• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Ethics of Selective Intervention

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
Oh, the fleeting memories of my youth... Football games would start with a prayer (before the nearest ACLU attorney sued) asking for injury protection for the players. Kids would pray for help on their algebra. People prayed to be spared from tornados and hurricanes, and they would be thankful to God that the prayers worked, even when somebody else was killed instead. Many a meal began with a request that God bless this food.

For me, though, the issue of such selective intervention – if it ever happens - raises more ethical questions than it answers. Would God bless your mashed potatoes while allowing someone else to get food poisoning? Would God help you avoid injury in an accident while not helping the family in the other car? Would God help you work on something as trivial as your patience while not helping children being raped and murdered in Darfur? For someone to believe that God helped him when someone no less deserving suffered seems a bit arrogant.

Of course I realize that there is no promise actual or implied that God should help everybody equally, or that God should always help those who need it. In fact, there is a great deal of merit and growth potential in letting us figure out our own way through trouble. So where’s the line?

Can you show me ANY explicable benevolent pattern in who gets intervention and who does not? From anecdotal observation, it doesn’t seem to be tied to behavior. How do you get on God’s “To be helped” list and avoid the “To be ignored” list or worse, the “To be smited” list? Do you have any influence? Is that what prayer is for? (OK, maybe a separate issue...)

One argument is that God doesn't wish to interfere with our free will, so that's why God doesn't intervene all the time. If free will is the priority that implies, then no intervention makes even more sense. Besides, many of the claimed interventions seem to have no impact I can see on free will, like claimed “protective” interventions for natural disasters or accidents. Indeed, if the protective intervention prevents an intentional act, then of course it does interfere with free will.

Rabbi Harold Kushner has a different explanation, at least if I understand correctly: God just isn't quite omnipotent enough to help everywhere. He does what He can, but there are limits. Many folks aren't willing to give up on omnipotence, but this could be an explanation.

For me, concluding that God does not intervene at all in day-to-day life aligns much better with my observations of reality, and it provides a rational way to avoid the prickly ethical questions that arise with the (IMO) human-invented concept of selective intervention.

Am I applying a particular set of ethics inappropriately?
 

uumckk16

Active Member
I personally agree with you. "Selective intervention" - I like that phrasing. This is something that has been bothering me for a while. You put it into words wonderfully.
 

Tagra

New Member
Wandered Off said:
...For me, though, the issue of such selective intervention – if it ever happens - raises more ethical questions than it answers. Would God bless your mashed potatoes while allowing someone else to get food poisoning? Would God help you avoid injury in an accident while not helping the family in the other car? Would God help you work on something as trivial as your patience while not helping children being raped and murdered in Darfur? For someone to believe that God helped him when someone no less deserving suffered seems a bit arrogant...

There is also the argument that humans regected Gods rule (in the garden of Eden, eating the fruit and thus choosing for themselves what they feel is right.) Also the Devil chalanged Gods right to rule, and that humans only obey when it suits them. (see the bible bok of Job) So currently the world is in the power of the wicked one (see the bible book of 1John chapter 5, verse 19) A certan amount of time has to pass before these issues are resolved.
 

Mary Blackchurch

Free from Stockholm Syndrome
yes, but why would God have even set up those trees in the garden and let the serpent wander around there when he had complete companionship and the love of his creation, Adam? It appears that God set man up in the bible. This is a book that I personally cannot believe. I have heard others say that man rejected God. But as I see this bizarre story of the garden, it was God who rejected man by leaving him alone with his adversary supposedly and (God being all-knowing) KNEW that man would fail and catechlysmic events would follow.
 

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
Hi Tagra, and thanks for offering your thoughts. As recluse points out, the whole A&E story has too many holes to be anything other than allegory, IMO, but it's a fine starting point.

Tagra said:
A certan amount of time has to pass before these issues are resolved.
Why is this, if you believe in omnipotence?

Please help me understand your reasoning here. Are you making the case that selective intervention does not pose ethical concerns because of what the Devil did in the Garden story?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Wandered Off said:
Am I applying a particular set of ethics inappropriately?
Mankind's need for "God's help" is reasonable, though not necessarily logical. We fear what we don't understand and control, and so we emplore the aid of whatever divine force we think DOES control the unknown, for it's help and protection. As a result, we feel a little less afraid, and hopefully we act a lttle more effectively in the face of our fear and the unknown.

