I was reading an article a while back about natural disasters and the immorality of any god, unworthy of worship, even should a god exist at all.
The idea was that inaction in the face of terrible suffering, when one has the power to prevent it (as certainly a god must have power, or why call such a being god?) can only mean any number of repugnant characteristics (apathy, maliciousness, pettiness, etc) but certainly nothing good.
This is a very good point. If a good human being, supposedly of imperfect morality and limited ability, would do all in his power to avert suffering, such as the tsunami in Japan, how much more must be expected from that being which would be called a god.
But then I had a thought.
A deist conception of god is most truly one which is without action, other than spinning the top to begin with.
Why is not a deist god considered immoral or at last amoral?
Is it because a deist god is said to have no involvement at all, make no demands, have no ethical implication?
Is it because, since a deist god never does intervene, it's pointless to discuss it's morality with regards to action?
Is it because, deists are the least offensive, least harmful of any religious group, who themselves don't gain or lose anything by what other people think or say about god?
Or is inaction from a god plausibly sometimes not evil?
The idea was that inaction in the face of terrible suffering, when one has the power to prevent it (as certainly a god must have power, or why call such a being god?) can only mean any number of repugnant characteristics (apathy, maliciousness, pettiness, etc) but certainly nothing good.
This is a very good point. If a good human being, supposedly of imperfect morality and limited ability, would do all in his power to avert suffering, such as the tsunami in Japan, how much more must be expected from that being which would be called a god.
But then I had a thought.
A deist conception of god is most truly one which is without action, other than spinning the top to begin with.
Why is not a deist god considered immoral or at last amoral?
Is it because a deist god is said to have no involvement at all, make no demands, have no ethical implication?
Is it because, since a deist god never does intervene, it's pointless to discuss it's morality with regards to action?
Is it because, deists are the least offensive, least harmful of any religious group, who themselves don't gain or lose anything by what other people think or say about god?
Or is inaction from a god plausibly sometimes not evil?
"People need heroes. They don't need to know how he died clawing his eyes out, screaming for mercy. The real story would just hurt sales, and dampen the spirits of our customers." - Mythology for Profit
