Did God cause this typhoon to strike the Philippines? (poll)

[catholictiger]

So I guess that brings us to the definition of “cause”.

God knows perfectly when he creates someone whether they will go to Heaven or Hell, but God doesn’t CAUSE them to choose Hell, they freely choose it on their own. God is just aware of what their choice will be.

So based on your description, I’d say God did not cause natural disasters. Am I wrong?

it is in God’s divine providence that it happens, but it is brought about through the freedom of the system.

God is the cause everything, the primary cause, he is the reason that there is something instead of nothing, and he is the reason we exist. I think this issue is more complex then a simple yes or no answer. If you say yes than you put into question the natural phenomena that happens in the world and say that God is just pulling strings or something. If you say no you put into question the true idea that God created the world in a way that will bring about certain things.

Let me try to explain this further, if you argue that God didn’t cause the typhoon to strike the Philippines the logic would have to say that God didn’t cause the earth, the solar system, and even human beings (don’t turn this into an evolution debate) God caused the universe in a way that would bring about the solar system the sun the earth, and human beings. In God’s divine providence he created a system that would bring about this typhoon, but it isn’t a direct cause of the typhoon.

God is the cause of ALL things that happen on earth but isn’t the direct cause of all things.

in order to understand this issue fully you must understand the distinction between primary and secondary causality. God yes caused the typhoon because the only reason it exists is because he causes it to exist, but natural phenomena still is the explanation for this event. This is why I voted other, because this is both and question not either or.

 

[MtnDwellar]

You appear to be saying on no account ever help anyone, it will do them far more good to suffer and die.

That conclusion does not follow from my post. Suffering is beneficial and pain well suffered is equivalent to good works.

Help to those who are suffering are corporal works of mercy. We are commanded to help people in need. Whatever we do for the least of our bretheren, we do for Christ.

 

[catholictiger]

Weren’t natural disasters brought about by the fall of man? Or am I remembering my moral theology wrong?

first if the Church teaches this please let me know I don’t want to say something that goes against Church teaching

second if natural disasters are brought about by the fall of man than how do describe natural disasters before human beings walked the earth. If Dinosaurs existed which I think is clear from science you have to explain how natural disasters could happen within their time. I think you can also describe things like super novas, black holes, collision of planets, as so called natural disasters, and if it is only because of our sin that these things happen.

in light of this I think Events like Hurricane Katrina, Super Typhoon Haiyan (sorry if I miss spelled this) tsunamis, massive earth quakes, the tornado that his OKC or Tuscaloosa, are not the result of the fall of man rather they are a natural process of the universe that happen because this is the way God created the universe. There is nothing to suggest that our sin causes a tornado to happen. I think it is more accurate to say that rather natural “disasters” are not disasters at all and in the eyes of God are in his perfect plan, but because of our fallen and finite view of the world we cannot see it in the eyes of God and according to view it is evil.

Augustine gives a good analogy, art has areas of light and areas of dark, the areas of dark are necessary for this piece of art to be beautiful but if you look at 1% of the art you say how could this be beautiful this is ugly all of these dark areas are horrible. But in light of the whole piece of art the dark areas add to the beauty. The areas that look dark while evil actions sometimes bring about those things they add to the beauty of the entire piece of art.

 

[catholictiger]

one more note I notice some of my posts are approach issues that are banned on this board, so any arguments made about Intelligent design or evolution I will not respond to. I believe that I have addressed the issue without going into that banned debate.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Simple question, did God, in his infinite love, wisdom, power and benevolence cause that typhoon to smack a hugely Catholic country like the Philippines?

The Philippines is an area that seems to see a lot of Typhoons. You can see a history of them here. I see it as being similar to an earthquake occurring in a geologically active area .

 

[ephesians4]

Simple question, did God, in his infinite love, wisdom, power and benevolence cause that typhoon to smack a hugely Catholic country like the Philippines?

I heard that God’s church is the only true church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Philippines is a huge bastion of Catholicism. Surely one would think that God in his infinite love, wisdom, power and benevolence would spare this country from this? Since the beginning of time, in God’s mind, in his infinitely wise and benevolent and loving mind, this typhoon was planned out: yes, no or other?

