The Earthquake in Japan and Theodicy

The earthquake and resultant tsunamis that hit Japan marked, according to Japan’s prime minister, the greatest crisis for Japan since World War II. Besides the massive loss of life, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people are homeless. Many are grieving the loss of their loved ones; others wait with trepidation for any news. It is easy to forget, so far away in America, that this tragedy is not an abstraction. Real flesh and blood people died, and real flesh and blood people are suffering. During such times of tragedy, some people may lose their faith in God or in the particular tenants of their religion. The thousands of people killed were not bad people; the vast majority were good people struggling to get by in life like everyone else in the world. Many children are among the killed and bereaved. Where is God in such a time? Why did God allow an earthquake so massive to occur, one that destroyed so many people’s lives?

No one knows–not this side of eternity. We can give our guesses–“this gives people a chance to come together and show their love and concern for others”–but couldn’t there have been a less destructive way to do this!? Another answer may be that “the laws of nature must operate in stable ways. With a system of plate tectonics, when one plate slides under another, sometimes the plate snaps back, causing earthquakes.” But the positive changes in evolution that result in part from the motion of continents occur over millions of years. What about the people in Japan now? And if natural laws must remain stable, why can’t God make a world with different natural laws in which earthquakes do not occur or are not as severe? One plausible answer is that the number of possible universes compatible with intelligent life with significant freedom is very small–perhaps even this universe only–due to the specificity of natural laws that are so finely tuned that a minuscule change in the laws of nature would result in no life at all or at least no intelligent life.

Ultimately such answers will not satisfy a grieving parent who has lost a child or someone who has lost a spouse. In the predominate mixture of Shinto and Buddhism in Japan, invoking karma at such a time is just as unsatisfying as the answers I just presented from a Judeo-Christian perspective. The practical response of Christians is to support the relief effort in any way they can and to pray for the victims and their families. Ultimately the greatest gift Christian belief offers in such times is hope–strength to hope for a recovery from this great disaster, and the hope of eternal life for those killed. This world is full of tragedy–diseases, earthquakes, deadly weather, accidents, and dangerous radiation. The only way such tragedy can be redeemed is through a restoration of all things that transcends our present space-time order. In the meantime, we pray that the death figures will not go much higher, that those alive can be rescued, and that those who live can, at least in part, recover from their losses. May God be with the Japanese people during this time of trial.

Science and Politics

Image via Wikipedia

Most people probably have not heard of Alfred Wegener. Wegener (1880-1930) was a German scientist who worked in meteorology and astronomy. But he is most famous today for being the first scientist to propose (in 1913) the theory of continental drift, the position that continents do not remain in one position but move vast distances over geological time. Continental drift is universally accepted today, but Wegener’s theory was ridiculed and his reputation suffered during and after his lifetime. Professional geologists did not believe a non-geologist could come up with an good theory. I remember reading a children’s book on science when I was a child–the book said that Wegener’s theory of continental drift had no real evidence in its favor. Wegener died a broken man because of the dirt heaped on his reputation by the scientific establishment.

But in the late 1950s and early 1960s, more and more scientists accepted continental drift due to advances in developing a theory behind it. Eventually plate tectonics, the view that continents float on semi-molten plates that can move vast distances over millions of years, was accepted. Wegener, who was long dead, would have been proud. But why would scientists, who are supposed to be open-minded, reject Wegener so strongly?

The reason is that science is not nearly as objective as it claims to be. It is, to a large extent, a political enterprise. Some theories are “in”; others are “out” in the political circles of the scientific establishment. Today, with millions of dollars of government grants at stake, few scientists are willing to question the establishment, lest they get ostracized, lose grant money, and fail to receive tenure due to lack of publications if they work in higher education. The pressure on an innovative scientist can be enormous.

More cases could be named: the failure of most psychologists to accept the existence of seasonal affective disorder despite strong evidence that it is a real entity. Another example is the failure of oceanographers and meteorologists to accept the existence of single large waves that sometimes occur in fair weather and topple ships. This was thought to be a sailor’s myth until the existence of such waves was revealed in a satellite photograph. The existence of psi (ESP and psychokinesis) has overwhelming evidence to support it, but the majority of psychologists claim that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. This is not because they examine the evidence fairly, but because they have a prior philosophical bias against the existence of these abilities. These psychologists then use their political influence to stop funding for psi research. An examination of much of the skeptical literature of psi reveals a selective reading of parapsychological literature. Some skeptics present such a distorted picture of parapsychology that the only reasonable conclusion is that they are either self-deceived, or worse, they lack integrity.

In the life of the state, there is often a battle between politics and truth. This is the same with science. The scientific community is like a new priesthood, declaring what is heretical and what is orthodox. The problem is that many of scientific heretics have been right.