I'm not sure what wisdom can be found in applying logic to this scenario. Perhaps there is great wisdom in that if we would apply logic to our fear of the unknown, we'd face it more squarely (honestly) and learn to live with it more effectively. On the other hand, that's pretty much the goal of seeking divine intervention, too, so what's really the difference?

I don't know.

I very rarely think or speak any kind of prayer of supplication. Doing so makes me feel silly and childish. I do, however, pray very often from gratitude. I don't even know who or what I'm praying to, and I don't care. Because the prayer is an expression of what I'm feeling, not an expression of the "truth" of God or anything. And what I'm feeling toward my life and existence much of the time is gratitude.

However, if I were frightened enough, I'm sure I would revert to prayers of supplication, foolish or not. Because my prayers are about what I'm feeling toward "God", not about the "truth of God's nature".
 

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
PureX said:
Because my prayers are about what I'm feeling toward "God", not about the "truth of God's nature".
Well stated, PureX. I like that perspective.

If, hypothetically, you got into one of those frightening situations and in the intensity of the moment asked for help - and then believed you received help - would that raise any ethical questions in your mind after the situation is long gone and you had time to reflect? Or would your "I don't know" take over at that point and make you question whether you really received help at all? I think mine would.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Wandered Off said:
Well stated, PureX. I like that perspective.

If, hypothetically, you got into one of those frightening situations and in the intensity of the moment asked for help - and then believed you received help - would that raise any ethical questions in your mind after the situation is long gone and you had time to reflect? Or would your "I don't know" take over at that point and make you question whether you really received help at all? I think mine would.
Yup. I can say from experience that the latter is the case.
 

HopefulNikki

Active Member
Tagra said:
There is also the argument that humans regected Gods rule (in the garden of Eden, eating the fruit and thus choosing for themselves what they feel is right.) Also the Devil chalanged Gods right to rule, and that humans only obey when it suits them. (see the bible bok of Job) So currently the world is in the power of the wicked one (see the bible book of 1John chapter 5, verse 19) A certan amount of time has to pass before these issues are resolved.
How do we know that those stories from the Bible are true? I really don't see the point in quoting some religious text like it's truth unless there is evidence to back it up.
 

S3RAPH1M

New Member
I see no reason why the organizing intelligence in the universe would show partiality towards some persons, and then remain indifferent towards other persons. It seems reasonable to believe that the imagination in the universe, the one who made the sun for all persons on earth, would if it intervened, would intervene for the benefit of all its human creation.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
For me, concluding that God does not intervene at all in day-to-day life aligns much better with my observations of reality, and it provides a rational way to avoid the prickly ethical questions that arise with the (IMO) human-invented concept of selective intervention.
Have you read Age of Reason by Tom Paine? In it, talks a bit about the issues you raise, and declares Matthew 5:45 to be the most moral verse in the Bible:

He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
 

Heneni

Miss Independent
It can be quite something to behold Aunt Suzie praying up a storm for her son to get into university while Mpho prays that god will just take away his hunger pains.

You raised a very important point. It is completely unethical for god to seemingly help some more than others. It's fuel for self-importance. Untill such time that mpho has no more hunger pains because perhaps aunt suzie gave him a piece of bread, I dont think its ethical to ask god for things other than this:

1. Wisdom
2. Understanding

Which he says...he gives freely to anybody that wants it. Wisdom will help Suzie understand that her son should study as hard as possible, and understanding will help Mpho understand that the sufferings of this world, is not comparable to the glory that lies within him.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
I see no reason why the organizing intelligence in the universe would show partiality towards some persons, and then remain indifferent towards other persons. It seems reasonable to believe that the imagination in the universe, the one who made the sun for all persons on earth, would if it intervened, would intervene for the benefit of all its human creation.


Selective intervention is not originated in God. Otherwise, the idea of God would be
too anthropomorphic. Selective intervention is of man's initiative and dilligence. As
experience makes one an expert and struggle makes another stronger, the effort to
excell makes one stand out before the others. And when this is noticed in a group or
people, the concept of selection is generalized as to take the proportion of being
Divinely chosen.

Ben :confused:
 

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
The answers to the problems of the ethics of the being known as "God" are dependent upon which conception you are using.


1) If God has no limits whatsoever, then we may as well give up conversation what-so-ever. This being transcends all thought and description. Meaning cannot possibly be applied because logic cannot be successfully used on something that is immune to contradiction. A completely perfect being is immune to rational discussion. Such a being "interferes" with existence merely by its own "existence/non-existence" in as much as reality is here and that seems to be the extent to which something of this sort would entail. Such a "God" is the God of the prime mover, the First Cause, the Gnostic source of emanation, etc etc. Platonic perfection applied to every possible quality and facet + those we cannot conceive of... There are no ethics to be found here.