Usually the theist response to the problem of evil I’ve heard is that God could possibly have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Now this seems good when we’re dealing with personal evil that people do to each other. But when it comes to typhoons like this one that smacked the Philippines, i.e. natural evil, one wonders what the morally sufficient reasons for permitting there could be, and whether they are even possible?

It’s this particular typhoon I’d like to address, as I don’t think it is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for this typhoon.

It seems that God so ordered this typhoon that aid is not able to get to the affected areas, leaving people to die of exposure, dehydration or their injuries if they weren’t killed outright by this storm. One could imagine that a storm such as this might be considered to be morally okay if help could get to people quickly, allowing for a “greater good” to come out of this evil in the form of aid, and people helping one another. But God just seems to have ordered this typhoon to frustrate transportation of people and aid and allow his beloved children to languish without any outside help.

Thoughts?

We live in an incalculably unlikely nurturing, protective environment, given the infinite/finite screeching void around us. The universe already nurse-maids us plenty as we’re not in a vacuum or being pulverized by asteroids every few years.

Life is fraught with tragedy from the small to the (for us) incomprehensibly huge, it seems to be part of the deal, although His will and thought are probably inherently inscrutable to us.

I guess all we can do when faced with tragedy is try our best to survive or render help, physical and otherwise, to give love and compassion, and to pray to Our Lord. I guess we would do these things less in a universe where we had hands-on protection from everything - and the benefit in that is easy for us as humanity, even if our experience with eg: parenting may offer no insight into What’s Really Happening, at all.

 

[smichhertz]

God is the cause everything, the primary cause, he is the reason that there is something instead of nothing, and he is the reason we exist. I think this issue is more complex then a simple yes or no answer.

Okay, that makes sense. So perhaps God is the INDIRECT cause of moral and natural evil?

Let me try to explain this further, if you argue that God didn’t cause the typhoon to strike the Philippines the logic would have to say that God didn’t cause the earth, the solar system, and even human beings (don’t turn this into an evolution debate) God caused the universe in a way that would bring about the solar system the sun the earth, and human beings. In God’s divine providence he created a system that would bring about this typhoon, but it isn’t a direct cause of the typhoon.

True, but that’s the universe as we know it today, after the fall. This is a corrupted natural world. Theoretically, God created the universe with no natural evils, but the fall brought about natural evils.

first if the Church teaches this please let me know I don’t want to say something that goes against Church teaching

That’s what I’m unsure of. I seem to remember that this is one of the effects of the fall of man. Any idea where we could get a concrete answer?

second if natural disasters are brought about by the fall of man than how do describe natural disasters before human beings walked the earth. If Dinosaurs existed which I think is clear from science you have to explain how natural disasters could happen within their time. I think you can also describe things like super novas, black holes, collision of planets, as so called natural disasters, and if it is only because of our sin that these things happen.

I guess that depends on how literally you take the creation story. I was under the impression that the fall of man was somewhat of an allegory. The fall certainly happened, but whether the “Garden of Eden” is a physical place that had to be on the formed planet Earth is less clear. If you take the less literal approach, it’s pretty easy to walk around that from there.

in light of this I think Events like Hurricane Katrina, Super Typhoon Haiyan (sorry if I miss spelled this) tsunamis, massive earth quakes, the tornado that his OKC or Tuscaloosa, are not the result of the fall of man rather they are a natural process of the universe that happen because this is the way God created the universe. There is nothing to suggest that our sin causes a tornado to happen. I think it is more accurate to say that rather natural “disasters” are not disasters at all and in the eyes of God are in his perfect plan, but because of our fallen and finite view of the world we cannot see it in the eyes of God and according to view it is evil.

Augustine gives a good analogy, art has areas of light and areas of dark, the areas of dark are necessary for this piece of art to be beautiful but if you look at 1% of the art you say how could this be beautiful this is ugly all of these dark areas are horrible. But in light of the whole piece of art the dark areas add to the beauty. The areas that look dark while evil actions sometimes bring about those things they add to the beauty of the entire piece of art.

