Seeking Justice , of Gods or the Politicians

[Sincere]

In the history of humankind, there has rarely been a disaster like the New Orleans flood without a theodicy to go along with it. The word "theodicy," coined in the 18th century by the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, derives from Greek roots invoking the "justice of the gods." A theodicy is an attempt to show that such justice exists, to prove that we really do live in what Leibniz insisted was the "best of all possible worlds."

 

So theodicies have been plentiful after earthquakes, floods and droughts. Explanations are readily offered: disasters are the wages of sin, they herald an apocalyptic age, they cleanse the earth of evil. Theodicies aim to demonstrate that devastation does not really disrupt or overturn our understanding of the moral and social order. Instead, disorder provides evidence of order. The theodicy is that order. It explains forces that seem to lie beyond human powers, evils that lie beyond human cause.

 

Theodicies are not casual matters, and in the weeks after Katrina, they are bound to evolve, even in secular culture, even when they may not resemble the ones that Leibniz had in mind. So they need to be better understood.

 

The classic theodicies in the West are biblical. The flood of Noah's time, for example, is a reflection of the divine will, cleansing the earth of humanity's evil. A more powerful theodicy later evolved out of the trials of the ancient Israelites, in which destruction and exile were treated not as random accidents of history, but as forms of retribution for violating the Mosaic law and its ethical consequences. Suffering could become proof of divine attention and not its opposite.

 

Scholars like Norman Cohn have shown how in medieval Europe the worst human trauma could be interpreted as proof of imminent apocalypse and redemption, inspiring millennial expectations and movements. Meanwhile, the theodicy of divine retribution still thrives today and was invoked by some fundamentalist believers after Katrina.

 

But between medieval Europe and contemporary America something profound changed in the way natural disasters are interpreted and the kinds of theodicies they inspire. And one of the turning points, as many scholars have argued, was the 1755 earthquake in Lisbon. It destroyed perhaps a third of the city's population, with deaths in the tens of thousands. It overturned the confidence of European royalty and seemed to drive a wedge between the earthly and divine realms.

 

For the growing forces of the Enlightenment, it also seemed to overturn the very idea that a theodicy could account for the disaster. Voltaire, who had once seen nature as benevolent, was whipped into a rationalist fury by the experience. Leibniz, he believed, had been refuted by nature. Voltaire wrote a "Poem on the Disaster of Lisbon" in which the quake's victims are called "Tormented atoms on a heap of muck/ That death devours and that fate trips up." His character Candide watches the earthquake from a distance, seeing it as morally blind, killing the good and preserving the wicked.

 

In a sense, the earthquake actually ended up strengthening the hand of the Enlightenment, as if a replacement theodicy had fallen into place. Kant wrote about the quake. Scientific investigation took place. The response of Portugal's prime minister to the disaster was practical, not religious. "We will bury the dead," he said, "and take care of the living."

 

Recently, the philosopher Susan Neiman argued in "Evil in Modern Thought" that the Lisbon earthquake also destroyed an ancient idea that nature could itself be evil. After Lisbon, she argued, moral evil was distinguished from natural disaster. Earthquakes and floods could no longer be fitted into traditional religious theodicies.

 

But this did not mean, of course, that theodicies faded away. Ms. Neiman argued that for philosophers theology had been replaced by history. The fates of peoples and nations reflected other forces, and disruptions were given other forms of explanation. Hegel saw history as an evolutionary series of transformations in which destruction was as inevitable as birth. Marx believed other kinds of economic and human laws accounted for destruction and evolution. This mostly left natural disasters for the growing realm of science: if they couldn't be prevented, at least their origins could be understood.

 

Now though, with the prospect of thousands of dead becoming plausible with reports from New Orleans, other forms of theodicy also taking shape. Much debate is taking place about the scale of human tragedy, about procedures and planning and responsibility. And none of that should be ignored. But it is remarkable how this natural disaster has almost imperceptibly come to seem the result of human agency, as if failures in planning were almost evidence of cause, as if forces of nature were subject to human oversight. The hurricane has been humanized.

 

I don't want to push this too far, of course; human actions, as the Portuguese prime minister knew, are crucial. But this is still an important change in our views of the natural world. In a way, it inflates human knowledge. It confidently extends scientific and political power into the realm of nature. It doesn't really explain catastrophe, but it attempts to explain why we are forced to experience it: because of human failings.

 

There is a theodicy at work here, in the ways in which the reaction to natural catastrophe so readily becomes political. Nature becomes something to be managed or mismanaged; it lies within the political order, not outside it. Theodicy, if successful, does not overturn belief but confirms it. So, for some commentators, the flood and its aftermath provided confirmation of their previous doubts about the Bush adminstration.

 

Actually, in some respects, this theodicy has gone even beyond the political: just as a religious theodicy might have shown natural catastrophe to be the result of human misdeed, many of the early commentators about the flood did the same, creating a kind of scientific/moral theodicy in which human sin is still a dominant factor. Last week, for example, Germany's minister of the environment, Jürgen Trittin, said: "The American president has closed his eyes to the economic and human damage that natural catastrophes such as Katrina - in other words, disasters caused by a lack of climate protection measures - can visit on his country."

