This
Gulf of Fire: The Great Lisbon Earthquake, or Apocalypse in the Age of Science
and Reason, by Mark Molesky
Molesky spends time on the pre-earthquake history of
Portugal and significant detail on the disasters that came with the
earthquake. I offered an overview of
this previously,
so will only touch on a couple of additional points now: Portugal was as
Catholic as Catholic could be – even after the Reformation; Portugal also had
episodes of being one of the most widespread and wealthiest empires in the
world.
My focus here is on the aftershocks – not physical, but
philosophic and religious.
God, said to be omniscient and merciful, showed himself to be
a very poor sort of father. So writes
Bahngrell Brown when considering the reaction of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,
who was but six years old at the time of the quake.
Everywhere there was significant disagreement and debate on
the disaster – within five years, hundreds of books, articles, etc., were
published, all attempting to answer the question: who, or what, was
responsible? Was it God or was it
nature? Even the question reflected
change.
The ensuing debate was arguably the
most significant of the European Enlightenment.
Perhaps the fundamental question:
…how could a just and all-powerful
God have sanctioned the deaths of so many innocent people?
Prior to this earthquake, optimism was blossoming everywhere
in the decades of peace that followed the wars of religion – which were
actually wars of state-creation. Gottfried
Wilhelm von Leibniz argued in 1710 that an “infinitely benevolent Deity had
created the universe with the greatest possible excess of good over evil.” This view would begin to change.
Voltaire would write of the disaster. In Switzerland and in exile, away from Louis
XV and the guards of the Bastille, he was living by this time a somewhat
sedentary (at least by his former standards) life. By this time in Europe’s evolution, dogma and
superstition were well replaced by science and reason – long a central tenet of
Voltaire’s work.
The news hit Voltaire like a
thunderbolt. “Nature is very cruel.
…What a wretched gamble is the game of human life!”
Science and reason still left room for God, but only a god
as described by Leibniz: “infinitely benevolent,” one that created a “universe
with the greatest possible excess of good over evil.” Yes, evil existed, but it was insignificant
when compared to the “flawless totality of his handiwork.”
A world that was believed to be so ordered – a perfect
creation of God – now seemed capricious and cruel. The earthquake called into question “this
happy progress toward Eden.” What would
this mean about “God”?
“Would the entire universe have
been worse without this hellish abyss, without swallowing up Lisbon? Could not [God] plunge us into this wretched
world without placing flaming volcanoes beneath our feet?”
Voltaire would offer a poem, one of despair. His closing lines:
Will ye reply “You do but illustrate
The iron laws that chain the will of God?”
Say ye, o’er that yet quivering mass of
flesh
“God is avenged: the wage of sin is death?”
Rousseau would react to Voltaire’s characterization of a
world overflowing with misery and suffering: “You do not want us, Monsieur, to
read your poem as denying Providence.”
Rousseau would argue that much of the world’s unhappiness is caused by
man. He even went as far to say that
some who were crushed were better off dead!
Kant would work to reconcile the earthquake with Providence,
seeing it a result of the same subterranean fires that give us hot springs and
steam baths. The horrors of Lisbon could
have been averted had the Portuguese properly prepared for such an event.
Over time, the earthquake would
force Kant to alter his thinking.
Hitherto, his works were filled with speculative reference to the
Divine. After Lisbon, he began to
embrace a more empirical approach to knowledge and the universe.
Man must not blame providence; he must recognize that every
single event was – in every single respect – produced by himself.
The theories behind the causes of earthquakes were equally
challenged – as noted by Kant to include subterranean fires. Others believed there were exploding deposits
of subterranean sulfur or electricity connected by underground caverns.
Yet most Spanish scholars dismissed the popular notion that
earthquakes were some form of divine punishment. Some of the more accurate theories of the
time were offered by scholars within the Church.
Ultimately, the earthquake brought to the fore both how far
ideas of the Enlightenment had penetrated society and how deep religious
conviction about God’s role in daily life still held sway.
Conclusion
God and God’s role in the world; random chance and
capricious events. What did the
earthquake signify? What did it destroy
from the philosophic and Christian past?
What would replace these?
It was certainly a confused and confusing time for the
intellectuals and elite of Europe, perhaps best summarized by Edmond-Jean
Barbier:
Embarrassing for the professors of physics
And humiliating for the theologians.
This embarrassment and humiliation still had to be worked
out. This process would begin in the
reign of terror. Not the one that you
are thinking of.
