Kenapa filosofi sampai sekarang nggak bicara tentang konsep resiko ya? Benar-salah, dosa-pahala, ultimate-proximate, kupikir sebagian besarnya merupakan masalah resiko, atau bisa juga disebut taboo.
Neytiri, gadis Na'vi bilang ke avatar marinir itu, bahwa Eywa nggak pernah memihak, hanya ngurusin keseimbangan alam dan kehidupan saja. Dalam konteks Eywa ini, kehidupan itu penuh resiko - kuncinya bagaimana kita memenej resiko sehingga keseimbangan alam (termasuk kita) tetap terjaga.
Misalnya, sebagian orang mengambil resiko dengan berdiam di kepulauan yang kena bencana melulu. Orang Baduy Dalam nggak mau mengambil resiko ini, bagi mereka tinggal deket laut atau menyeberangi sungai itu tabu/terlarang/
Tapi ternyata Eywa memihak. Ini konsep yang ada hubungannya dengan avatar atau keterwakilan 'tuhan' di bumi ini dengan ditunjuknya manusia sebagai khalifah di muka bumi. Eywa memihak dengan membantu
melawan keserakahan yang mengancam keseimbangan alam - dalam kondisi apapun, apakah kondisi bencana, kondisi high tech, atau kondisi normal-normal saja.
Saya memahami dua sifat tuhan yang berpihak dan tidak berpihak ini, berjalan bersama-sama, misalnya dalam penciptaan manusia. Sejak jaman dulu 'cikal bakal' manusia selalu mengambil resiko untuk melalui proses perubahan menjadi wakil tuhan di bumi ini. Di dalamnya terdapat keseimbangan (i.e. keberlanjutan)
Ada teman yang sangat pesimistik tentang sifat tuhan yang berpihak itu, tapi dia percaya betul tentang keseimbangan alam - sehingga dia bilang gini: aku percaya manusia itu seperti kerumunan kecoa - suatu hari bumi ini akan wiggle-wiggle.
salam
Mia
--- In wanita-muslimah@
>
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.
>
> Published: 2010/01/19 13:11:52 GMT
>
> © BBC MMX
>
>
>
> Why does God allow natural disasters?
>
> At the heart of Haiti's humanitarian crisis is an age old question for
> many religious people - how can God allow such terrible things to
> happen? Philosopher David Bain examines the arguments.
>
> Evil has always been a thorn in the side of those - of whatever faith
> - who believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God.
>
> As the philosopher David Hume (echoing Epicurus) put it in 1776: "Is
> God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he
> able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and
> willing? Whence then is evil?"
>
> Faced with this question, Archbishop of York John Sentamu said he had
> "nothing to say to make sense of this horror", while another senior
> clergyman Canon Giles Fraser preferred to respond "not with clever
> argument but with prayer".
>
> Perhaps their stance is understandable. The Old Testament is also not
> clear to the layman on such matters. When Job complains about the
> injuries God has allowed him to suffer, and claims "they are tricked
> that trusted", God says nothing to rebut the charges.
>
> Less reticent is the American evangelist Pat Robertson. He has
> suggested Haiti has been cursed ever since the population swore a pact
> with the Devil to gain their freedom from the French at the beginning
> of the 19th Century. Robertson's claim will strike many as ludicrous,
> if not offensive.
>
> And even were it true, it wouldn't obviously meet the challenge.
>
> Why would a loving deity allow such a pact to seem necessary? Why
> wouldn't he have freed the Haitians from slavery himself, or prevented
> them from being enslaved in the first place? And why, in particular,
> would he punish today's Haitians for something their forbears
> putatively did more than two centuries before?
>
> So what should believers say? To make progress, we might distinguish
> two kinds of evil:
>
> the awful things people do, such as murder, and
> the awful things that just happen, such as earthquakes
> St Augustine, author CS Lewis and others have argued God allows our
> bad actions since preventing them would undermine our freewill, the
> value of which outweighs its ill effects.
>
> But there's a counter-argument. Thoroughly good people aren't robots,
> so why couldn't God have created only people like them, people who
> quite freely live good lives?