This is a very good explanation and one I could certainly get behind. I guess I’m just curious as to whether or not natural evils are a cause of the fall or not.

 

[smichhertz]

Excuse the double post, another thought just occurred to me:

1. Death / Bodily injury were a cause of the fall.
2. What makes a natural evil such as a typhoon actually evil? Surely the death of people would at least be included in the answer to that question.
3. So perhaps typhoons could have existed in the garden of eden but simply were not evil as they could not cause death or bodily harm.

Thoughts?

 

[catholictiger]

Okay, that makes sense. So perhaps God is the INDIRECT cause of moral and natural evil?

I guess you could say that,

I think it is better to understand it this way. Take for example the creation of a child, is God the direct cause of this birth, I guess you could maybe say this but I think what can cause some of these problems is that we look at this to kantian. When some says cause we think did God cause A to happen to make B happen. This is a faulty understanding how God causes. Think of it like this, the secondary causes are causes on the horizontal level, the kind of causality that Kant describes. Secondary causality describes how you and I come about, how a natural disaster comes about. God creates in a vertical way the secondary causality cannot occur if there is no uncaused cause who creates them and God continues to sustain these things in existence. So to the original question, What is the cause of the typhoon to strike the Philippines, god or natural processes? yes. (yes I know I rephrased the question but I did it to make my point) So again this is why I said other not yes or no. Because God is the primary cause of the natural processes in earth, but the secondary causes are the natural processes itself.

True, but that’s the universe as we know it today, after the fall. This is a corrupted natural world. Theoretically, God created the universe with no natural evils, but the fall brought about natural evils.

I would say this that God created a world that is moving towards a final end, and because of this there is privation of perfection because the cosmos hasn’t reached its final end. Sin corrupts our spiritual nature but I’m not to sure if it has any impact on natural processes in the world.

That’s what I’m unsure of. I seem to remember that this is one of the effects of the fall of man. Any idea where we could get a concrete answer?

We may not be able to, this may be an issue that there is pluralism. there is not one answer that must be held by Catholics. Just like there is a pluralism in how God created the cosmos, the Church doesn’t say who is right and wrong. I’m presenting my view on it, I hope to discuss it but I will not say or one should not say that this view is what should be held by others.

I guess that depends on how literally you take the creation story. I was under the impression that the fall of man was somewhat of an allegory. The fall certainly happened, but whether the “Garden of Eden” is a physical place that had to be on the formed planet Earth is less clear. If you take the less literal approach, it’s pretty easy to walk around that from there.

The church says Genesis 3 is written with symbolic language (something along those lines) so Genesis 3 isn’t presenting a historical account of the cosmos.

This is a very good explanation and one I could certainly get behind. I guess I’m just curious as to whether or not natural evils are a cause of the fall or not.

i would say no, so called natural evils are not evil at all but rather our view of them is fallen.

 

[Peter_Plato]

it is in God’s divine providence that it happens, but it is brought about through the freedom of the system.

God is the cause everything, the primary cause, he is the reason that there is something instead of nothing, and he is the reason we exist. I think this issue is more complex then a simple yes or no answer. If you say yes than you put into question the natural phenomena that happens in the world and say that God is just pulling strings or something. If you say no you put into question the true idea that God created the world in a way that will bring about certain things.

Let me try to explain this further, if you argue that God didn’t cause the typhoon to strike the Philippines the logic would have to say that God didn’t cause the earth, the solar system, and even human beings (don’t turn this into an evolution debate) God caused the universe in a way that would bring about the solar system the sun the earth, and human beings. In God’s divine providence he created a system that would bring about this typhoon, but it isn’t a direct cause of the typhoon.

God is the cause of ALL things that happen on earth but isn’t the direct cause of all things.

in order to understand this issue fully you must understand the distinction between primary and secondary causality. God yes caused the typhoon because the only reason it exists is because he causes it to exist, but natural phenomena still is the explanation for this event. This is why I voted other, because this is both and question not either or.

