Kinda Sorta Theological/Philosophical Conundrum

[Raphael]

Ok, if you read this post to the end, then by the time you've finished it, or perhaps even earlier, you might well think that I've completely lost it. But perhaps you'll be patient and bear with me for a moment.

You see, it has happened twice in my life - the first time around 2005, the second time a few years after that - that I noticed a fire in time to sound the alarm before anyone got hurt because I was awake late at night at a time when I really should have been asleep.

The first time, I didn't think that much about it, but a while after the second time, parts of me started to think that this was a kinda weird coincidence, and that perhaps there was something more to it. Perhaps, I started to think, some kind of Higher Power - God, or a god, or the Divine, or Fate, or Nature, or whatever - had purposely kept me awake in those nights - or more generally, had purposely turned me into someone who is often awake at night - in order to prevent those fires from hurting people.

A while after that, however, I came to dismiss that idea, based on the following argument: If there really was some kind of Higher Power who worked in that way, wouldn't it have been a lot easier for that Higher Power to use its amazing higher powers to keep those fires from breaking out in the first place? Why use such such a complicated plan?

But then, a lot more recently, I started to think that there's a flaw in that argument, too: the argument only really applies to an all-knowing, all-powerful God, like the God of Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism. A Power of some supernatural kind that is powerful, but not all-powerful, might still have been unable to prevent the fires from breaking out, but able to keep me awake.

So, what do you think?

One last thing: Before you think that I must be very self-obsessed to think about any of those things in those ways, let me add that I'm pretty sure that if there's anything to those speculations, I'm certainly far from alone or "unique" or "special" in that way; I'm certainly just one out of many.

[Vardelm]

So, what do you think?

Short answer: bollocks.

Slightly less short answer: All of that presupposes a being with a plan who is able to, is motivated to, and is essentially playing puppet-master with the world, to a greater or lesser degree. Why not a Creator that creates the universe as a system, and then steps back to allow humanity to interact with it because they will learn far more from it that way and thus be more interesting? Why not a universal, creative energy that humans will sense when they act in accordance with its principles?

[Raphael]

All of that presupposes a being with a plan who is able to, is motivated to, and is essentially playing puppet-master with the world, to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't think so. The earlier part of my speculations would presuppose that, but the last part

A Power of some supernatural kind that is powerful, but not all-powerful, might still have been unable to prevent the fires from breaking out, but able to keep me awake.

doesn't necessarily.

[Vardelm]

A Power of some supernatural kind that is powerful, but not all-powerful, might still have been unable to prevent the fires from breaking out, but able to keep me awake.

doesn't necessarily.

This is why I said "to a greater or lesser degree", whether it's from a standpoint of capability, motivation, or other. The point is active engagement by said being, or that there even IS a "being".

[LingEarth]

Oh what the heck, I'll try answering this.

The first thing I'd say is that moderately improbable (as opposed to astronomically improbable) coincidences are still likely to happen to someone, somewhere, at some time. If there's a one in a million chance of an event happening to someone, then it's probably happened to over 6000 people in the world. And each of those 6000 people might be thinking "wow, that's too amazing to be a coincidence", but nope, they're just among the lucky few that it happened to happen to.

Second, without knowing all the details of what was going on those days--including things you've probably forgotten by now--we can't know for sure that there wasn't some completely natural reason that you'd already be subconsciously aware that something was wrong that might lead to a fire starting that night, and kept you awake because of that.

Third, you've probably been awake late at night more than just those two times, with no fire or other dangers occurring, and you never gave a second thought to all those times.

I don't think you've "completely lost it", I just think the human brain is very oversensitive to noticing patterns and assigning meaning to them. We're all susceptible to it; part of skepticism is figuring out how to logically evaluate when there's actually strong evidence for a real pattern vs. just our brains being hypersensitive.

For the record, I'm basically an agnostic with regard to the existence of any gods or other supernatural entities. I don't rule them out categorically, I just think that every specific claim I've heard about them either 1) has strong evidence against it, or 2) is just too vague to have sufficient evidence to evaluate. Anecdotes like yours are in the second category.

[Vardelm]

I just think the human brain is very oversensitive to noticing patterns and assigning meaning to them.

