It seems odd that two disciplines that often find themselves butting heads -- religion and science -- would end up at the same conclusion. But when it comes to natural disasters, that's pretty much the case.
From the religious perspective this may sound obvious, but religious leaders have long blamed humanity's sins as the reason behind nearly every form of suffering on Earth, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes.
It's an idea an idea probably as old as religion itself. But despite its antiquity, the idea that natural disasters are God's punishment is alive and well, perhaps especially here in the U.S. Generally this issue is dealt with little or no thought towards intellectual honesty -- it's not a theological argument so much as a grand, sweeping pronouncement.
As an extreme example, Pat Robertson put on an incredibly offensive display of religious extremism this past January, blaming Haitians for "making a pact with the Devil" as the reason behind the earthquake:
Similarly, in 2005, CBS News ran a piece entitled "Is God Mad at Us?" citing Hurricane Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and flooding in the northeastern U.S. (what??) as possible evidence for the Almighty being peeved.
This notion of a retributive God is not limited to the U.S. by any means -- according to a brand new paper in the journal Religion, God has been cited as the man behind the curtain in dozens of natural disasters around the world since 1900.
There are certainly other, more moderate religious viewpoints, most of which have cropped up in Christianity since the 18th century. On the heels of the Enlightenment, a lot of free-thinking Christians in Europe decided that the 1755 earthquake and tsunami that leveled much of Lisbon wasn't the result of their sins. It was a watershed moment for religious thought.
More recently, this form of religious thought has coalesced into the "Best Possible World" mindset, which suggests:
Strangely, scientific hazard assessment and forecasting has come to a conclusion that is roughly a blend of these two ways of thinking (minus the whole God thing). Basically the idea is this: earthquake, volcanoes, and the rest all happen as extreme expressions of Earth's natural processes. But disasters occur when human beings have somehow failed to prepare for these inevitable events.
A good case study is comparing the recent magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile, with the magnitude 7.0 quake in Haiti. Because of Haiti's poverty, political struggles, and lack of a building code, the country was brought to its knees. In other words, human fallibility was responsible for the disaster in a very real way. Chile on the other hand, spent much more time and money preparing for a quake. The one they endured was 500 times more powerful than the Haiti temblor and yet the country came through mostly in one piece.
What's the upshot of all of this? Without knowing it, science and religion have largely come to view natural disasters in a similar light. As we've seen in recent years, this ideological shift frees faith-based aid organizations to help disaster victims without passing judgment on whether their sinful nature is to blame for their troubles (this is not universal -- scientologists descended on Haiti and a group of Baptist missionaries tried to tote 33 children out of the country claiming they were "orphans").
In short, both science and religion can emphasize the human aspects of disasters, focus their future efforts on trying to prevent suffering whenever possible, and minimize it where it does occur. The two disciplines might even be able to band together to ensure that churches, religious schools, and other properties are shored up against extreme natural events. Such buildings, built in God's name could become saviors in a very real way.
Tags:
comments ( )