To follow your line of thought. It might be true to say that God didn’t directly “cause” the typhoon, the meteorological factors did, but God permitted it to occur.

It would be just as true to say God “permitted” the crucifixion of Christ, because he could have intervened, but didn’t.

So the question boils down to why would he allow his only begotten Son to be treated so shoddily? Which is a corollary to the opening post’s query. Why would God allow his friends, the people of the Philippines, to be treated in like manner?

It is interesting that the opening poster wanted to leave all other similar events out of the picture and focus directly on this one. The problem is that move is precisely what magnifies the issue.

Taken in isolation, the crucifixion of Christ - God himself - can only be seen as a horrific and despicable act. It is when the rest of the picture is allowed into view that it can be put into perspective.

The tragedy in the Philippines is fresh and “in our view” in such a dominant way that it is easy to ignore what God must keep in view. The connection of this event with all other events in all of history from its beginning to its end. That is the purview that God works with. He can’t “fudge” the importance of some events by taking those out of his perspective and ignoring all future repercussions. If he could, I suspect the crucifixion would never have been permitted.

 

[catholictiger]

Excuse the double post, another thought just occurred to me:

1. Death / Bodily injury were a cause of the fall.

could you provide the scripture quote on this, and also if you can does the living tradition of the Church and the magisterium interpret the text in this way?

I’m not sure that the tradition interprets Gensis in this way, especially in light of evolution and natural science it is more accurate that when genesis says that sin brought death it is referring to the death of the soul, or eternal separation from God because of sin. It makes more sense to say this when you consider that death existed in the world before the fall, for both pre ensouled humans and animals. It is a natural process of the cosmos that human beings die so even if Adam and Eve never sinned, they would have died, only if God had given them a supernatural everlasting life.

1. What makes a natural evil such as a typhoon actually evil? Surely the death of people would at least be included in the answer to that question.

I’m not sure if bodily death is evil, God made death a part of his creation, plus if someone where to die in the friendship of God how would that be evil.

1. So perhaps typhoons could have existed in the garden of eden but simply were not evil as they could not cause death or bodily harm.

in light of natural processes that happen on earth this doesn’t make sense.

 

[catholictiger]

To follow your line of thought. It might be true to say that God didn’t directly “cause” the typhoon, the meteorological factors did, but God permitted it to occur.

It would be just as true to say God “permitted” the crucifixion of Christ, because he could have intervened, but didn’t.

So the question boils down to why would he allow his only begotten Son to be treated so shoddily? Which is a corollary to the opening post’s query. Why would God allow his friends, the people of the Philippines, to be treated in like manner?

It is interesting that the opening poster wanted to leave all other similar events out of the picture and focus directly on this one. The problem is that move is precisely what magnifies the issue.

Taken in isolation, the crucifixion of Christ - God himself - can only be seen as a horrific and despicable act. It is when the rest of the picture is allowed into view that it can be put into perspective.

The tragedy in the Philippines is fresh and “in our view” in such a dominant way that it is easy to ignore what God must keep in view. The connection of this event with all other events in all of history from its beginning to its end. That is the purview that God works with. He can’t “fudge” the importance of some events by taking those out of his perspective and ignoring all future repercussions. If he could, I suspect the crucifixion would never have been permitted.

as said before I think it is problematic to use modern versions of cause. When the modern world thinks of cause they think of secondary cause only. God isn’t involved in secondary causality. God is the primary cause of everything, secondary causality is the causality that exists in creation and that finite creatures and finite things participate in. So this is why I answer both and to this question, or yes and no.

I think what the disconnect comes from in this discussion is a misunderstanding of causality. In view of thomistic causality God is the cause of natural events because he sustains these things in creation, but God doesn’t cause in a secondary way.

let me try to explain it this way, secondary causality is like billiard ball A hitting billiard ball B and causing it to move, God doesn’t cause in this way, rather God is the cause of the billiard ball’s existence and is the reason that those billiard balls continue to exist.

This is why I said other and not yes or no.

Note: God does sometimes intervene in creation in supernatural ways but it doesn’t take away the freedom of the cosmos and I don’t think he intervenes to drastically change natural processes. Suggesting that original sin changed the cosmos is making that claim. I’m looking at theology and philosophy in light of natural science. Science shows that natural disasters, death, and other things occur because it is part of the nature of the cosmos. This is why I’m arguing what I argue. I believe aquinas argues in a similar way.

 

[smichhertz]

could you provide the scripture quote on this, and also if you can does the living tradition of the Church and the magisterium interpret the text in this way?

I’m not sure that the tradition interprets Gensis in this way, especially in light of evolution and natural science it is more accurate that when genesis says that sin brought death it is referring to the death of the soul, or eternal separation from God because of sin. It makes more sense to say this when you consider that death existed in the world before the fall, for both pre ensouled humans and animals. It is a natural process of the cosmos that human beings die so even if Adam and Eve never sinned, they would have died, only if God had given them a supernatural everlasting life.

Certainly! That one I do know. It’s called the Preternatural Gifts:

CCC376. By the Radiance of this Grace all Dimensions of Man’s Life were Confirmed. As long as he Remained in the Divine Intimacy, Man would** not** have to Suffer or Die. [Cf. Genesis 2:17 ; Gen 3:16, 19 .] The Inner Harmony of the Human Person, the Harmony between Man and Woman, [Cf. Gen 2:25 .] and finally the Harmony between the First Couple and all Creation, Comprised the State called ‘Original Justice’.

This is commonly referred to as bodily immortality. So we would not have suffered things such as death, disease, bodily injury, etc. if we had not fallen.

 

[catholictiger]

Certainly! That one I do know. It’s called the Preternatural Gifts:

This is commonly referred to as bodily immortality. So we would not have suffered things such as death, disease, bodily injury, etc. if we had not fallen.

hmmm I respect what the Church says here but what I continue to wonder is how does this view work in context of natural science, and a very augustinian and thomistic idea that God uses natural processes to actualize his divine will. I guess it would be possible that God would give humans a supernatural immortal life but I don’t know if this is implied by the sacred text. While I have a religious submission of mind and will to the Catechism I’m not sure if the view of that man was immortal before sin and than became mortal after sin is a view that must be held by Catholics. (note: not ALL things in the Catechism must be held as infallible magisterial teaching, there are something in the Catechism that a Catholic can reasonably disagree with and still be in the fold of the faith, the Catechism is a guide to the Catholic faith not a magisterial document that catholics are obligated to follow. What Catholic’s are obligated to follow are statements in the Catechism which refer to magisterial documents which make definitive statements in them.)

note: does the Catechism passage actually refer to no suffering or death while on earth or no death or suffering after natural death.

 

[catholictiger]

again just to make this clear what I’m trying to fuse is an understanding of the nature of man from science and an understanding of the nature of man from philosophy and theology. Science I think clearly shows that man is naturally mortal, I also think that philosophy explains that man is mortal. The question is does the meaning of scripture imply that man before the fall was immortal. I’m fine with this being a supernatural gift given to man, but I’m not sure if the Church could ever definitively teach this because of the problem with meshing with natural philosophy and natural science.

But this immorality of man doesn’t have much impact on the discussion of natural disasters. I still don’t think the fall of man has any impact on natural processes in the earth, only supernatural gifts he may have been given from God.

 

[smichhertz]

I think this gets back to the understanding of a fallen state. All of creation in the material world is in a fallen state. This includes nature, animals and man.

Therefore we see elements of God’s original design in the universe, but we must recognize that it’s in a fallen state. Not as God originally intended.

I don’t think that conflicts with the Augustinian or Thomistic views of nature, but I’m limited in my understanding. Can you perhaps point out specifically where the issue lies?

Good points being raised here. I tried to do some research to get some clearer answers but so far have been unsuccessful. It would seem this is an area where there is not a definitive ruling by the Church.

 

[catholictiger]

Jimmy Akin gives a good explanation on this issue

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/

I have to go for now, I will respond early afternoon.