 

All of these explanations are subject to examination and debate of course, but in the heart of a secular age, they are also something else. They are theodicies. And in the face of nature's awesome and horrific powers, the prospect of political retribution is as prevalent as the promise of divine retribution once was.

 

Source

[Castro]

Such a good topic. Thanks. I need to think about it before I respond.

[Castro]

I get the impression the author is excusing the shameful response to the NO disaster. Politically, he claims, the Bush administration should not be brought to the altar for what is a natural and even expected event. That's only half the truth. While Katrina itself is natural, the response was anything but. From abject poverty of those who couldn't evacuate to the missing national guard that was half way across the world. Theodicy has no place in the last two man made calamities. Cuba and its excellent response to what is an annual devestating hurricane season is proof that the author is mistaken about Bush and Katrina.

 

On the other hand, divine retribution to earthly prodigality is mentioned in the Quran repeatedly. But those were ancient theodicies. Nowadays, we know when a hurricane has its beginnings off the west coast of Africa. In fact, for three months, during the hurricane season, it's certain that some island or the mainland US will be hit by a big storm. We can even track them real time and know the magnitude of its destructive winds. It is only a matter of time before humans will be able to control and harness that awesome power. Effectively, what has changed is our understanding of natural events, also called disasters. Theodicy requires belief in a system of instant rewards and punishments. As such, it is difficult to fit into the marathon-like battery of tests humans go through during a lifetime and would be judged against in yom al qiyama. If Katrina was a theodicy in action, where is the cleansing that comes with it?

[Sincere]

Comrade Castro, my apologies for the late response. Time has not been kind to me.

 

I get the impression the author is excusing the shameful response to the NO disaster. Politically, he claims, the Bush administration should not be brought to the altar for what is a natural and even expected event. That's only half the truth. While Katrina itself is natural, the response was anything but.

I concur with the portion of your post above, but find the rest of your assessment, perplexing to say the least.

 

Your inference that in the near future we will be able to "Control and Harness" Mother nature (hurricanes) is absurd (No pun intended). Granted forecasting technology has advanced from the yesteryears, its only added advantage is providing an opaque sneak peek at what is to come; amigo,mother nature is unpredictable. Even With this added advantage we are still and always will be very vulnarable to her wrath. No amount of technology will get us out of react mode, and into a proactive stance, and verily control or harness it as you insinuated. It is simply not feasible, not now or in the near future, for that is akin to playing God.

 

As for the article, I wish it included Islamic philosophers take on theodicies (if any) Time permitting, I will attempt to research this and Insha Allah report back.

 

Till then, Adios muchacho.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Sincere:

No amount of technology will get us out of react mode, and into a proactive stance, and verily control or harness it as you insinuated. It is simply not feasible, not now or in the near future, for that is akin to playing God.

God made no limit on knowledge and advances, saaxib. And if recent history is any indication, we should be able to neutralize hurricanes. Flooding rivers killed thousands in the past. Now with strategic placement of vegetation and dams, it's not even an issue. The use of vaccines to prevent many diseases that destroyed entire cities is not even breaking news any more. Understanding nature continues and will eventually, sooner really, rather than later, lead us to stop the likes of Katrina from doing that level of damage. This is not human cloning, which is possible now by the way, saaxib. What playing god has to do with that, I'm not sure I understand.

 

Theodicy in the Quran is very similar to the bible. God destroys the transgressors. Period. Did you mean because Katrina was a latter day theodicy we will never be able to prevent it? Or are you saying we won't ever develop the technological know-how to dissipate a gathering storm as the science of it is too complex? There's been experiments done on tornadoes and hurricanes to show what they're made of and how they develop such power. Finding a chemical compound capable of extracting that energy and transforming it into a relatively benign form is not beyond human capability. Just where does playing god come into this, I wonder? If Katrina is a theodicy, it's a weak one at that. And the damage it did won't happen, say, in the year 3005, if not much sooner.

[Elysian]

A very interesting read indeed, Sincere. This illustrate that despite of religious or scientific explanations humans have a profound need to see cause and consequence. I wonder why that is?

 

Castro wrote:

It is only a matter of time before humans will be able to control and harness that awesome power.

Maybe, maybe not. However, the most unpredictable variable on this planet is the human being, and we know what a fallible creature she is. So regardless of technology catastrophes will always be part of the human scene.

 

Came to think of the human efforts to reach zero-tolerance in traffic, meaning no deaths in traffic-related accidents. With advanced technology, the automobiles and the highways were improved to reach the desired goal. But the death toll did not significantly decrease, only due to the fact that; the safer people feel, the faster they drive.

[Cara.]

Your inference that in the near future we will be able to "Control and Harness" Mother nature (hurricanes) is absurd (No pun intended).

I would hate for my first ever post on SOL to demonstrate my cluelessness, but what is the pun that was NOT intended? Please? It's driving me crazy!

[Castro]

^^ Hold on to your marbles Callypso. You're gonna need them for many more puns to come.

 

Welcome aboard.

[Cara.]

^ Thank you, Castro.

 

[blinks] Never thought I'd have reason to say that in my life...

[rudy-Diiriye]

hey at least they tellya that a bloody hurricane is coming your way! what do u do when u live in an active earthquake zone like cali!!

 

i did one time believed that i was gonner! it happend 4:30am, the biggest bloody earth quake ever recorded in southern cali...i just closed my eyes and prayed!

 

fortunately, the only thing that fall in my place was a jinja game that I build! thanks Allah!!

 

now i do have much admiration n respect for nature!! it does have an awesome force!

 

however, i still do believe man made disaster still kills more than any natural disaster! i dont understand how the world watches when so many ppl are killed in somali and iraq daily! thats just beyond my imagination and no 1 says a word!!

 

what shame!! :mad:

[juba]

Originally posted by Castro:

]And if recent history is any indication, we should be able to neutralize hurricanes. What playing god has to do with that, I'm not sure I understand.

 

There's been experiments done on tornadoes and hurricanes to show what they're made of and how they develop such power. Finding a chemical compound capable of extracting that energy and transforming it into a relatively benign form is

not beyond human capability. Just where does playing god come into this, I wonder? If Katrina is a theodicy, it's a weak one at that. And the damage it did won't happen, say, in the year 3005, if not much sooner.

Interesting opinion there! Hasn't the past taught us that trying to control nature will just bite us in the but! And if that's not playing God i don't know what is. When you reach the point to where you can control hurricanes and tornades thats playing god ,whats not to understand! If and when humans realize there awesome strength im moving to mars because it's not going to be a pretty thing!! Mankind are a power hungry lot and if that falls into the wrong hands, imagine! i think we should just accept nature as what is, something that cannot be manipulated into our liking (which will be hard for the control freak scientists out there). Why don't we focus on using technology instead on eradicating poverty or creating clean water for everyone.

[Castro]

Originally posted by juba:

If and when humans realize there awesome strength im moving to mars because it's not going to be a pretty thing!!

And how might you get to Mars? Through prayer and meditation? Science, technology and "playing god" will get you there.

 

i think we should just accept nature as what is, something that cannot be manipulated into our liking

We manipulate nature all the time. Just look around you. It was meant to be manipulated. That does not mean abused, however. Here are examples of manipulating nature and playing god, tell me, should we stop them immediately:

• Agriculture and the use of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation.
• Medicine (surgery, IVF, organ replacement)
• Aviation and space travel (to get to Mars) plus many other examples too numerous to list.

What's with this accept nature bool shidh you're talking about? Care to explain?

 

And what say you of theodicy and natural disasters, the real subject of the topic?

[Sincere]

Casto,

 

Discussing hypothetical scenarios that pertain to technological advancments, will only lead to flawed arguments.(would you not agree) I cannot argue for or against I.e. Nano technology stopping Mt Etna from erupting again. Justly, I will steer clear of that angle. However, I will concede that manipulating nature is plausible to some extent and is an everyday occurence but, the implication of controlling it I find very erroneous. Semantics my friend , semantics.

 

What playing god has to do with that, I'm not sure I understand.

I'll clarify the "playing God" connotation for you. Nature is one of Allahs creations that he controls and wills. He may deny any aspect of its power when he wills or reverse it's affects when he wills. They are predefined processes which function without or in spite of human intervention. Comprende? Please dont let my explanation delve us further into a reason Vs faith argument. If you elect to exploit the loopholes philosophical rationalists rely on, I will humbly bow out. Not to isinuate you are one

 

On the other hand, divine retribution to earthly prodigality is mentioned in the Quran repeatedly. But those were ancient theodicies.

Nowadays, we know when a hurricane has its beginnings off the west coast of Africa.

Ok,are you being incoherant, or am I missing something here. In the italic portion you acknowledge that theodicies are spoken of in the Quraan, and thus exist?ed (right) Then you vaguely state they were ancient. Meaning what?, they dont exist no more, they were occurences of the past, and theodicies have ceased? You then make a 180 degree turn, and hurdle into technology and how we can now track hurricanes. Fadlan join the dots for me and expound on the correlation (if any) further before I attempt to fully engage the notions ambiguously stated.

 

Gracias.

[Alle-ubaahne]

What a jocular statement is that when one speakes about controling hurricanes! Isn't true that a thing you can control is a thing you can create. Thus, if anyone can control a forthcoming hurricane, why not create some and use them against North Korea who is more than a natural challange to the western world.

 

Controling a hurricane? I will tell that my Ozoma bin Somali!

[Khayr]

God made no limit on knowledge and advances, saaxib

CASTRO,

 

If this statement is true,then whats to stop

 

Mankind from trying to create FRANKSTEIN,

 

machines that can mimick humans as much as

 

possible.

 

If God did not put limits on Knoweldge and

 

Advances, then why the need for

 

Rules,Regulations, Protocols etc.

 

What exactly is being implied here, CASTRO???

 

Fi Amanillah