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

[tonyrey]

He could aim or steer the typhoons away from populated areas.

On every occasion? Everyone would be forced to believe in miracles - and in God.

 

[inocente]

“Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.” - Terence
(“I am a human being, I consider nothing that is human alien to me.”)

That agrees with the Catholic Encyclopedia which says “the Humanists so called themselves in opposition to the Scholastics, and adopted the term humaniora (the humanities) as signifying the scholarship of the ancients”.

So if the humanists opposed the Scholastics, and Thomas was a Scholastic, and both Pope Benedict and Francis have spoken of the need for humanism, then I can no longer presume Catholics are always Thomists.

 

[inocente]

On every occasion? Everyone would be forced to believe in miracles - and in God.

How so? Typhoons rarely happen in Stockholm, but that doesn’t seem to compel Stockholmians (Stockholmers? Stockholmites?) to believe.

 

[tonyrey]

That agrees with the Catholic Encyclopedia which says “the Humanists so called themselves in opposition to the Scholastics, and adopted the term humaniora (the humanities) as signifying the scholarship of the ancients”.

So if the humanists opposed the Scholastics, and Thomas was a Scholastic, and both Pope Benedict and Francis have spoken of the need for humanism, then I can no longer presume Catholics are always Thomists.

You are assuming that Humanists were opposed to Scholastics in every respect and that Catholics who are Thomists are Thomists in every respect.

How is this related to the topic?

 

[vames]

On every occasion? Everyone would be forced to believe in miracles - and in God.

Again, this is not an argument. Care to reply to my post #56? You had said that when some people and animals are saved from natural disasters, it’s a proof that God performs miracles. If what you say about God needing to hide would be true, then those miracles seriously undermine the secretiveness of God. So what is the logic of this argument? Does God need to behave like an adult playing hide-and-seek with kids in a kindergarten?

 

[gaggelcarp]

Let us all pray to venerable Cardinal Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan “this venerable brother, son of the East, who concluded his earthly journey in the service of the Successor of Peter,” Blessed John Paul II, “The Great.” Dear Cardinal Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, who succeeded through your Holy example in converting your prison guards, and whose model of faith and hope has raised so many to greater holiness, please intercede for the injured and the souls of those who have died in the Philippines and Vietnam under the natural forces of typhoon Haiyan this month. Mary Immaculate, Blessed Virgin, mother of our Lord, intercede for them.

For all who desire to know more about the Holy servant of God, Cardinal Van Thuan, I humbly recommend “The Miracle of Hope - Life of Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan.” The quote above is from Pope Francis’ address in July, 2013 to participants of the Closing Session of the diocesan phase of the process of beatification of the Servant of God Cardinal François-Xavier Nguyên Van Thuân.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So if the humanists opposed the Scholastics, and Thomas was a Scholastic, and both Pope Benedict and Francis have spoken of the need for humanism, then I can no longer presume Catholics are always Thomists.

You are assuming that Humanists were opposed to Scholastics in every respect and that Catholics who are Thomists are Thomists in every respect.

A fallacy by any other name…

Cows don’t like vegetables.
Carrots and peppers are good with beef.
Therefore, we shouldn’t presume that carrots and peppers are always vegetables.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, this is not an argument. Care to reply to my post #56? You had said that when some people and animals are saved from natural disasters, it’s a proof that God performs miracles. If what you say about God needing to hide would be true, then those miracles seriously undermine the secretiveness of God. So what is the logic of this argument? Does God need to behave like an adult playing hide-and-seek with kids in a kindergarten?

I suggest that what Tonyrey is getting at - though I might be mistaken - is something like how the presence of an observer might bias results in science, sometimes unwittingly.

If we are morally autonomous and accountable for what we do, and ultimately responsible for our own destiny, then for God to intervene in such a way that his mere presence compels in such a way as to skew the results, then our accountability has been compromised.

For moral responsibility and accountability to fall on our shoulders as moral beings, and free will to be a real possibility, moral choices must be consistently held “in balance.” Evil choices must not be so compelling as to overwhelm free choice in that direction and good must not be so overwhelmingly compelling as to overwhelm free choice in that direction. Otherwise, we cannot be held fully accountable.

God intervening so as to unfairly benefit the morally upright and disadvantage the immoral would “contaminate” the results, morally speaking, since “being good” would not occur “for its own sake,” but rather for the sake of a payoff.

If God has an interest in allowing us to decide our own destiny, then an overwhelming show of his presence would “contaminate” the outcome, much as a scientist conducting an experiment must be careful to not allow their “bias” to unduly influence the outcome of an experiment. Hence, observer bias.