 

[Aloysium]

Storms are getting more powerful as a result of global warming, which is a process that is likely to continue, although at an uncertain pace.
We are partially responsible I suppose.

 

[catholictiger]

I think this gets back to the understanding of a fallen state. All of creation in the material world is in a fallen state. This includes nature, animals and man.

I would disagree and nothing actually suggests this in the bible to my knowledge. The natural essence of material things is that they break down, if a things make of material isn’t to break down it would be supernatural. This is what many in the Church, and correctly so, say was given to Adam and Eve at their creation but then they lost it due to original sin.

Therefore we see elements of God’s original design in the universe, but we must recognize that it’s in a fallen state. Not as God originally intended.

I would again disagree, I agree with the thomistic understanding that says God created the world to work towards an end. God didn’t create a world that was perfect in the beginning rather when all things are brought into their final end, who is God, this is when the cosmos will be perfect. So God’s original design of the universe include entropy, and things like hurricanes tornadoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are a natural part of the cosmos, not something that is fallen.

I don’t think that conflicts with the Augustinian or Thomistic views of nature, but I’m limited in my understanding. Can you perhaps point out specifically where the issue lies?

I’ve tried to do this, but I think it is an incorrect understanding to say that God created the cosmos in a way then our fall cause it to have a radical change. I rather think that God created the world with rational seeds (a word Augustine uses c.f. De Genesi 1.10.21; cf. 4.26.43, Ibid., 5.23.45. De Trinitate 3.9.16. Ibid., 3.8.13. I’m taking this from footnotes from lecture notes I have in a class so they may not all exactly speak to it but this is contextual support my teacher used to talk about rational seeds, I rather not quote all of that stuff to much to quote.)

the main issue that I’m having is that causality is misunderstood modern society. I say both because causality refers to God in the primary sense, meaning that he is the prime cause of the universe and sustains all things in the universe, and secondary causality which applies to creatures and things in the cosmos, that God does not necessarily take part in (you could maybe say doesn’t take part in at all). When you say that God caused a natural disaster you are not being clear enough in your question. Even a question like did God will this to happen, did is God the direct cause, is God sending this Typhoon to the Philippines, is all coming from a modern understanding of causality and not a augustinian or thomistic view point of causality.

**(added after edit) **The same problem rises in the issue of original sin and natural disaster, but other issue still apply, God must create the cosmos as he intends to and not have to intervene after the fact. Natural science sees no evidence of a substantial change of the nature of the cosmos sometime in the distant pass. AKA the laws of nature have been unchanged since the big bang. If we are going to claim that original sin changes the nature of the cosmos which will cause natural disasters to happen than you are claiming something that is not found in natural science. Can you claim it sure the Church doesn’t speak definitively on these matters, but hopefully as someone who respects the truth of the world and the truth that natural science show us we won’t let our interpretations of faith corrupt science or visa versa. I can’t remember who said it but I think the phrase is appropriate here. Science removes superstition from theology, theology removes idolatry from science (I think that is how it goes.) (sorry for the long edit)

Good points being raised here. I tried to do some research to get some clearer answers but so far have been unsuccessful. It would seem this is an area where there is not a definitive ruling by the Church.

I would agree with this statement.

 

[tonyrey]

Even the sceptic David Hume conceded that God generally works through the laws of nature rather than by “direct volitions” - in contrast to Calvin’s untenable view that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of the Creator. The immense multiplicity and complexity of events in the universe make it inevitable that disasters occur. Sooner or later persons and animals are bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is reasonable to expect God to intervene to prevent suffering and death but if He did so too often everyone would be compelled to believe He exists - which would defeat the purpose of creating us to choose what to believe and how to live. We would know there is a benevolent Power protecting us. We would lose our most precious gift - freedom - and be like lapdogs trying to please their Master, incapable of true love.

Jesus demonstrated that the worst evils are not suffering and death but the folly, greed, selfishness and lack of love which cause disasters. Scientists predicted such events fifty years ago. Mexico City is just one example of another catastrophe waiting to happen…