>
> However that debate turns out, it's quite unclear how freewill is
> supposed to explain the other kind of evil - the death and suffering
> of the victims of natural disasters.
>
> Perhaps it would if all the victims - even the newborn - were so bad
> that they deserved their agonising deaths, but it's impossible to
> believe that is the case.
>
> Or perhaps freewill would be relevant if human negligence always
> played a role. There will be some who say the scale of the tragedy in
> natural disasters is partly attributable to humans. The world has the
> choice to help its poorer parts build earthquake-resistan
> and tsunami warning systems.
>
> But the technology has not always existed. Was prehistoric man, with
> his sticks and stones, somehow negligent in failing to build early
> warning systems for the tsunamis that were as deadly back then as they
> are today?
>
> The second century saint, Irenaeus, and the 20th Century philosopher,
> John Hick, appeal instead to what is sometimes called soul-making. God
> created a universe in which disasters occur, they think, because
> goodness only develops in response to people's suffering.
>
> To appreciate this idea, try to imagine a world containing people, but
> literally no suffering. Call it the Magical World. In that world,
> there are no earthquakes or tsunamis, or none that cause suffering. If
> people are hit by falling masonry, it somehow bounces off harmlessly.
> If I steal your money, God replaces it. If I try to hurt you, I fail.
>
> So why didn't God create the Magical World instead of ours? Because,
> the soul-making view says, its denizens wouldn't be - couldn't be -
> truly good people.
>
> It's not that they would all be bad. It's that they couldn't be
> properly good. For goodness develops only where it's needed, the idea
> goes, and it's not needed in the Magical World.
>
> In that world, after all, there is no danger that requires people to
> be brave, so there would be no bravery. That world contains no one who
> needs comfort or kindness or sympathy, so none would be given. It's a
> world without moral goodness, which is why God created ours instead.
>
> But there is wiggle room.
>
> Even in a world where nothing bad happens, couldn't there be brave
> people - albeit without the opportunity to show it? So moral goodness
> could exist even if it were never actually needed.
>
> And, anyway, suppose we agree moral goodness could indeed develop only
> in a world of suffering.
>
> Doesn't our world contain a surplus of suffering? People do truly
> awful things to each other. Isn't the suffering they create enough for
> soul-making? Did God really need to throw in earthquakes and tsunamis
> as well?
>
> Suffering's distribution, not just its amount, can also cause
> problems. A central point of philosopher Immanuel Kant's was that we
> mustn't exploit people - we mustn't use them as mere means to our
> ends. But it can seem that on the soul-making view God does precisely
> this. He inflicts horrible deaths on innocent earthquake victims so
> that the rest of us can be morally benefitted.
>
> That hardly seems fair.
>
> It's OK, some will insist, because God works in mysterious ways. But
> mightn't someone defend a belief in fairies by telling us they do too?
> Others say their talk of God is supposed to acknowledge not the
> existence of some all-powerful and all-good agent, who created and
> intervenes in the universe, but rather something more difficult to
> articulate - a thread of meaning or value running through the world,
> or perhaps something ineffable.
>
> But, as for those who believe in an all-good, all-powerful agent-God,
> we've seen that they face a question that remains pressing after all
> these centuries, and which is now horribly underscored by the horrors
> in Haiti. If a deity exists, why didn't he prevent this?
>
> David Bain is a lecturer in the philosophy department of the
> University of Glasgow.
>
Milis Wanita Muslimah
Membangun citra wanita muslimah dalam diri, keluarga, maupun masyarakat.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/wanita_muslimah
Situs Web: http://www.wanita-muslimah.com
ARSIP DISKUSI : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/messages
Kirim Posting mailto:wanita-muslimah@yahoogroups.com
Berhenti mailto:wanita-muslimah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Milis Keluarga Sejahtera mailto:keluarga-sejahtera@yahoogroups.com
Milis Anak Muda Islam mailto:majelismuda@yahoogroups.com
Milis ini tidak menerima attachment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment