Which disasters are divine intervention and which are not?

[micatala]

We have seen not a few suggestions by prominent people and not so prominent ones that certain deaths and disasters were directly caused by God in order to punish people. We have the recent comments of Pat Robertson, for example.

It seems Pat has declared that Ariel Sharon's stroke is divine retribution for his unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robert ... index.html

We are all probably well aware of comments by not a few people that Katrina hit New Orleans to punish it for its decadent life style.

On the other hand. Recent headlines have included the death of 12 miners in West Virginia, and death and damage in Oklahoma from grass fires. In West Virginia, the local Baptist Church figured prominently in the vigil for the trapped miners.

Now, I don't mean to be callous for anyone's suffering. But, I have to say, I am quite perplexed how some disaster's can be labeled God's work, simply because the person doing the labeling can find some fault with the people effected, while others are not labeled the same way.

Imagine the outcry if a 'liberal Christian leader' suggested that the grass fires in Oklahoma were a sign of God's displeasure with fundamentalists from that Bible belt state. Maybe it was the because of the senator from Oklahoma who thinks global warming is nothing more than a liberal environmentalist conspiracy? Maybe God is made at all the gay-bashing?

So. The question is.

Assuming God directly intervenes in the earth through 'natural disasters' including personal disasters like that befalling Ariel Sharon, how are we to tell which disasters are God-caused and which are not.

[bernee51]

Assuming God directly intervenes in the earth through 'natural disasters' including personal disasters like that befalling Ariel Sharon, how are we to tell which disasters are God-caused and which are not.

I would have thought the position of many religions would be that they are all god-caused.

It is the judgement tacked onto the end that makes the difference.

[micatala]

I would have thought the position of many religions would be that they are all god-caused.

Honestly, I don't know how many would hold such a position. I don't believe it is true in general that Christians think of natural disasters in general as 'intentionally caused by God through direct intervention'. I read statements like Robertson's to mean that 'God specifically intervened in this instance to cause this stroke.' I don't think he would say God causes all such strokes with the same intention.

In some sense, we could say all natural disasters have God as a 'non-primary' causes, in the sense that, under the assumption that God created the world, it seems He created it to include the occurrence of such disasters. I'm not up on 'philosophical causation', so don't know if my terminology in describing this idea is correct or not.

Yes, as you say, the 'judgment' is in addition to the idea of causation. Robertson is saying God is using the stroke to pass sentence on Sharon based on the judgment that Sharon has gone against God's will.

[ST88]

I would have thought the position of many religions would be that they are all god-caused.

Honestly, I don't know how many would hold such a position. I don't believe it is true in general that Christians think of natural disasters in general as 'intentionally caused by God through direct intervention'. I read statements like Robertson's to mean that 'God specifically intervened in this instance to cause this stroke.' I don't think he would say God causes all such strokes with the same intention....

Yes, as you say, the 'judgment' is in addition to the idea of causation. Robertson is saying God is using the stroke to pass sentence on Sharon based on the judgment that Sharon has gone against God's will.

This brings up the thorny issue of who decides what is a punishment and what is mere happenstance. Any person can pick and choose events from the news and ascribe divine causes to them. What are we to make of Ronald Reagan's suffering from Alzheimer's the last decade of his life? Those who already see him as a positive figure would be inclined -- would be expected -- to say that this was not a message from God, so how can we trust them if/when they would actually say this?

[micatala]

This brings up the thorny issue of who decides what is a punishment and what is mere happenstance. Any person can pick and choose events from the news and ascribe divine causes to them. What are we to make of Ronald Reagan's suffering from Alzheimer's the last decade of his life? Those who already see him as a positive figure would be inclined -- would be expected -- to say that this was not a message from God, so how can we trust them if/when they would actually say this?

Exactly the point. Who decides, and also how, is the issue.

I see this rambling is being pretty much ignored, and that no one is speaking for the idea of divine retribution. Maybe an electronic disaster has befallen all the 'retributionists' keyboards?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Obviously natural disasters can not be works of God, or an F5 tornado would have hit the White House by now.

But by the right-wing fundie standards, the rule of thumb is that whenever gays are involved, the disaster is an excursion of God's upmost wrath. Otherwise, it is an unfortunate tragedy.

Simple enough.

[micatala]

If that be the case, then in the very near future we should see a major catastrophe related to Brokeback Mountain. Maybe an earthquake during the Oscars? The flic has 8 nominations I believe.

On the other hand, it just occurred to me that maybe the causation is reversed? After all, California has long had earthquake problems. Maybe they have become more immoral because of the catastrophes?

It seems to make just about as much sense as the other way.