The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : An act of God?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jan 14, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

An act of God?

By Hasan Suroor

The tsunami disaster has again raised the philosophical question: is there God?

THE LITTLE schoolboy who innocently quizzed the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, about God may have, unknowingly, joined a worldwide debate around one of the most profound philosophical questions raised by the tsunami disaster — whether there is, indeed, such a thing as an "omnipotent," "omniscient" and "benevolent" God and, if so, how did he allow a human tragedy of such proportions to happen?

Or is the idea of an all-powerful and all-loving divine power a myth intended to give people something to believe in? A belief that in a growing "blame" culture and a climate of heightened insecurities both allows people to escape personal responsibility for their actions and offers solace in times of distress?

The question is as old as the hills (Fyodor Dostoevsky dealt with it most powerfully in The Brothers Karamazov) but, inevitably, surfaces every time there is a catastrophe on such a scale as people, brought up on the idea of divine intervention, seek an explanation outside the realm of science. If there is a divine authority which controls and directs all that happens on earth, then what was it doing on December 26, 2004? Why did it not intervene to stop the earthquake which, at the last count, had killed close to 2,00,000 people, including innocent children? Are prayers, then, a waste of time? Faith an illusion? And God an invention?

The debate, predictably started by rationalists seeking to re-assert the superiority of science over superstition and spiritual belief, has put even ardent believers on the defensive with some of Britain's most respected religious figures grudgingly acknowledging that it is legitimate to ask uncomfortable questions about the idea of God when thousands of innocent, mostly poor, people have perished right under his supposedly benevolent gaze. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England, has said there is reason for people to be "deeply outraged" in the face of a disaster of such "paralysing magnitude."

"The question: `how can you believe in a God who permits suffering on this scale' is therefore very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't — indeed it would be wrong if it weren't," he wrote in a newspaper article.

Similarly Jonathan Sacks, head of Britain's Jewish community, admitted that it was a "question of questions" for believers to answer the question: "How does God permit a tragedy such as the Indian Ocean tidal wave? How does he allow the innocent to suffer?"

The interventions by two of Britain's most high-profile and progressive religious leaders followed a spate of articles and letters in newspapers questioning the idea of God. Some defended God but the overwhelming view was sceptical. Most theologians and preachers accept, in varying degree, the "difficult" questions being asked in the wake of the tsunami tragedy, but as believers who must stand by faith and defend it when it is under attack it would be unrealistic to expect them to throw in the towel altogether.

Hence their plea to "understand" the importance of faith and prayer, especially in times such as these. The very nature of divine intervention, it is argued, has been misunderstood by those who tend to see the hand of God in every action. Dr. Sacks says that by placing man in a "physical world," God set human life "within the parameters of the physical" — subjecting it to both physical pain and pleasures. In a physical world, "planets are formed, tectonic plates shift, earthquakes occur, and sometimes innocent people die." "To wish it otherwise is in essence to wish that we were not physical beings at all. Then we would not know pleasure, desire, achievement, freedom, virtue, creativity, vulnerability and love," he wrote in The Times.

The refrain in theological circles, cutting across religions, is that faith is best tested in times of distress and despite the doubts raised by the tsunami calamity this is not the occasion to waver. There is a greater acceptance of "fate" among Hindus and Muslims than their Christian peers. "To blame God is infantile... We have chosen to enter a realm in which suffering exists. We are doomed to suffering and death," said Shaunaka Rishi Das of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies echoing a Muslim scholar, who said, "None of us is going to live for an indefinite period... what form it [death] takes is always beyond us."

Rationalists admit that science cannot offer the "consolations" that faith apparently does but it alone can provide explanations for a phenomenon such as tsunami. "Science could have provided just enough warning of the Boxing Day tsunami to save most of the victims," said the Oxford scientist, Richard Dawkins.

In a presumably unintended aside, a television channel replayed a film, The Man Who Sued God, in which a lawyer exposes a powerful cartel of churchmen and insurance companies who refuse to pay up claims relating to natural disasters describing them as "acts of God." The lawyer argues that if, indeed, these are acts of God as claimed both by religious leaders and insurance salesmen then the Church, as the representative of God, should cough up the money. Faced with the choice between losing money and compromising faith, Churchmen end up denying that disasters such as storms, floods and earthquakes are "acts of God"!

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

TSUNAMI'S CHILDREN

NOTIONAL FRONT

Targeting food subsidies again