Jesus and god and tornadoes and Canton

Going beyond any snark-in-brief I've posted in past such cases on Twitter, and going beyond a briefer post about a woman allegedly "praying and diverting away" a tornado in metropolitan Dallas a year ago, in light of the tornado in Canton, Texas, that killed at least five people yesterday, and per the header, there's nothing to do but jump in.

Why are you, if you are, praying to your Jesus for the people of Canton, when he was either not strong enough, or else not morally good enough, to keep that tornado from happening in the first place?

In theology, the issue is called "theodicy," or the issue of divine judgment.

In this case within theodicy, where alleged omnipotence directly conflicts with alleged omnibenevolence, it's calls "the problem of evil."

Or, as Rabbi Kushner put it, "why do bad things happen to good people?" More on that in a minute.

Now, some of you, conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists, will quote either Job or Paul's quoting of Job, of god saying "my ways are not your ways."

Well, the alleged inscrutability of god is nothing more than a dodge itself.

Because you now have a god either not omnipotent, not powerful enough to make his ultimate plans clearly known to intelligent humans, his alleged creation, or else you have a god not good enough to keep his intelligent human creation from avoiding psychological pain by being left unaware of god's ultimate plans through a tragedy.

And don't try to go meta on me. If you claim that god or Jesus trying to explain himself would cause further turmoil itself, re-read the immediately preceding paragraph, because it's what I would repeat to you.

But, this isn't just a piece for the fundamentalist or nearly so — whether within Christianity or the other Middle East-based monotheisms.

If you believe in a more liberal version of your faith, whether Christianity, Judaism or Islam, have you ever wrestled seriously with this issue? Do you still, even if not taking your scriptures literalistically, still believe in a god who is both all-powerful and all-good?

What if' you don't?

How much short of omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, can a monotheistic deity be and still rightfully be accorded worship, etc.?

Or, if you're a New Ager, how much short of omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, can a depersonalized Higher Power be and still be trusted or sought out?

And, New Agers of certain stripes who literally believe in it (ditto for Hindus and Buddhists) do NOT cite "karma." That's more offensive than conservative Christians' "original sin." (And, yes, like Ken Ham, some Xns actually will attribute the cause of anything wrong in our world to original sin.)

And, this isn't just logic chopping. Divine goodness or not, human confusion in the face of trying to puzzle out an alleged divinity's actions and more are all highly emotional matters.

Also, this isn't just about so-called natural evil. Human evil falls in the same place.

Substitute "child sexual abuse" for "tornadoes."

I write this in a mix of sorrow and anger.

I feel sorrow for (and sorry for) people who can't or won't open themselves up fully to the deep feelings behind the confusion — and perhaps anger — they feel themselves over where they're at religiously at times like this.

And, per Hume, since reason should be the slave of the passions, yet guide it, I feel a second sense of sorrow that this means people can't or won't reason their way to new insights because they refuse to be fully in touch with their emotions.

And then I feel anger at those within conservative Christianity in the US who attack non-Christians, and especially secularists as allegedly immoral (not true on divorce or adultery), anti-American (we're not a Christian nation), or that there's a "war on Christianity" (hyped by Bill O'Reilly of moral problems galore).

Jesus allegedly spoke about specks of wood in others people's eyes vs. wood planks in one's own. Paul talked about believers who could only take milk, not being ready for meat or other solid food. Please take note.

Within faith-based major thinkers, of the last century or so, I suggest starting with Unamumo's "The Tragic Sense of Life," available in text online here. I'm not here to convert anybody to secularism; I am here to challenge shallow, unreflective belief systems when they're thrust in other people's faces.

What about God and the first tornado, ma'am?

I'm no Gnu Atheist, and I know at bottom line people in general are creatures of emotion, and desire for psychological comfort first, then rationality second.

Nonetheless, I can't help but point out this line from a survivor of the Harrisburg, Ill., tornado, in light of the possibility that a new round of severe weather could bring more twisters to the area:

"You just keep thinking, 'God, please don't let there be another tornado.'"

Sorry, Ms. Wise, but the god you believe in, under your belief system, already let one happen there. Why not another?

UPDATE: Apparently no God, or karma-reliever, for this 14-month-old tornado victim, either.

IF religious people were willing to drop either omnipotence or omnibenevolence from belief systems, then non-Gnu Atheists like me would dialogue more on more issues. And, this is primarily an  issue of western monotheisms.

But ...  

Or course,. as I've said before, karma is in some ways  worse than hell, so I'm not letting Buddhism or Hinduism off the hook.

In eitherr caser, at some point, when the emotoinal and psychological burdens get to be enough, don't the shells crumble? Now, for non-Gnu Atheist, I recognize that until those shells DO crumble, the psychological value they offer isn't to be sniffed at. But, large swaths of the ancient west knew better, that religions less overarching, with fewer, less absolute emotional shells, often were better in the long run.

It's called "acceptance," without invoking an omnipotent-and-omnibenevolent deity who, as "a lover of life but player of pawns," will ultimately tie you in emotional, not just intellectual, knots.

Karma — as offensive as hell

This extended CNN blog, with broadly multifaith comments on "why suffering" in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear worries, following the Japanese tsunami and eaerthquake, makes the case well for me.

