John Locke Very High Recommend - Theology Q2: Is it reasonable to thank God for protection from some natural harm if He is responsible for causing the harm?

Few phrases are as common in the aftermath of tragedy as the phrases "Thank God" or "God Bless." Regardless of religion, ethnicity, or culture, God is praised and thanked for both the lives of survivors and the hereafter for the dead. God is defined as "the supreme or ultimate reality," a Being who is perfect in every way. (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) He is the ultimate and omnipotent good, and hence, we must worship and thank Him. But to the non-religious outsider, this makes little sense: if God is the cause of all things, then He caused the disaster – why thank him? If He had the agency and ability to protect people yet chose not to, is he not worthy of blame?

In this essay, I will argue that it is reasonable to thank God in the aftermath of disaster with respect to both practical and theoretical rationality. First, thanking God for protection is theoretically reasonable provided an individual's worship of God is reasonable. Second, thanking God is practically reasonable as it can be in your self-interest for reasons of worship and coping.

Note that the idea of holding God responsible for harms only applies to religions in which God is responsible for all things; for many religions such as Hinduism, natural harms are seen as amoral events and are not caused by any deity, and it follows that this essay will primarily address Abrahamic religions and other religions with an omniscient, omnipotent God.

Thanks, as Worship

Common preachings for religion often include the idea that God has a great plan for the universe. The basis of religion is to have faith in God. Provided you have this faith, it follows that all actions of God have a greater purpose, and it is reasonable not to doubt neither the creation of harm nor the sparing of your life. In the Book of Isaiah, the Lord declares: "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9 NIV). Allah states: "O ye who believe! Ask not about things which, if revealed to you, would cause you trouble" (Surah al-Ma'idah, Ch.5, V.102). A human cannot grasp the reasoning of God, and all "evil" or "harm" that God would commit is not evil at all. It is only that our mere mortal minds may not comprehend His might.

When we are saved or protected, it is His grace and His mercy. The Book of Job, Romans, Luke, etc. all tell us that God owes us nothing, and rather, we owe Him everything. We can simply trust that the conclusion of his actions will lead to greater good, and hence, we will praise him regardless of what happens. For any believer of God, it is only reasonable that you thank him, because that is what a believer of God should do.

Therefore, the question of whether thanking God in the occasion of natural harm is not a question to begin with, because these natural "harms" are for the greater good. The question

instead becomes whether it is reasonable/rational to subscribe to the worship of God in the first place.

There are two main types of rationality (note that rationality and reasonability will be used interchangeably) that I will deal with in this essay. Theoretical rationality, which deals primarily with belief, has two requirements: first, it must be based on evidence; second, it must be consistent with other beliefs (Audi). Practical rationality, on the other hand, primarily deals with action. In relevant terms, your actions towards God are theoretically rational if it is backed by evidence and does not contradict your other beliefs. Your actions toward God are practically rational if these actions work in your best interest.

On Theoretically Rationality

Descartes argues that almost all beliefs are not certain. Perhaps everything you think is real is not true, and you are merely a brain in a vat with all your “thoughts” being simulated by a computer. The brain has no way of proving otherwise, and therefore, will never know if anything it experiences is "true." Accordingly, to prove the reasonability of belief in God, we need not prove that God exists. We simply need to prove that it is a rational choice to believe that He could exist and that we should worship Him.

It is often argued that the belief in God is irrational as there is no evidence that God exists – but evidence does not rely on the truth, exactly because we cannot know what is true. The philosophy of evidentialism (the idea that evidence is required for rational belief) says that epistemic justification (a good reason to believe a claim) depends on experiences. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that just as we rationally believe that birds chirp, or the sky is blue due to our experiences of these things, people who have experiences they've taken to be from God have the epistemic justification needed to form a belief. While epistemic justification can be challenged, many theists have created good responses that effectively removed their own doubts, and it is a rational choice for them to believe in God's existence.

But even if not every individual has an experience with God or thinks so hard about the existence of God, they are still rational in their belief through the process of testimony – the gaining of knowledge secondhand (Fricker, Cooper 1987). Because the people around them all testify for the existence of God, it would be reasonable to follow the beliefs of their community. Would a colorblind person be unreasonable for thinking the sky is blue? Just like how the belief in other minds or the belief in the external world is so commonly accepted that you would not be considered irrational for believing in them despite their lack of evidence, religion should hold in the same manner. With the vast majority of the world being religious, the statement that religion is unreasonable may be unreasonable in itself.

But even if God may exist, should we worship him? Ultimately, only being God's worshipper makes it reasonable to thank Him no matter what. For those who have good lives, it is both easy and rational to be thankful to the supposed creator and designer of their lives, for that is how they

perceive they may continue their good life. Many times, the experiences that provide them epistemic justification for the existence of God also provide the justification for God's goodness. This is backed by the testimony of their communities – perhaps a relative or friend attributed some good thing to God, and so it serves as proof of His kindness. He has clearly made life better for my community, peers, and family – hence, I can believe He has a greater plan, and I can cultivate my faith in Him so that I may receive benefits too.

