January 13, 2005
Divine Monopoly
As some of you may know, I have been wondering whether the devastating loss of human life following the recent Indian Ocean Tsunami can be compatible with the concept of a good, omnipotent, and omniscient, God. This is probably why my brother Dan(ny) brought this Slate piece to my attention:
In the wake of the tsunami disaster, it's time for believers to take a more proactive role in world events. It's time to boycott God.
Centuries of uncritical worship have clearly produced a monster. God knows that he can sit passively by while human life is wantonly mowed down, and the next day, churches, synagogues, and mosques will be filled with believers thanking him for allowing the survivors to survive. The faithful will ask him to heal the wounded, while ignoring his failure to prevent the disaster in the first place. They will excuse his unwillingness to stave off destruction with alibis ("God wasn't there when the tsunami hit"—Suketu Mehta) and relativising ("for each victim tens of thousands yet live"—Russell Seitz), even if those excuses contradict God's other attributes, such as omnipresence or love for each individual life . . .
This was my response:
Posted by cradle at January 13, 2005 9:36 PM[Dan(ny),]
This is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Boycotting God will be ineffective because there is only one God. What we really need is free market competition, which in this case means a return to polytheism. With the proper market incentives, we would find a pantheon of deities competing for our adoration. The cost in human lives would plummet, as well as the cost in worship. I suspect the market clearing price of divine grace is around 3 to 4 minutes of worship per week, and not the 3 to 4 hours we see now.
-David
You think they'll give away freebies? I'll be all for your idea, if that's the case.
Free market now!
Polytheism sounds nice and all, but what happens when you no longer have a single, omnipotent God? You end up with fiefdoms (Neptune having mastery over the sea, still a monopoly if you're a sailor) and petty squabbles which can cause greater destruction and generally end up being counterproductive. Moreover, without some sort of quality control, millions, perhaps billions of people will get lured in by tempting offers from gods who only require 2.5 minutes of worship a week but really aren't as powerful as the other gods (remember the Baal of the Canaanites?), or won't tell you that their blessings are not available on a Saturday night when you need them most.
One God really is the best way. I lean towards the boycotting suggested in Slate. There is still, however, a question on whether boycotting Him will whip Him into shape or just incur His wrath even more. IANAT, so get professional advice on this.
Posted by: Bob S at January 14, 2005 3:02 AMWere you channeling Tom E. when you responded to Daniel the Star?
I knew you were a closet libertarian!
Happy Birthday, btw!!!!!!
Posted by: Maureen at January 14, 2005 3:25 AMHahahaha!
Good post, birthday boy.
In 365 AD, no one god had any significant market share. Somewhere in my bjournal the exact day is recorded, but I've given up on looking for it. In any case, sometime in 365, a huge Mediterranean earthquake with subsequent tsunami and flooding killed some 50,000 people in Alexandria alone.
Happy Birthday!
Posted by: Andrew at January 14, 2005 12:31 PMThe free market rul3z!
I think David is getting back at me for my talking head saying "I bet you heard that story on NPR.."
Posted by: TomE at January 20, 2005 9:25 PM