Tranquil Spectators

I am too quick to jump to my own conclusions, and from my safe vantage point, explain things away, neatly, ignorantly and flippantly. Having started reading The Doors of The Sea, I realise what I wrote in this post about God in disasters might fall into this category.

Hart quotes the poet Voltaire (a non-Christian), writing about a great earthquake that struck Lisbon in 1755, killing at least 60,000:

Tranquil spectators, intrepid spirits, contemplating the shipwreck of your dying brothers you search in peace for the causes of the storm...

All is well, you say, and all is necessary. What? The entire universe, but for this infernal abyss engulfing Lisbon, would have been worse off?

While Voltaire is speaking against theodicy (which from what I gather tries to reconcile an all-powerful, just, loving and intervening God, with giant catastrophes brought by 'natural' disasters, by saying that all is worked for a general happiness and equilibrium), I think I was going down this route by implying that if the Burmese cyclone is the catalyst for overturning the junta, then a good outcome has occurred as a result of all this suffering and death.

From my 'tranquil' vantage point, I can't weigh up on my little scales whether the loss of all that life was 'worth it' because good might be worked from it in the future. This is very callous to the people suffering, and very presumptuous that my logic is God's logic.

I am really glad to be thinking through these things, though, and look forward to reading on.