Earthquake

[liv]

rho explains (at a basic level) how nuclear power stations work and enumerates the likely consequences of earthquake damage. It's probably not news to most of you, but I'm linking as an example of impressive popular science writing.

Meanwhile there is a really stupid Twitterfight going on about whether prayer is an appropriate response to the disaster. azurelunatic wrote a really thoughtful response to this non-controversy. It's in the middle of a long post about her response to the tsunami warning in force on the Pacific coast of the US, so I'll quote the relevant section:

Making law that flies in the face of science is just stupid; not taking practical action but trusting in a supernatural force to bail one out is likewise stupid. But, in the middle of all the twitterchaos, someone said "Prayer is a way to focus will & intent", just as someone else mentioned that they knew they needed to be doing things other than being glued to the news, but they didn't know what.

All of those things came together in my head just then. Just as funerals are for the living, prayer in times of disaster is for the people who are not dealing with it. (The people who are dealing with it, maybe they're also praying while they're dealing, but that's their thing.) Regardless of whether one believes in good vibes or supernatural involvement, prayer is a clearing and focusing of the mind upon the topic at hand. Ideally it is a form of meditation, with a twofold benefit. First, it sets the mind in the direction of helpful action, such that when disparate items are presented later, maybe they will come together in the head in a helpful way. This could take the form of innovation, charity, volunteerism, or what-have-you. Second, after it is done, it clears the mind of the immediate all-consuming worry, the obsession, about the catastrophe, and prepares the person for actually going about their life. A student glued to the news cannot study. A worker glued to the news cannot work. (Well, unless the study or work involves being glued to the news.) A body suffers when it's under tension and strain, even when the tension comes from situations thousands of miles away, when one's already given blood, given money, given time and attention, signal-boosted. Even if the prayers do nothing directly for the people suffering, as long as prayers are not used as excuses to avoid other forms of contribution, they can be generally helpful.

My theological stance is somewhat different from Azz', but I did like that explanation of what prayer is "good for". She also quotes rm to the following effect: Using disasters to proselytize is tacky. Atheists, this includes you. Believe as you wish; help if you can.. Also, I don't think posting a Tweet saying "My heart goes out to all those poor Japanese people!" is particularly superior to including them in your prayers; either can be smug slactivism and either can be a way to emotionally prepare yourself to actually do something positive.

More annoying than the people who are Tweeting Don't #prayforJapan are the ones who are Tweeting Earthquakes are an act of science, not an act of God. Really, people! Science doesn't "act", science is a method of studying the world! It doesn't cause earthquakes, srsly.

FWIW I chose to read out Ps 99 in synagogue on Friday. (We read it anyway as part of the normal Friday night liturgy, but I drew attention to it rather than just letting the congregation run through it on autopilot.) I didn't do this because I think reading a Psalm about earthquakes is "magically" going to make God help the earthquake survivors or reduce the level of devastation. I did it because I consider that religion which is completely insulated from events in the real world is bankrupt. I assume that people who disapprove of religion will anyway think that I shouldn't be leading religious services at all, but if I do lead a service, am I doing any harm by referring to the earthquake and its victims and survivors?

Comments

[nameandnature]

I think we're in violent agreement here: I'm not complaining here about religious culture insofar as it's divorced from attempts to describe the world. Some anthropologists, like Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer, think that it's a mistake to see any religious language as an attempt to describe the world, but I think if I were religious, I'd find that a bit patronising. Certainly, when I was both believing and observant, I thought my beliefs were attempts to describe the world, though I admit they may not have been: as philosophers and anthropologists have pointed out, those beliefs don't work in the same way as more mundane beliefs.

The anti-gay theists have a rationalisation against the "God didn't make no trash" argument, which is that the world is somehow broken and contains things which God doesn't want but permits for mysterious reasons (free will gets mentioned at this point, as does the Christian idea of the Fall and original sin). I think your own idea runs into the earthquakes objection if you think that God had something to do with the natural world: clearly in that case, God wants earthquakes to exist :-)

I agree that if FundieGod exists, the right thing to do is join the resistance. I suspect we both agree that luckily, he doesn't.