But there also exist many who suffer or know others who suffer. It is often difficult to justify certain harms simply for the sake of the "greater good." Natural harms are often some of the best examples of this. Often, the victims include the poor and disadvantaged; in fact, children, who are almost always innocent, are disproportionally hurt with long-lasting effects (Kousky). Yet these people still believe in a good God anyway – why? If such cruel things happen, would this not make your beliefs inconsistent and therefore, not rational?

This question falls under the problem of evil – a question at the forefront of religious debate for centuries. Possibly originated from Greek philosopher Epicurus, empiricist David Hume summarizes the problem in the following way: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"

To solve the problem of evil and suffering, theists have come up with a wide variety of defenses called theodicies – for example, the idea that hardships are tests from God, or the idea that all humans are born sinners. Theodicies rarely convince atheists of the existence of God (after all, it doesn't matter why God allows evil if God doesn't exist), and they often fail in convincing atheists of God's goodness (for example, an atheist may state that God being the creator does not justify any harm he does towards you). But a belief does not need to convince everyone to be rational. Theodicies were never meant to be concrete proofs, but rather, they create a pathway for faith to exist in a rational way.

With this, beliefs remain consistent with other beliefs – fulfilling the second requirement of theoretical rationality.

On Practical Rationality

But let's assume that you really cannot justify your belief in God. Perhaps you doubt God's goodness or omnipotence. Perhaps you are unsure of why you worship him yet continue to do so, and your beliefs are contradictory and unclear – but your worship of God may still be reasonable, due to practical rationality.

Practical rationality argues that if you have a certain goal G, and action A is an effective way to realize G, then you ought to carry out action A. Given that the goal of human beings is generally to live happily and fulfillingly, religion is a very effective action A.

The act of worshipping God may be considered practically rational in two ways. First, it may lead to great fulfillment in the long run. Pascal's wager, proposed by Blaise Pascal, provides a mathematically rational justification for belief in God. His argument is as follows: should God exist, and you worship, you have infinite gain. Should God exist, and you disbelieve, you would have eternal damnation. If God does not exist, all you would lose in the case you worship is some time and effort – hence, it is the most rational choice to worship. Therefore, you would subscribe to actions of worship and belief – choosing to thank God, regardless of what happens.

But more than that, empirical evidence exists that religious involvement often leads to happier lives. Indeed, the PEW research center reports that actively religious people tend to be consistently happier. A meta-analysis of several thousand articles found that religious beliefs were associated with lower depression, anxiety, and suicide rates, and increased ability to cope in hard times (Schwalm et al). For many individuals, including those who suffer, this is an extremely practical reason to believe and worship God.

But even only within the moment of a harm, having religious beliefs is highly beneficial in the process of placation. The most rational goal of a human after some disaster happens is to calm themselves down and reduce harmful feelings. In this, religion is extremely effective. Nearly all Christians felt a reduction in anxiety after praying to Jesus, and 90% felt confidence when praying during tense moments (Groover). Amongst Muslims, those with "higher scores on religiosity and spirituality are associated with lower depression and anxiety" as well as increased "hopefulness and confidence" (Yucel) - allowing them to tackle the challenges that they face. Given that the act of thanking or praying to God, regardless of whether it is His fault in causing harm, is likely to lead to increased calm and greater ability to cope, it becomes practically rational/reasonable to thank him, regardless of whether he is responsible.

Ultimately, whether to thank God for protection from natural harm is a personal and subjective choice influenced by one's religious beliefs, experiences, and understanding of the divine. The reasonability of this act lies in the rationality of one's faith and the benefits it provides in terms of worship, coping, and a sense of belonging to a religious community.

Bibliography:

Audi, Robert, 'Theoretical Rationality: Its Sources, Structure, and Scope', Rational Belief: Structure, Grounds, and Intellectual Virtue (New York, 2015; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 Aug. 2015), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190221843.003.0009, accessed 12 May 2024.

Bristow, William, "Enlightenment", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/enlightenment

Coleman, Dorothy, editor. Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: And Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy.

Descartes, R. (2008). Meditations on first philosophy (M. Moriarty, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Fricker, Elizabeth, and David E. Cooper. "The Epistemology of Testimony." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, vol. 61, 1987, pp. 57–106. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106834. Accessed 9 May 2024.

"God." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god. Accessed 7 May. 2024.

Groover, Casey D., "The Impact Prayer Has on Reducing Anxiety" (2020). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. 2365. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/2365

Kousky, Carolyn. (2016). Impacts of Natural Disasters on Children. Future of Children. 26. 73-92. 10.1353/foc.2016.0004.

Mitchell, Travis. "Religion's Relationship to Happiness, Civic Engagement and Health around the World." Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 31 Jan. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/.

Plantinga, Alvin, 'Warranted Belief in God', Warranted Christian Belief (New York, 2000; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Nov. 2003), https://doi.org/10.1093/0195131932.003.0006, accessed 23 May 2024.

Schwalm, Fábio Duarte, et al. 'Is There a Relationship between Spirituality/Religiosity and Resilience? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 27, no. 5, SAGE Publications, Apr. 2022, pp. 1218–1232, https://doi.org10.1177/1359105320984537.

Yucel, Salih. The effects of prayer on Muslim patients' well-being. 2007. Boston University, PhD dissertation. OpenBU, https://hdl.handle.net/2144/40