avevale_intelligencer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2009-02-05 08:53 am
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2009-02-05 08:53 am
To intervene or not to intervene--the Prime Directive again
Don't give that homeless person money, he'll only spend it on drugs.
Don't give to that charity, only a fraction of the money ever gets to the people who need it.
Don't stop people starving to death in Africa, they'll only become dependent.
Don't prevent people killing their girl babies, it's part of their culture and we have to respect that.
Don't save that wounded baby zebra from dying, it could damage the ecosystem. Nature must take its course.
Don't rewrite history, not one line. You never know what could happen.
Don't let these people know we're from outer space. It could damage their culture.
Observe. Record. Never interfere.
There are always reasons not to do things. Always reasons not to intervene, to keep one's hands clean, to pretend it's nothing to do with us, that it wouldn't interest anybody outside a small circle of friends. I do it, you do it, almost everybody does; otherwise we would all be out there in the desperate areas of the world lending a hand and making the world a better place in a big way instead of living our relatively comfortable lives, playing our games and occasionally putting a couple of pounds into a collecting tin.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lil_shepherd commented that if God existed and followed, for whatever reason, this same policy of non-intervention, observing what happened in the universe but never interfering, that God would not be a God to be worshipped--"quite the reverse." I agree that there is cause for anger. When one sees something bad happening to someone else, and has the power to make it better, and chooses to do nothing for abstract reasons of one's own, the someone else has a justifiable grievance against one. Prime Directive be damned. You see someone or something in need of help, and you are able to help...you help. That's part of what being human is. Of course, another part of being human is being weak, and scared, and not wanting to get involved, and having one's own problems, and it's not usual these days to think of God in those terms (though I've never seen any reason why not: the whole "omni this, omni that" thing has always struck me as a rather extravagant bit of guesswork, true, if at all, only within this universe, and possibly subject to outside restrictions we don't know about).
The point of the last post but one, insofar as it had one, was to illustrate a thought that occurred to me in the small hours of the night, and Lil's comment plays into that nicely. It's been said that we use our brains to find the evidence to support the conclusions we've already come to. Atheism claims to be based on the fact that there is no hard scientific evidence to support the existence of a god, and as far as it goes that is correct. I wonder, though, if the impulse to atheism is not at least partly based on something more human and positive--being so completely pissed off at God for doing something (or not doing something) as to decide not to believe in him any more, to do "quite the reverse." How many atheists initially came to their belief (or lack of belief, if you insist) because something bad happened, either in their lives or in the history of the world, and God didn't bloody well do something about it?
God may indeed be omnibenevolent, concerned with the well-being of the entire universe rather than any creature living in it. Or God may be purely dispassionate, simply seeing what happens. Or God may truly agonise about every sparrow that falls, but be prevented from interfering by departmental regulations or some such. Or God may be three projects down the line by now, any involvement with this one limited to making sure all the lights are still on before locking up the lab. And it may be perfectly reasonable to be angry with God for any of these things, or for creating a world in which some creatures feed on other creatures and not always in a nice way.
But maybe if we excuse ourselves for not intervening when someone or something is in need, we should consider excusing God as well. God may have reasons as well.
Don't give to that charity, only a fraction of the money ever gets to the people who need it.
Don't stop people starving to death in Africa, they'll only become dependent.
Don't prevent people killing their girl babies, it's part of their culture and we have to respect that.
Don't save that wounded baby zebra from dying, it could damage the ecosystem. Nature must take its course.
Don't rewrite history, not one line. You never know what could happen.
Don't let these people know we're from outer space. It could damage their culture.
Observe. Record. Never interfere.
There are always reasons not to do things. Always reasons not to intervene, to keep one's hands clean, to pretend it's nothing to do with us, that it wouldn't interest anybody outside a small circle of friends. I do it, you do it, almost everybody does; otherwise we would all be out there in the desperate areas of the world lending a hand and making the world a better place in a big way instead of living our relatively comfortable lives, playing our games and occasionally putting a couple of pounds into a collecting tin.
lil_shepherd commented that if God existed and followed, for whatever reason, this same policy of non-intervention, observing what happened in the universe but never interfering, that God would not be a God to be worshipped--"quite the reverse." I agree that there is cause for anger. When one sees something bad happening to someone else, and has the power to make it better, and chooses to do nothing for abstract reasons of one's own, the someone else has a justifiable grievance against one. Prime Directive be damned. You see someone or something in need of help, and you are able to help...you help. That's part of what being human is. Of course, another part of being human is being weak, and scared, and not wanting to get involved, and having one's own problems, and it's not usual these days to think of God in those terms (though I've never seen any reason why not: the whole "omni this, omni that" thing has always struck me as a rather extravagant bit of guesswork, true, if at all, only within this universe, and possibly subject to outside restrictions we don't know about).The point of the last post but one, insofar as it had one, was to illustrate a thought that occurred to me in the small hours of the night, and Lil's comment plays into that nicely. It's been said that we use our brains to find the evidence to support the conclusions we've already come to. Atheism claims to be based on the fact that there is no hard scientific evidence to support the existence of a god, and as far as it goes that is correct. I wonder, though, if the impulse to atheism is not at least partly based on something more human and positive--being so completely pissed off at God for doing something (or not doing something) as to decide not to believe in him any more, to do "quite the reverse." How many atheists initially came to their belief (or lack of belief, if you insist) because something bad happened, either in their lives or in the history of the world, and God didn't bloody well do something about it?
God may indeed be omnibenevolent, concerned with the well-being of the entire universe rather than any creature living in it. Or God may be purely dispassionate, simply seeing what happens. Or God may truly agonise about every sparrow that falls, but be prevented from interfering by departmental regulations or some such. Or God may be three projects down the line by now, any involvement with this one limited to making sure all the lights are still on before locking up the lab. And it may be perfectly reasonable to be angry with God for any of these things, or for creating a world in which some creatures feed on other creatures and not always in a nice way.
But maybe if we excuse ourselves for not intervening when someone or something is in need, we should consider excusing God as well. God may have reasons as well.
no subject
It's also easy to select stories that cast God in a bad light or make the Bible look stupid. I did it myself in Backward Christian Soldiers. None of my religious friends seemed to be particularly worried about that, so I don't think it's a very effective technique for routing the forces of the faithful. But maybe I just didn't do it right.