The waves of divine retribution
Published by Yazad Jal December 31st, 2004 in Atheism, Culture and SocietyOne of the first thoughts that passed through my mind on hearing of the Tsunami was “more evidence that God does not exist.” Every disaster leading to a huge loss of life reinforces my atheism. Natural disasters, of course, are stronger evidence!
MadMan was the first to write about it.
At times like these, I’m glad I’m an atheist. I’d find it very difficult to accept that a “God” would cause something like this.
The Guardian’s Martin Kettle makes a telling point.
A non-scientific belief system, especially one that is based on any kind of notion of a divine order, has some explaining to do, however. What God sanctions an earthquake? What God protects against it? Why does the quake strike these places and these peoples and not others? What kind of order is it that decrees that a person who went to sleep by the edge of the ocean on Christmas night should wake up the next morning engulfed by the waves, struggling for life?
There’s more on the Guardian blog, including some asinine comments.
One of the news items I was waiting for was the “divine retribution” angle. A simple google search will give many examples. Here’s one by Rediff’s Rajeev Srinivasan
The devastation by the tsunami in Tamil Nadu, could it be a caveat from Up There about the atrocities being visited on the Kanchi Acharya? About adharma gaining ground?There are mysterious forces out there that are not fully understood by our oh-so-rational selves. I am reminded of the strange signs and omens that historians recorded before calamities: for instance the rain of frogs in Vietnam preceding the cataclysmic war. Or the odd celestial signs that preceded the death of Julius Caesar.
It is said that the very elements can be affected by the mystical powers of sages who have acquired superhuman powers through meditation and sadhana. I think we should all tread carefully, for now we are treading on things we do not know.
JK at varnam demolishes him easily.
So two tectonic plates after witnessing the so called atrocities against the Kanchi Acharya decided to knock each other off. Does Rajeev seriously believe that mystical powers of sages contributed to this calamity ? If so why are people in Sri Lanka and Thailand killed ?
The “tsunami is revenge for Kanchi Shankaracharya’s arrest” theme has however been taken seriously enough by others prompting Hindu organisations to publicly denounce it.
Finally, read this on the destruction in the pilgrimage town of Vailankanni. If places of piety are devastated, then those who believe might need to question why would a God allow this? Voltaire’s thoughts on the aftermath of the 1775 Lisbon earthquake might be a good starting point.
couple of points on the faith in god: as many have argued, from jain munis to aj ayer, the belief that god is the immaterial creator of a material universe, that he is also benevolent, omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent are completely at odds with rational thought. “if the history of the world was said to have been planned by its creator, a strong case could be made out for inferring that he is malevolent,” says ayer.
however, toynbee offers a way out when he says that there is good and evil in the world, god made it that way, and that it is important to recognise the “forces that make for good”. these are, as i argued in “antidote”, the market and the sexual union: two material and physical components of dharma, artha, kama, moksha.
these are “forces that make for good”, and this is a very different conception of the hand of god at work.
in this connection, do refer to today’s article from the mises.org people. it establishes clearly that economic freedom enables people to earn money and withstand nature’s fury with ease. pj o’rourke recounts a hurricane in hong kong, during which residents and tourists were advised to wait it out in hotel bars. in orissa, thousands die when cyclones strike - because there are no concrete buildings. ngo’s are building concrete ‘cyclone shelters’ in orissa today. i visited one. it was in a village of thatched houses, with a population of 1600. just 25 km from overcrowded cuttack, 30km from the capital bhubaneshwar - but no road. with roads and automobile ownership and free market real estate development, the ‘village’ would be full of concrete, and everyone would survive happily without the stupid ngo.
Actually, if it was a case of Swami Magic, Jayalalitha would have drowned in her bath tub instead of random economically challenged individuals near the sea :)
Yazad,
It also depends on what one’s definition of “god” is. Fundamentally, Hinduism do not have a concept of god as a benevelont bearded man. :-) I think we often mix the semitic concept of god. But sadly, Hindus, in practise, have very little time for abstract philosophies, but lots of it for rituals.
Quizman, why don’t you enlighten us?
Madman, you are beyond enlightenment… there is no hope :-)
I was ROFLing (sic) reading Rajeev Srinivasan’s article… especially the last few paragraphs.
Madman –> nice try for a troll. :-)
Actually, that wasn’t a troll at all, dude.
(A proper troll would be “Hindus are all deluded idiots who haven’t been able to develop their rational thinking faculties”)
But you said:
“Fundamentally, Hinduism do not (sic) have a concept of god as a benevelont bearded man.”
And I keep asking Hindus what Hinduism’s concept of “God” is and the variance in the answers is quite surprising. At least the Christians stick to their one deity.
(And Niket, wrong use of “sic” :)
Madman,
The variance should not surprise you. I assumed that you were setting a trap when you asked that question using the words: “*You* enlighten *us*.”
:-)
I assumed that you were setting a trap when you asked that question
If you believe your position is strong, you shouldn’t worry about that. ;)
But yes, I hate the “shifting goalposts” tactic when debating, which is why an up-front declaration of definitions and beliefs is required.
Since you asserted that “X isn’t [something]”, I merely asked what “X” is. That gives me a good starting point.
Madman,
No one shifted goalposts. No one is worried about his position (whatever that means).
You said “Quizman, why don’t you enlighten us?”
I can’t.
[Hint: Refer Brighu’s question in Taittriyaka Upanishad]
[Hint: Refer Brighu’s question in Taittriyaka Upanishad]
I don’t have a copy handy.
Quizman, why don’t you enlighten us? :p
Quizman, I do find it quixotic (alliteration intended) when you make general statements and then refuse to elaborate instead quoting from scripture. Could you please back up what you’re saying?
And the “benevolent bearded man” is not a concept — it’s an image. (that reminds me more of Santa Claus than any God!)
And this Rajeev srinivasan is an
alumnus of IIT Madras and Stanford.
Yet he manages to write such BS/crap!!
Anyone who has misplaced faith in the invincibility of these educational brands must be made to read this article.
Interesting article on the BBC website on how different religions perceive the disaster (an atheist viewpoint is also included)
Yazad,
I made a statement that said, “It also depends on what one’s definition of “god” is.” That is a very specific statement. Not at all general. Boy, you guys go hayqire with your accusations, don’t ya? :-)
If you read Brighu’s question [”What is a Brahman?”] in Taittriyaka Upanishad and Varuna’s guidance to him, you will realise that there are no absolute answers. It is for each one of us to find out. Which is why traditionally, Hindu and Dhyana (zen) Buddhist gurus often invite seekers of knowledge to seek for themselves. That is why, I said that it should not surprise one when one encounteres varied answers. [Which is why I refused to answer Madman, since no one, but Madman can enlighten Madman]
If for instance, one believes that the universe was one single mass before the big bang, the follow up question would be how did that primeval atom get created? And one will undoubtedly go on with that questioning ad infinitum.
That “infinity” is what we often call as the supreme reality since we do not know what it is. [Note, this is very different from the “god” to which we go to temples/mosques/churches and pray for job promotions or for Inzamam Ul Haq’s wicket. :-)]
As the Rig Veda says:
- that which existed on its own, before “creation”.
The Chandogya Upanishad refers to that primeval energy as sarvam, the infinite.
and the Taitt. Aranyaka defines the supreme reality as that which begot creation.
Heck, my previous post incorrectly says, “Posted by Yazad”. I may have entered his name while commenting. Apologies.
Found. God = Selvakumar
Btw, I always used to think that God bats at #4 for India.