re: “How is that apparent? Because my opinion differs from yours (or theirs)?”
No - because you implied that because disease and catastrophes exist - therefore God is sadistic - without any supporting arguments. I completely agree with you that a thinking person should give due consideration and examine arguments, but you gave no indication that you had done so.
Now, you’ve just said you did and I take your word for it.
So, which Christian thinkers’ books and essays dealing with the subject of suffering and pain (and catastrophes) did you read and consider and examine? Where did you feel their arguments fell short? Just curious.
re: “let me make it clear that I am referring - not to moral evil - but rather to natural catastrophes.”
I stand corrected. However, your use of the word, “catastrophe” implies something “bad” has occured. If earthquakes or floods are all merely “natural” events, just part of the naturalistic universe - then why use the word “catastrophe”? If thousands of people happen to be killed in an earthquake, isn’t this just part of the naturally occuring struggle for “survival” - weaning out the weak and making room for more successful organisms?
re: “By the way, many “thoughful Christian thinkers” - including the present Pope - also believe that natural catastrophes have natural causes.”
I also agree that catastrophes can have natural causes.
re: “Also that solar eclipses are not caused by a dragon swallowing the sun...”
Where did I ever say that? Where does the Bible say that?
re: “How would I comfort a victim of such catastrophes? I would try to alleviate their material suffering and be of good cheer! I would also attempt to take concrete measures to protect us all against such catastrophes (installing tsunami warning systems, etc.)”
Those are all admirable things to do, however, that is not what I’m asking. That is my fault and I should have been more clear myself in my question.
I’m still unclear as to why you should be upset for victims of “catastrophes” - weren’t they just organisms who happened to be in the “wrong” place when the natural earthquake occured? Why is that a bad thing? Why help them? If children die isn’t that just part of living in a naturalistic world? Why try to cheer them up? Why try to create better warning systems? What’s the purpose of that? To save people’s lives? Why is that a good thing?
The "thrust" of your inquiry:
I’m still unclear as to why you should be upset for victims of “catastrophes” - weren’t they just organisms who happened to be in the “wrong” place when the natural earthquake occured? Why is that a bad thing? Why help them? If children die isn’t that just part of living in a naturalistic world? Why try to cheer them up? Why try to create better warning systems? What’s the purpose of that? To save people’s lives? Why is that a good thing?
In a nut shell: Cogito, ergo sum. I am a rational being, most of the time (i.e., excepting dream-states and the like). I am capable of distinguishing between "desirable" and "undesirable" conditions and outcomes (because I am rational - like a well-programmed computer - but also because I have instinctive tendencies, motivations, and personal wants and needs - unlike a computer). As a human being with a normal level of socialization (not suffering from autism; not a "wolf-child;" not a psychopath; hence successful psychological integration into society; assimilation of societal norms; acceptance of most societal standards - all natural human tendencies!), I am not unmoved by the plight of others. Also, as a human being, I am myself affected by such catastrophes.
As to why human beings frequently/usually display such characteristics as compassion, etc. Slight Darwinian advantage; better propagation of genes by those societies where a slight degree of altruism prevailed; etc.
Other than that, my theory requires no further presuppositions.
My niggling:
1. My (initial) failure to provide supporting arguments and instead simply make a flat assertion does not justify your statement that I "implied" anything. You were making an UNNECESSARY assumption. You could have first asked: What is your justification? Are you, in fact, dismissing countless philosophers without having first examined their arguments, etc. It is improper of you to leap to the conclusion that I have not done those things.
2. Which Christian thinkers' books and essays have I read - too involved to discuss here. Do I SOUND like someone who has never "cracked a book?" Nor am I actually "required" to provide my credentials (you haven't!).
3. The word "bad:" I asserted above that a thinking, feeling being is capable of making moral judgements; I state here that I see no need for recourse to a "higher" authority.
Regards,