Is it any worse for a fundamentalist Christian to say:
1. God is inscrutable;
2. Original sin brought on this disaster for you;
3. It's God's prerogative to damn some people to hell.

Or a hardcore Buddhist to say:
1. Karma is inscrutable;
2. Your past life that you can't even remember brought on this disaster for you;
3. It's a cyclical universe's "prerogative" to damn some people to recurring rounds of bad karma.
(The Buddhist version is more offensive than the Hindu version because it claims that not even a person or personality, but just a "life force" is reincarnated and the "self" [nonexistent as it allegedly is] is STILL punished in a new life.)

I know of people who are skeptics, and atheists, even, in the sense of not believing in a western monotheist divinity, that still believe in the metaphysics of karma. Well, sorry, but, karma's as offensive as the heaven-hell of western monotheism.

Beyond that, both western and eastern religion offer the same pablum when confronted with the problem of evil.

And, a "shout out" to "it's not a religion" Buddhist Sam Harris — what say you now?

Tiger Woods: The Natural

Robert Wright has a great column comparing Tiger Woods to "The Natural," Roy Hobbs.

That said, there were two of Roy Hobbs. That's because Bernard Malamud's book, unlike the later movie, doesn't have a happy ending for Hobbs. So, Wright is saying, in essence, Tiger is at a fork in the road, as to whether either Calvinist damnation or Buddhist karma will get him, on the one fork, or whether pious platitudinality plus continued selfishness, covered in an oleaginous sheen, will triumph over all.

Anyway, go read the full column to see how Wright plays this out.

As for me, I don't want to see Tiger just drive into some of Augusta's pines — I'd like to see him play Amen Corner about 2-over on Thursday, maybe even more on Friday, and miss the cut.

Sharon Stone babble the real ‘bad karma’

Actress Sharon Stone wondered aloud whether the recent Chinese earthquake wasn’t bad karma over the country’s treatment of Tibetans.

So, let me see. 80,000 innocent people died over the policy of a government they were in no condition to control? Yep. That would be their bad karma.

On a more serious level, I find karma as intellectually unacceptable as fundamentalist monotheists’ belief in heaven and hell, and I also find it emotionally more repulsive.

How can you be punished for a past life you can’t readily remember (assuming for the argument there are past lives)? Or, even worse, per Buddhism, where many of its branches believe just a life force and no personal soul is reincarnated, how can you be punished for something it’s impossible to remember?

Karma, karma-lite and evolutionary psychology

I’ve blogged elsewhere before about my take on full-blown karma, that it’s both as illogical as western monotheism’s heaven/hell, and personally, at least as offensive.

But, what about “karma-lite,” the non-metaphysical, or less-metaphysical, generic claim that “what goes around, comes around”?

There’s a better, scientific explanation from evolutionary psychology. It’s called “reciprocal altruism,” or, in even easier layperson’s terms, “tit for tat.”

Animals with enough memory intelligence to remember past good or bad actions by their fellows and attribute them to specific actors, especially amongst highly social animals, can and do practice this. In the case of bad actors, it’s the old “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” schtick. Intelligence social animals can and do remember who cheats in the old game of back-scratching and won’t let Mr. or Ms. Cad play in any more reindeer games.

It’s that simple. Nothing metaphysical needed.

And, scientists are finding the first genetic support for reciprocal altruism. The gene in question appears linked to dopamine production and a similar gene in voles that promote social bonding, which makes sense to me. Reciprocal altruism certainly promotes social bonds, and a dopamine-based “feel good” feeling for doing it would be the reward individuals get to be good group members.

So, do altruism cheaters lack a copy, or good expression, of this gene?

Forgiveness vs. “letting go” and other thoughts

My puppy parable post inspired someone to comment about issues of forgiveness.

Without going too far down the rabbit trail of “to err is human, to forgive is divine,” I want to offer a few thoughts on this subject.

First, forgiveness can’t be earned. I say that from a totally secular, nonreligious perspective, specifically that forgiveness from another human being can’t be earned.

We can try to make the person we’ve hurt or wronged more disposed to forgive us, but, this isn’t something mechanical, a quasi-karma where X amount of repentance, contrition and other acts automatically produces Y amount of forgiveness. (Of course, I don’t believe in karma in any literal sense, as a metaphysical law of cause and effect, any more than I do in any Western religious doctrines; that’s the subject of another story, but those who know my background should recognize I have HUGE reasons not to believe in karma.)

All we can do is hope that the person we’ve wronged has become of a different disposition.

But, what if the hurt we caused, or were caused from the would-be forgiver’s point of view, is too deep, was inflicted far too repetitively, or has otherwise become too ingrained?

Well, to quote a religious reformer, “It’s not safe to go against one’s own conscience.” It may require too much personal change, not just in anger or sorrows toward the other person, but in trust levels.

So, instead, we have “letting go” — trying to process through our own emotions and psychological states as the hurt person enough to let go of at least some of our old emotions and old mental states. Counselors often make the distinction.

Besides, what a person asking forgiveness often needs most is something they have to grant themselves.

Now, more about the lesson of the puppy. Something to be even better learned that forgiveness is sympathy, and something to be even better learned than sympathy is empathy.

As for a person or animal that’s been hurt, it probably most needs the nurturing, and the help to re-establish trust, that comes with empathy.