 

[inocente]

You are assuming that Humanists were opposed to Scholastics in every respect and that Catholics who are Thomists are Thomists in every respect.

How is this related to the topic?

The OP - when it gets down to the wire, which is more important, caring for people or defending conceptions of God?

 

[smichhertz]

Hey all,

Apologies for not contributing for a while, I was away this weekend.

To me, it’s crystal clear that the fall of man brought about death, bodily harm and a disordered nature (as in the world around us). I also agree with the Thomistic stance that natural processes that occur today would have occurred in Eden as well. It’s not like Eden was an entirely separate universe.

Therefore, there are one of two conclusions:
a) Natural disasters such as typhoons were created by the fall of man.
b) “Natural disasters” such as typhoons existed before the fall, but there was no harm or danger in them. It wasn’t until the fall that they became dangerous.

Either way, man and not God is directly responsible for natural disasters.

Thoughts?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Typhoons did not always exist, and I say that with the certainty of near ignorance.
When the dinosaurs lived there were periods when there were no mountains to push air masses high up into the cold stratosphere and there were also warm periods when the north polar region was over 30 degrees centigrade, meaning there were no polar regions, no ice-caps, no cold mountains, everywhere was flat, low, and hot and humid. There would be no temperature gradients to cause typhoons back then.

But were we not told to expect troubles of all types and earthquakes and not to be alarmed as such things were inevitable.

 

[catholictiger]

Hey all,

Apologies for not contributing for a while, I was away this weekend.

To me, it’s crystal clear that the fall of man brought about death, bodily harm and a disordered nature (as in the world around us). I also agree with the Thomistic stance that natural processes that occur today would have occurred in Eden as well. It’s not like Eden was an entirely separate universe.

Therefore, there are one of two conclusions:
a) Natural disasters such as typhoons were created by the fall of man.
b) “Natural disasters” such as typhoons existed before the fall, but there was no harm or danger in them. It wasn’t until the fall that they became dangerous.

Either way, man and not God is directly responsible for natural disasters.

Thoughts?

I still disagree with this statement I just don’t believe that the fall of man changed the natural processes of the world. I believe that God gave man supernatural eternal life, what this looks for adam and eve like I don’t know, and through the first sin of adam we all lost that gift of supernatural eternal life.

Hurricanes, Tornadoes, etc. have existed since the earth was developed enough to allow these things to occur.

I think you ignore some basic aspects of science when you say that natural disasters before the fall of man didn’t cause any harm. It is clear that they caused harm. Many scientist believe that the gulf of mexico was practically caused by a huge meteor that hit the earth millions of years ago that wiped dinosaurs of the face of the earth. This is a natural disaster and because Humans are still a couple million years away it is tough to argue that this is either the result of the fall or it didn’t cause harm. There are plenty of natural events that caused the death of many animals and plants. Nothing in creation changed in a natural way when Adam and Eve sinned rather just what they received from God that was supernatural was lost during the fall or was corrupted during the fall.

It is clear from scripture and tradition that man received the gift of supernatural eternal life at the creation of man. But what does this mean, what does supernatural eternal life entail. does this mean that if man never sinned adam and eve would still be walking around today some 1 million years old, or would God have eventually taken Adam and Eve into heaven before they died their natural death. If you say that Adam and Eve would live out their eternal life on earth how can they live there for all eternity when eventually the earth will become uninhabitable, aka in about 7.5 billions years, when the Sun expands almost to the orbit of the Earth, meaning all life sustaining aspects of the earth will be destroyed and life will become impossible on earth.

Also many in the Church believe in the natural process of evolution, and God picked out adam and eve from a group of homo sapiens and gave them a eternal soul. There are people who argue that God could do it in this way and through natural selection those without an eternal soul would eventually die out making it possible that all homo sapiens would be able to have souls.

my whole point to this is that naturally nothing changed in man when God ensouled or created adam and eve, naturally it is impossible to argue that adam and eve could live a eternal life on earth. I think that the life that god gave Adam and Eve is eternal life of the soul which didn’t exist before their existence. Animals had souls (like explained by aristotle) but their souls died and lost their existence after the death of that animal. God gave Adam and Eve a soul that would never die, and after their natural death their soul would live on in eternal life with God. This is what makes the most since when you take into account science philosophy and theology.

but about the original question

does God cause natural disasters

1. yes, God created and sustains the cosmos, and he set up conditions in the cosmos which would allow for natural disasters
2. no, all natural disasters can be explained by natural processes that are a part of the cosmos.

so it is a yes and no answer. It is not either or, rather both and.