Touche. Solid arguments. Keep up the good effort.
ReplyDeleteLots of judgemental people look at natural disasters and say how they deserved what they got. They forget the scripture:
ReplyDelete"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: FOR HE MAKETH HIS SUN TO RISE ON THE EVIL AND ON THE GOOD, AND SENDETH RAIN ON THE JUST AND ON THE UNJUST." Matthew 5:44-45 emphasis added
Were not the prophets and apostles subjected to difficulties, disasters, persecutions and ultimately an untimely death for most of them? I must assume that the majority of readers would concede that these men were close to God - yet, their lives were not ideal.
I have noticed that when difficulties are taken away, people tend to become selfish and self-centered, easily offended, self-entitled - in short, exactly what we see in society today. Wouldn't it be better for us to realize that people will experience difficulties regardless of their "righteousness"?
"Perhaps the fundamental question:
ReplyDelete…how could a just and all-powerful God have sanctioned the deaths of so many innocent people?"
This question if really asked by the intellectuals of the day had already forgotten one of the most fundamental truths. Mankind is not innocent before God. We are sinners who need to be brought to justice.
They had forgotten this and pinned their earthly hopes on Post-Millennialism. That doctrine is a humanist conceit. Not sure if the Enlightenment factored into the idea of it, or if it was a factor in the birthing of the Enlightenment. But it replaced Jesus Christ as the one who brings redemption to the creation with Modern, Enlightened men.
I don't know that every natural event has a purpose behind it. I think that is part of the nature of sin, chaos and randomness. But we know from Romans 8:18-22, that Paul links human suffering to a fallen creation that groans until the Resurrection is complete.
Also, Jesus talked about the same kind of thing in Luke 13:1-5. When bad things happen either from the hand of men or nature, each person should reflect on their own mortality before God, not speculating why the event occurred or what it means for those affected.
Whether or not God intended the Lisbon tragedy as punishment for its inhabitants, the intellectuals of the day did not respond as Jesus directed. They had an opportunity to look at their own need of a Savior. But instead decided that God didn't exist. Sad.
RMB, you can see some of this thinking in the comments by Leibniz referenced above. I cannot say when or why this kind of thinking crept into intellectual / philosophical circles.
DeleteI do not want my next comment to be conflated with the idea of nature having a soul or whatever - nothing like this. But all around us is part of creation...all also equally fallen, perhaps, and therefore subject to suffering (literally speaking in the case of humans; figuratively, perhaps, in everything else).
Yeah. Not a soul but Paul does use personification in Romans 8 for a reason, to communicate something important about creation.
ReplyDeleteGod created the Cosmos and set rules for how it works. Then, The Fall and the rules were altered ... in dying you will die.
ReplyDeleteFrom headaches to disasters, they are all God's doing.
For almost all God causes through the curse/judgement and are the result the altered rules He setup. Rules that one day will be altered again.
On occasion, God intervenes directly and acts in a way that do not necessarily is a result of the laws of nature. We call those events miracles that, by definition, are few and out of the ordinary, and some of the times do involve the use of God's natural phenomena.
Which are results to God's laws of nature and which are God's divine intervention God does not usually say. The only way to know is through revelation.
In Jesus' telling of the murdered Galileans and Tower of Siloam events (Luke 13) and Jesus' healing of the blind man (John 9) we have examples on how some things are God's indirect and others direct actions.
Also, look at the judgements of God on apostate Israel in the Old Testament.
ATL & Jamie, you each had a comment that I accidentally deleted. Might have been for this thread or another. I apologize; hopefully you can re-post something.
ReplyDeleteNo big loss for mine comment. ATL's ....
ReplyDeleteReality as well-defined by A Course in Miracles is not a physical empire, dimension, or knowledge, since truth is created by God and as God is unformed, unchanging, everlasting, endless love, and boundless and unified perfection -- a non-dualistic oneness. Reality in the Course is one and the same with Heaven and perceptibly cannot be connected in any method to the universe of form that the world calls reality. Being unchanging, true reality is everlasting and fixed, and therefore any assumption of separation -- which is change -- is not possible and therefore on no occasion was. As a non-dualistic state, reality is beyond insight, since perception presumes a subject-object dichotomy which is integrally dualistic and so can’t be real. In A Course in Miracles, reality is also synonymous with knowledge, the state of being that is Heaven. Enlightenment
ReplyDelete