1755). While it is "psychologically possible to derive comfort from sincere belief in a non-existent illusion," Dawkins wrote, "I thought believers might be disillusioned with an omnipotent being who has just drowned 125,000 (now 145,000) innocent people, or an omniscient one who failed to warn them."
Hallett Llewellyn, a United Church theologian and member of Trinity St. Paul's United Church pastoral staff, applauds Williams for his courage and honesty in admitting his own personal struggle with the meaning of faith. Better that than "the certainty that allows no kind of room for people to question their faith."
The tsunami catastrophe and other natural disasters can't help but force anyone with a serious, reflective mind about faith to question the traditional Christian characterizations of God, Llewellyn said in an interview. They challenge "those traditional attributes of omniscience and omnipotence — the all-powerful God. You can't help but question why they are not in play."
Llewellyn says his own faith is challenged enormously and he asks the same questions when one child is killed in a natural disaster: "I do tend to separate my belief in God from my faith in God trusting no matter what happens there is a supreme good purpose underlying the realities of life. It is something I continue to hold on to."
In an interview, Anglican Primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison said there has not been a disaster in his lifetime forcing him to abandon his faith even for a moment. But there have been moments when he has wrestled with the kind of questions now being raised. "How can you believe in a God who permits suffering on such a scale?" he said. "How can you, indeed? There is no answer to that. And yet you do."
Where was God two weeks ago when tectonic plates shifted under the Indian Ocean, sending a tsunami roaring across the seas on a journey of death, terror, destruction and grief? Shaken by the magnitude of a natural disaster which has claimed some 145,000 lives, believers and non-believers alike ponder the question as religious leaders struggle to interpret the disaster in terms of faith and theology. How could a benevolent, all-caring God allow it to happen?
Traditional answers will get us only so far, says Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans. The question of "how you can you believe in a God who permits suffering on such a scale is very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't, indeed it would be wrong if it weren't," Williams wrote in an article published in a British Sunday paper.
Making sense of a great disaster is a challenge simply because those who are closest to the cost are the ones least likely to accept some sort of intellectual explanation, however polished, Williams wrote. And, he asked, why should they? The extraordinary fact is "that belief has survived such tests again and again not because it comforts or explains but because believers cannot deny what has been shown or given to them."
Every single random, accidental death, Williams wrote, is something that "should upset a faith bound up with comfort and ready answers. Faced with the paralyzing magnitude of a disaster like this, we naturally feel more deeply outraged and alone, more deeply helpless."
And maybe we are on our own in a world where tectonic plates shift and other natural forces occasionally cause appalling catastrophes, says Richard Dawkins, the noted Oxford professor and avowed atheist. In a letter to The Guardian newspaper, Dawkins said religious explanations for natural disasters range from the "loopy" (its payback time for Original Sin) through "vicious" (disasters are sent to try our faith) to "violent" (heretics were hanged after the devastating Lisbon earthquake of 1755). While it is "psychologically possible to derive comfort from sincere belief in a non-existent illusion," Dawkins wrote, "I thought believers might be disillusioned with an omnipotent being who has just drowned 125,000 (now 145,000) innocent people, or an omniscient one who failed to warn them."
Hallett Llewellyn, a United Church theologian and member of Trinity St. Paul's United Church pastoral staff, applauds Williams for his courage and honesty in admitting his own personal struggle with the meaning of faith. Better that than "the certainty that allows no kind of room for people to question their faith."
The tsunami catastrophe and other natural disasters can't help but force anyone with a serious, reflective mind about faith to question the traditional Christian characterizations of God, Llewellyn said in an interview. They challenge "those traditional attributes of omniscience and omnipotence — the all-powerful God. You can't help but question why they are not in play."
Llewellyn says his own faith is challenged enormously and he asks the same questions when one child is killed in a natural disaster: "I do tend to separate my belief in God from my faith in God trusting no matter what happens there is a supreme good purpose underlying the realities of life. It is something I continue to hold on to."
In an interview, Anglican Primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison said there has not been a disaster in his lifetime forcing him to abandon his faith even for a moment. But there have been moments when he has wrestled with the kind of questions now being raised. "How can you believe in a God who permits suffering on such a scale?" he said. "How can you, indeed? There is no answer to that. And yet you do."
-- MICHAEL MCATEER, The Toronto Star (01/09/2005)
--------------------
posted by þΛųL jØŋαŦhΛŋ @ 17:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home