 

[catholictiger]

Typhoons did not always exist, and I say that with the certainty of near ignorance.
When the dinosaurs lived there were periods when there were no mountains to push air masses high up into the cold stratosphere and there were also warm periods when the north polar region was over 30 degrees centigrade, meaning there were no polar regions, no ice-caps, no cold mountains, everywhere was flat, low, and hot and humid. There would be no temperature gradients to cause typhoons back then.

But were we not told to expect troubles of all types and earthquakes and not to be alarmed as such things were inevitable.

but there was still natural “evils” that occurs during that time. Plus the dinosaurs were eventually wiped out by something. So even if the earth didn’t have natural disasters, there were natural disasters on the outside of earth which may have caused the death of most of the dinosaurs.

 

[catholictiger]

We may as well agree to differ on the business of my father’s fate.

On the business of choice, obviously I’ve got more opportunity to exercise choice now, since I’m not being threatened by a typhoon (or cyclone as we call them here, hurricane in the states etc).

Still I thought it was interesting that today’s mass reading mentioned earthquakes, wars and the like.

Temple Destruction Foretold

God knowing that something is going to happen doesn’t necessitate that God caused it to happen.

 

[smichhertz]

I still disagree with this statement I just don’t believe that the fall of man changed the natural processes of the world. I believe that God gave man supernatural eternal life, what this looks for adam and eve like I don’t know, and through the first sin of adam we all lost that gift of supernatural eternal life.

It would make sense to me. God cursed the ground because of the fall:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:17-19[/BIBLEDRB]

There’s an obvious change in the ground which I think is clear connection to nature itself. There’s also a change in animal behavior. Consider this passage:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 1:29-30[/BIBLEDRB]

This is a clear indication that man and animals ate plants and fruits but not meat. Yet obviously now we do because of the fall. We know for sure that Adam did not eat meat because it wasn’t until later that God granted permission for man to eat meat:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 9:3[/BIBLEDRB]

Plus Isaiah 11:6-9 and again 65:25-26 give clear inidication that in God’s “holy mountain” that even carnivorous animals would not hurt or destroy, or do harm.

The scriptural case for a change in natural behavior due to the fall is pretty strong. Coupled with the fact that the Church teaches that one of the preternatural gifts was bodily immortality, I don’t see how one can state that there wasn’t a change in natural behavior.

That’s not to say that things like hurricanes or tornadoes couldn’t have existed, only that there would be no natural evil in them. In a sense, they didn’t cause any harm. Much like animals in Eden did not eat each other and weeds did not choke out other plants.

I think you ignore some basic aspects of science when you say that natural disasters before the fall of man didn’t cause any harm. It is clear that they caused harm.

I don’t ignore it, I simply distinguish between what is a clear teaching from the Church and science. Obviously, the fall would have occurred before this moment, or outside of the space time we currently occupy.

It’s important to draw a clear distinction between what the Church teaches and what science shows. We don’t ignore science, but we also don’t dismiss three books of God’s inspired word simply because a certain interpretation doesn’t fit with science. We look for a possibility for how they can exist together. I think I’ve found one.

So again, I’ll reiterate:

1. The Church teaches that bodily immortality was a preternatural gift.
2. Scripture shows clear differences in natural behavior prior to the fall vs today.

So how can one say that natural behavior didn’t change prior to the fall? I don’t see scriptural evidence showing that.

 

[tonyrey]

I still disagree with this statement I just don’t believe that the fall of man changed the natural processes of the world. I believe that God gave man supernatural eternal life, what this looks for adam and eve like I don’t know, and through the first sin of adam we all lost that gift of supernatural eternal life.

Hurricanes, Tornadoes, etc. have existed since the earth was developed enough to allow these things to occur.

I think you ignore some basic aspects of science when you say that natural disasters before the fall of man didn’t cause any harm. It is clear that they caused harm. Many scientist believe that the gulf of mexico was practically caused by a huge meteor that hit the earth millions of years ago that wiped dinosaurs of the face of the earth. This is a natural disaster and because Humans are still a couple million years away it is tough to argue that this is either the result of the fall or it didn’t cause harm. There are plenty of natural events that caused the death of many animals and plants. Nothing in creation changed in a natural way when Adam and Eve sinned rather just what they received from God that was supernatural was lost during the fall or was corrupted during the fall.