And then anthropomorphizing any explanation.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

So, what do you think?

That it's probably a coincidence, or else each time your subconscious picked up on something of which you weren't actively aware, and keeping you awake. I don't think it needs an explanation more complex than that. There isn't anything of which I know that leads to the conclusion that any such higher power exists, or any such sort of extrasensory perception to which one might jump next in search of a non-rational explanation.

[Moose-tache]

There was a guy who got hit by an atomic bomb on a business trip. He made it home, only to be hit by another atomic bomb.

I think if atheism has survived that, it's pretty sound.

[Vardelm]

There was a guy who got hit by an atomic bomb on a business trip. He made it home, only to be hit by another atomic bomb.

I think if atheism has survived that, it's pretty sound.

There's plenty of people who believe COVID is a hoax and haven't caught it and don't have friends, family, or acquaintances who have caught. Clearly they are correct that COVID is a hoax.

[zompist]

I don't think you've "completely lost it", I just think the human brain is very oversensitive to noticing patterns and assigning meaning to them. We're all susceptible to it [...]

This. And all the more so when something very serious happens, like those fires.

Arguably this habit of mind would be favored by evolution: when something dangerous happens or is avoided, we should think hard about why that might be. But that thinking isn't guaranteed to be insightful.

I kind of like the idea you've come with of low-power gods. Save that for a con-religion. But I'd distrust it as a personal philosophy, because it isn't universalistic. It might be comforting to think you have a Power on your side. But what about people whose house does burn down? Was their Power out to lunch?

[Vardelm]

But what about people whose house does burn down? Was their Power out to lunch?

COVID has also caused the minor deity pool to be short-staffed.

[keenir]

There was a guy who got hit by an atomic bomb on a business trip. He made it home, only to be hit by another atomic bomb.

I think if atheism has survived that, it's pretty sound.

I'd heard of the man who was present at both of the nuclear bombings of a Japanese city...but hadn't heard of him being on an airplane.

[keenir]

If it is a god or God or kami or neteru or anything else, why should or would any of them or Them remove the dangers of the world (such as fires, etc)...down that road lies lotus-eaters lacking anything to do.

There's also a godless version: do you want to live in a universe that lacks fire and other dangers?

[Raphael]

There's also a godless version: do you want to live in a universe that lacks fire and other dangers?

I wouldn't, but I also don't believe that there's much of a connection between what kind of universe I want to live in and what kind of universe I live in, or between what I want to be true and what is true. So that particular argument doesn't convince me.

[keenir]

There's also a godless version: do you want to live in a universe that lacks fire and other dangers?

I wouldn't, but I also don't believe that there's much of a connection between what kind of universe I want to live in and what kind of universe I live in, or between what I want to be true and what is true. So that particular argument doesn't convince me.

apologies; i hadn't said there was a connection, but I failed to declare that there was any connection or lack thereof.

just like the Flying Spagetti Monster doesn't care how badly anyone wants to boink Tuna's divine wife.

[Ares Land]

An answer I've heard is that God puts people into these kind of situation because the complicated plan is somehow better for everyone spiritual growth. In a way, the minor adversity of being in a fire and sounding the alarm makes you into a better kind of person than just not going through a fire at all.

I've known a number of good Catholics who fervently believed in saints and guardian angels; the way they think about them is very similar to your other hypothesis. So it's really not unheard of.
So what happens when your house does burn down? Well, maybe Satan was stronger that day or something. Or, you know, the Lord works in mysterious ways.

I mean, that's what some Catholics I know believe. I don't claim it's all theologically very sound!

[Torco]

disclaimer: i'm a pretty hard atheist, by which I mean i think no gods exist and I also think i know this with good reason.

that being said, though, I think this is a more commonsense position than what the imperial universalizing abrahamic religions posit. if mystical magical being of great power exist that's one thing. if they have mystical magical superpowers of mystical magic then sure, that's at least an intelligible position: omnipotence is just very hard to wrap one's head around, and i'd go as far as to say that's because it simply doesn't make sense, as with omniscience, they're just words that do things, like a triple-dog-dare or something: you can know and be able to do many things, sure, that's understandable, and we might *seem* omnipotent to ants, say, but we're not. so yeah, maybe some spirit keeps you awake at night in order to prevent fires: more likely, you probably live in night-fire prone areas and happen to be the guy who's up at that time, or have been twice.

a sort of spinozaic twist to this could be through the self-consciously metaphoric application of the notion of intentionality to nature: sure, nature doesn't actually think, but it means something to say that humanity, in its world-proven and time-acquired diversity, deems it so some of its members will be night owls in order to be aware of nightly dangers, and you happened to be shaped by genes and environment and whatever else into such a type of human. Similarly, Fate through all of its threads and winding paths also decreed that you should catch those fires, since, well, you did.

