It’s not God’s will any more *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Jun 12 2008 at 9:28 pm | Filed under: Climate change, Religion
It’s an old-fashioned concept: Some horrible disaster happens, and the victims (or the observers) ponder it, and then pronounce, “It’s God’s will.”
Nobody would say that now, right? We’re rational, scientifically oriented creatures who search for meaning in everything/ We would never shrug and, Job-like, admit that meaning can elude us and that God can simply do what God does.
Or do we? How about an angry Gaia? Maybe it’s her will. Certainly, when I read stories such as this, where everything from a truly tragic Boy Scouts’ camping trip in one part of the country, to drought in another, to hangnails in a third — all of which tragedies have happened before — is suddenly attributable to Global Warming, I suspect that the old notion of “God’s will” has a new substitute: “It’s angry Gaia’s rebellion against man.”
I’d rather have God than angry Gaia as my belief system. God has a moral system attached to him. Angry Gaia is just raw vengeance that will be sated only by the destruction of modern civilization.
UPDATE: If you needs some un-Gaia common sense, read this.
Email This Post To A Friend
7 Responses to “It’s not God’s will any more *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As if tornadoes never occurred before! The irony here is that those making such claims ( your first link) believe that they are not only rational beings, but more rational than most. They view themselves as definitely more rational than those Bible-thumping knuckle-dragging Bushhitlerian idjits.
I am reminded of the response of many in earthquake zones in Central America, who state that an earthquake is God’s way of punishing them for their sins. Others would hold the view that earthquakes are a consequence of plate tectonics, not of individual or collective acts of sin.
Those who believe that the tornado resulting in the death of the Scouts was a consequence of global warming should ask themselves to what degree that belief differs from those who believe that earthquakes punish sinners.
Human beings want to be in control. We are _such_ narcissists! It’s an interesting thing that in islam and in Christianity, submission to the will of God is imperative. In the islamic, it often seems to result in people doing nothing - waiting for God to do whatever(though that doesn’t seem to apply to war and conversions!). Christians, on the other hand, (mostly) have an attitude of “pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on _you_”. The submission factor is seen as necessary to prevent just the sort of narcissism as is envisioned by Global Warming - that we can control such massive things in our environment - but I find the different approachs interesting.
I find fault with the “it is the will of God” appproach though - I believe He sets the laws in motion, but saying that it’s “His will” gives the idea that bad things that happen are deliberate actions on His part. And _that_ I don’t believe or accept. Puny little beings that we are, sometimes we just are in the wrong place at the wrong times. If we weren’t there at that wrong moment, no doubt we’d be in awe at the wonder of nature! We tend to call anything we don’t like “evil”.
Captain Planet, Link
You know you want to want the theme song.
I remember watching these back in the 90s.
Oh well, I suppose it’s a natural part of the indoctrination program all post Vietnam generation members had from tv. Sometimes it doesn’t take though, although in my case, conservation may not be the rule but because of my home country, I learned not to waste things for no purpose.
Little bitty mortals cannot know the will of any god, let alone an omnipotent or omniscient one.
99% of these people can’t even do high level mathematics, yet believe they know the will of God?
>>99% of these people can’t even do high level mathematics, yet believe they know the will of God?>>
Heh. Somewhere on line, there’s a group of photographs (real or theorized, I don’t know) which gives relative comparative sizes of earth, the sun, the galaxy, the milky way, some other monster planet…I don’t even remember them all. A total of either 8 or 10, I think. At the end, the earth was a pinpoint - scarcely visible. And I’m just a tiny speck on that pinpoint. I just gave up at that point. Guess what - there’s stuff I just don’t know and never will! What arrogance we humans have to think we control _anything_!!!
I’ll see if I can find the link - it was pretty cool…
You people seem to be confused about just what people want to control by painting their own will as “God’s will”.
Yes they want to control everything. However they want this control through control of others.
It baffles one how you can live inside a city, where even the weather’s impact is at least reduced, night is brighter as day and no visible animal can move outside of human control, and doubt that humans have indeed control over “everything”.
The problem is your perception of everything. Yes everything includes the sun, the stars, the … in your imagination. However, to postmodernists, “everything” is simply everything concrete that hits, not their imagination, for they don’t have any, but only their eyes, ears and how soft it feels on their lazy ass.
“Everything” to a postmodernist locked in a small room is 4 walls a floor and a ceiling. “Everything” to a postmodernist living in a city is about 5000 people.
That’s what they want to control. Think it’s unachieveable ? Think again.
The next time a postmodernist professor of a university makes the “matrix” argument, you should listen. Not because you believe the nonsense he talks, but merely to know how they think. Confront him with the subtle fact that it’s totally at odds with science and watch him come up with dozens of arguments (most likely quantum mechanics) that are utterly useless for defending his point. (learn for example what “observation” means in quantum mechanics, namely the exchange of photons between elementary particles, and what it doesn’t mean : the only way his theories would hold up is if it is EXCLUSIVELY interaction with his mind that would constitute observation)
They are merely using their “religion” of totalitarian science (science with the essential basis of science removed : with doubt removed), to elevate HIMSELF to the status of God (to a postmodernist there is only one human alive : he himself, so there is only one entity in the world with human rights for example : he himself)
Remember in your discussions that the argument for the correctness of mathematics is the EXACT same argument that proves the existence of God : both exist because they’re part of your assumptions. Except the assumption of God actually helps you live your life, while science leaves you struggling alone in the cold, and “proves” that battle can only be lost.
Finally found it…
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/feeling-small.html