It is clear from scripture and tradition that man received the gift of supernatural eternal life at the creation of man. But what does this mean, what does supernatural eternal life entail. does this mean that if man never sinned adam and eve would still be walking around today some 1 million years old, or would God have eventually taken Adam and Eve into heaven before they died their natural death. If you say that Adam and Eve would live out their eternal life on earth how can they live there for all eternity when eventually the earth will become uninhabitable, aka in about 7.5 billions years, when the Sun expands almost to the orbit of the Earth, meaning all life sustaining aspects of the earth will be destroyed and life will become impossible on earth.

Also many in the Church believe in the natural process of evolution, and God picked out adam and eve from a group of homo sapiens and gave them a eternal soul. There are people who argue that God could do it in this way and through natural selection those without an eternal soul would eventually die out making it possible that all homo sapiens would be able to have souls.

my whole point to this is that naturally nothing changed in man when God ensouled or created adam and eve, naturally it is impossible to argue that adam and eve could live a eternal life on earth. I think that the life that god gave Adam and Eve is eternal life of the soul which didn’t exist before their existence. Animals had souls (like explained by aristotle) but their souls died and lost their existence after the death of that animal. God gave Adam and Eve a soul that would never die, and after their natural death their soul would live on in eternal life with God. This is what makes the most since when you take into account science philosophy and theology.

but about the original question

does God cause natural disasters

1. yes, God created and sustains the cosmos, and he set up conditions in the cosmos which would allow for natural disasters
2. no, all natural disasters can be explained by natural processes that are a part of the cosmos.

so it is a yes and no answer. It is not either or, rather both and.

The other solution does not correspond to scientific facts.

 

[tonyrey]

The OP - when it gets down to the wire, which is more important, caring for people or defending conceptions of God?

A false dilemma. It is absurd to think an accident-free world is feasible. Sooner or later people are bound to be in the wrong place at the wrong time unless they are **always **miraculously preserved from harm on countless occasions during their lives.

 

[tonyrey]

I suggest that what Tonyrey is getting at - though I might be mistaken - is something like how the presence of an observer might bias results in science, sometimes unwittingly.

If we are morally autonomous and accountable for what we do, and ultimately responsible for our own destiny, then for God to intervene in such a way that his mere presence compels in such a way as to skew the results, then our accountability has been compromised.

For moral responsibility and accountability to fall on our shoulders as moral beings, and free will to be a real possibility, moral choices must be consistently held “in balance.” Evil choices must not be so compelling as to overwhelm free choice in that direction and good must not be so overwhelmingly compelling as to overwhelm free choice in that direction. Otherwise, we cannot be held fully accountable.

God intervening so as to unfairly benefit the morally upright and disadvantage the immoral would “contaminate” the results, morally speaking, since “being good” would not occur “for its own sake,” but rather for the sake of a payoff.

If God has an interest in allowing us to decide our own destiny, then an overwhelming show of his presence would “contaminate” the outcome, much as a scientist conducting an experiment must be careful to not allow their “bias” to unduly influence the outcome of an experiment. Hence, observer bias.

Precisely and elegantly expressed!

 

[tonyrey]

Again, this is not an argument. Care to reply to my post #56? You had said that when some people and animals are saved from natural disasters, it’s a proof that God performs miracles. If what you say about God needing to hide would be true, then those miracles seriously undermine the secretiveness of God. So what is the logic of this argument? Does God need to behave like an adult playing hide-and-seek with kids in a kindergarten?

Have you ever heard of the “Deus absconditus”?

"If God had wished to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened he could have done so by revealing himself to them so plainly that they could not doubt the truth of his essence, as he will appear on the last day with such thunder and lightening and such convulsions of nature that the dead will rise up and the blindest will see him.

This is not the way he wished to appear when he came in mildness, because so many men had shown themselves unworthy of his clemency, that he wished to deprive them of the good they did not desire. It was therefore not right that he should appear in a manner manifestly divine and absolutely capable of convincing all men, but neither was it right that his coming should be so hidden that he could not be recognized by those who sincerely sought him. He wished to make himself perfectly recognizable to them.

Thus wishing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart and hidden from those who shun him with all their heart he has qualified our knowledge of him by giving signs which can be seen by those who seek him and not by those who do not. ‘There is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.’”

Blaise Pascal Pensées 149

Isaiah 45: “Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself."

 

[tonyrey]

How so? Typhoons rarely happen in Stockholm, but that doesn’t seem to compel Stockholmians (Stockholmers? Stockholmites?) to believe.

Totally beside the point… A fact that is readily explained by science has nothing to do with evidence for miracles.