Still, I think there's a few things one shouldn't feel constrained by in devising religious beliefs: for example, theodicy. since heaven and hell represent infinite bliss/torture, any amount of suffering or pleasure in this world doesn't matter, and if living a life of as much suffering as humanly possible is going to make the heavenly bliss 0,001% better (more deserved or whatever) then god is being benevolent in subjecting you to such a life: in this sense, there's no obstacle in thinking god uses people to douse fires instead of dousing them himself, since having people douse fires is more meritorious and whatever merit is worth, it could be said to be worth more than earthly existence itself. gods don't need to *have to* use people to douse fires, or whatever else, since the whole point is -or can be posited to be- to have people do things. It's also not especially self-centered, as far as religious feelings go: it could be the case that the mystical magical god has a complicated plan where what's maximized is the opportunities people get to do things which are meritorious, or whatever other point the great plan of earthly life has. honestly, if it's religious ideas we're talking about, the sky's the limit.

[Travis B.]

The defense of "why do bad things happen to people despite there being an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God", i.e. the problem of evil, that I have seen is that God has given people and other creatures free will, which necessarily has allowed such things because free will necessarily requires the possibility of moral evil (e.g. look at Alvin Plantinga's thoughts on the subject). However, that does not adequately explain is what is known as natural evil - evil with no non-divine perpetrator. Yes, people have pointed out that the activities of humans have often made natural evils worse, they have failed to demonstrate that natural evil is ultimately caused by humans or other beings with free will in the general case.

[keenir]

The defense of "why do bad things happen to people despite there being an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God", i.e. the problem of evil, that I have seen is that God has given people and other creatures free will, which necessarily has allowed such things because free will necessarily requires the possibility of moral evil (e.g. look at Alvin Plantinga's thoughts on the subject). However, that does not adequately explain is what is known as natural evil - evil with no non-divine perpetrator. Yes, people have pointed out that the activities of humans have often made natural evils worse, they have failed to demonstrate that natural evil is ultimately caused by humans or other beings with free will in the general case.

Not sure I understand "no non-divine perpetrator"...do you mean that The Problem Of Evil requires a divine (or at least a more-than-human) source?

Wouldn't a natural evil, a non-divine perpetrator of evil, dovetail or at least overlap with the moral evil required by free will?

Whether or not evil includes things like yanking people off the farm to do other work & then wondering why the harvest didn't produce much...evil certainly includes things like Year Zero and the Holocaust. Wouldn't they be both natural and moral evil?

[Travis B.]

The defense of "why do bad things happen to people despite there being an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God", i.e. the problem of evil, that I have seen is that God has given people and other creatures free will, which necessarily has allowed such things because free will necessarily requires the possibility of moral evil (e.g. look at Alvin Plantinga's thoughts on the subject). However, that does not adequately explain is what is known as natural evil - evil with no non-divine perpetrator. Yes, people have pointed out that the activities of humans have often made natural evils worse, they have failed to demonstrate that natural evil is ultimately caused by humans or other beings with free will in the general case.

Not sure I understand "no non-divine perpetrator"...do you mean that The Problem Of Evil requires a divine (or at least a more-than-human) source?

Wouldn't a natural evil, a non-divine perpetrator of evil, dovetail or at least overlap with the moral evil required by free will?

Whether or not evil includes things like yanking people off the farm to do other work & then wondering why the harvest didn't produce much...evil certainly includes things like Year Zero and the Holocaust. Wouldn't they be both natural and moral evil?

What I mean is that the existence of evils without a perpetrator other than God necessarily contradicts the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God and cannot be explained away by invoking free will.