2) If God is unlimited in power (that is there exists no faculty that this being does not/cannot possess nor task that this being cannot perform), then we run into a "split decision" based on whether or not Free Will: A) Exists & B) Is something this being actually cares about and/or respects.

A) A truly omniscient being coupled with an entirely mechanistic universe (Free Will does not exist) would I believe have the onus of moral responsibility for everything that happens in all of reality. The problem here is that arguments about what is moral are made from a position of absolute ignorance. How can we know what will happen 300 years from now? How can we know how the position of one electron will effect the inhabitants of a planet 3 million light years away? We can't.

B) If the aforementioned being is coupled with an entirely mechanistic universe (Free Will doesn't technically exist) but respects the "intent" behind this concept, then the fact that our "decisions" reflect our desires is a positive one and something that this being will not abrogate. Again the problem here is that we have no way of testing whether or not any of the conditions associated with this are true as the whole of reality would be our universe of discourse (maybe the inhabitants of Xenu-Seti VII all have their wills enslaved by "God."), but on the plus side if the condition of "respecting" Free Will is actually true, then this being would tend to limit its interference to only those acts which would preserve whatever original intent for creation this being had. And who really wants to tell an omniscient being that "his" plan for creation is wrong?

C) If the aforementioned being is coupled with a universe that this being chooses not to plan out (Free Will exists) but does not respect its intent by knowing everything that will happen, then the question of intervention becomes a question of knowing the mind of God. Why did God intervene here but not there? We are arguing from a position of nearly absolute ignorance. What sort of complete rules and limitations does reality have? Why make this electron move there? There is no way to know for sure without knowing all the rules.

D) If the aforementioned being is coupled with a universe that this being chooses not to plan out (Free will exists) and respects its intent (chooses not to know what is going to happen), then any intervention would be purely coincidental; in all likelihood such a being does not actually intervene at all out of respect for preserving the "will" of creation.


3) If God is limited by is merely extremely powerful and knowledgeable, then the mere existence of "God" is insufficient to abrogate Free Will (it either exists or it doesn't and "God" simply can't change this) and is capable of making mistakes (even well intentioned ones). As such this being cannot absorb full moral responsibility for all of creation unless creation was by design intended to cause harm (or cause greater harm than good) to its inhabitants.


Anywhere that we argue from a position of complete ignorance is one in which attribution of benevolence (or malevolence) is completely unjustified. We quite simply cannot attribute any quality to something that is logically completely indeterminate. If God is limited then we can start looking at ways in which "God" violates certain tenets or strictures, but we should always stop to consider how much really know about "cause and effect" at a universal, multi-universal, or pan-universal level.

MTF
 

Sleekstar

Member
I am basically a deist, with strong humanist leanings. I am of the belief that God intervenes directly, on very rare, highly circumscribed occasions. If an event occurs that has a combination of extremely low probability and significant consequence and/or personal meaning, that a conscious human actor couldn't have had any control over, and it happens under such circumstances that coincidence or chance seems almost absurd, given a number of factors (including the significance of the consequence), then I have no problem believing in a divine factor guiding its occurrence.

Other than that -- and probably most times even when the event DOES meet that description -- there is no divine intervention. The human mind possesses the capacity for free will, self-awareness and self-reliance. In my spiritual worldview, we are expected to rely on these elements. If anything, we become closer to God the more we rely on them.

So no, your prayer before the game won't help you win, except to the extent that your faith enhances your confidence, and your confidence enhances your performance.
 

sonofskeptish

It is what it is
I’ve always wondered why, if there is an intervening God, there is such a random and disproportionate distribution of things like sickness & health, poverty & wealth, and suffering & happiness.

While I am very thankful for all that I have, the thought of a Creator who selectively intervenes on anyone’s part, yet ignores the prayer cries of the much more needy and desperate, repulses me.

IMO, the “blessed” believing their “blessings” are the result of their prayers being answered rather than pure luck, while the prayers of the significantly less fortunate are left unanswered, is arrogant and selfish.

There’s nothing wrong with being thankful for what one has, we all should be, but to disrespect those who are less fortunate by requesting things like a football game intervention disgusts me, and is the ultimate act of stupidity... And unethical on OUR part.
 
Last edited:
Top