Opinion About Divine Providence

So I was watching the news, which I rarely do, and a man that was supposed to have been on Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 claimed it was providence that he had not taken that flight.

When I heard that I immediately commented to my mother that I felt he was selfish for saying that. She got pretty defensive and said I was being judgmental of the guy. I admit I am making a judgment, but I do not believe in divine providence because it sets up a divinely favored vs. too bad, **** happens and then you die club. When the guy says providence saved him, he's also implying that God saved him, and not the 239 passengers that "may" be dead. This to me implies that A. You believe in God, or a divine power of some sort, B. you believe that everything is pre-determined; it would have to be if an all-knowing God exists to intervene for you, and C. that this God allows some people to die while others get a free pass for reasons supposedly beyond our understanding. So this guy was "saved" by providence, while who knows how many dozens, hundreds, thousands of babies died and will die today. See my logic? Claiming divine providence seems like a fundamentally selfish act.

Yes I am making a judgment against this guy, and perhaps he did not mean it the way I interpreted it, but when you claim providence, that God saved you, and not countless others that died today, well I have a problem with that. Everyone is free to have their own beliefs, right or wrong, so long as they do not hurt others, but even if I were to claim a belief in God or whatever, I'm not sure I could buy into divine providence.

I will add that at 6 months old I was left in a running bathtub with 5 inches of water in it by my father, and my mother, only on that specific day decided to both drive instead of catch the bus, and leave work early. My father was clear across the house not paying attention and when my mother entered the house he literally dropped the phone and ran to the bathroom. I had been holding my breath face-down in the water for an indeterminate amount of time. I still don't buy into providence.

Maybe I will change my mind one day. I have have many close calls in my 33 years already. I am interested to hear other peoples opinions on this. Yes, I am being judgmental, but I believe I have a certain amount of reason on my side, and while I believe that our passions precede reason, that doesn't mean I'm going to just chalk everything up to God because of it. Thanks.

Divine providence isn't about believing one person was saved while that same god killed 200 odd others and thus is a tyrannical ruler. It's about the 'belief' that a god has control over his creation and that that one saved person could have been anyone, but it was him, and only god knows why.

We all will die, but where and when is unknown. So whether one believes in a god or not, miracles such as this will inevitably awaken that spiritual part of a person who wants to believe there was a bigger force at work. For a believer, this will have re-enforced his faith in divine providence and god, whereas the families or friends of those gone missing would take the tragedy as the will of a god who knows better than them and that they too will one day take their leave. Such is faith.

Bear in mind, divine providence is not an Abrahamic invention and believed by millenia of polytheistic societies too. And religion in general is a complicated and subjective topic, so by no means do I think you or I can judge someone elses character or virtuosity based on their world view.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Whichever way you slice it, whether we can know God's plan or not, which The Bible and countless other religions say we already do, claiming providence can be boiled down to I got to stick around and they didn't.

Also I wouldn't call not taking a flight a miracle.

"Divine providence isn't about believing one person was saved while that same god killed 200 odd others and thus is a tyrannical ruler. It's about the 'belief' that a god has control over his creation and that that one saved person could have been anyone, but it was him, and only god knows why."

I'm sorry, but I find a view such as this fundamentally indefensible by any rational person. If one person is saved at the expense of 239 others, than apparently this person was more important that those 239 others. Even if those people go straight to heaven, it would have been against their will. Almost no-one chooses to die prematurely except under very specific conditions.

Claiming God has a plan, but we can't know it seems to imply so many things contrary to our benefit as a species that I am not going to bother going into it here atm.

The question asked for personal opinions, which is what you give.

However, from a theological perspective, there is limited control a human being has over his life. The idea of having to one day face your creator and be dealt with heaven or hell is a philosophy which tries to encourage the good and prevent the bad. In some cases over time, these morals have fragmented into creeds, and fermented into dogmas. Regardless of that, religion has survived the test of time because of the human being's inherent need for spirituality and explanation of the uncanny. So, yes, it is an 'indefensible argument', but it seems to me you wish only to defend your own world view and simultaneously discredit another's by claiming sole rights to 'rationality'.

No, no-one chooses to die prematurely, but no-one also chooses birth. Now that we're here however, albeit against our will, we look for explanations to keep us going. These explanations are diverse... please re-read my disclaimer.

It seems quite common for people to ascribe near-misses to divine intervention. I feel like this is related to survivorship bias. It is only because someone survives that they are in a position to ask why.

Also makes me think of the weak anthropic principle. This is a response to the question of why the universe is hospitable to life. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Maybe this is so obvious as to be meaningless but I feel like this kind of bias runs very deep. It makes me wonder what it would even mean for something to not exist. Is the only difference between the possible and the actual that someone is there to witness it?

"So, yes, it is an 'indefensible argument', but it seems to me you wish only to defend your own world view and simultaneously discredit another's by claiming sole rights to 'rationality'."

I did say these are my opinions. I don't claim sole right to rationality so I don't see the need for you to assume such a thing. Ad hominem insults aren't necessary.

My point is that claiming providence saved you from such and such a thing is both completely irrational and at it's core, selfish, regardless of your subjective intent or meaning. I would like to see an actual reasonable argument against this that claims otherwise and is logical. My whole point is that I don't think one can be provided.

I would add that everyone has the right to their own opinions and beliefs. I'm all for this, but I do think that many people hold certain opinions and beliefs that may not hold up to critical scrutiny, and that just because you have the right to think and believe what you want, doesn't make it true or right.

Yes I am being judgmental. Everyone makes judgments on a daily basis, consciously or subconsciously. The difference is whether any real thought went into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vota

"So, yes, it is an 'indefensible argument', but it seems to me you wish only to defend your own world view and simultaneously discredit another's by claiming sole rights to 'rationality'."

I did say these are my opinions. I don't claim sole right to rationality so I don't see the need for you to assume such a thing. Ad hominem insults aren't necessary.

My point is that claiming providence saved you from such and such a thing is both completely irrational and at it's core, selfish, regardless of your subjective intent or meaning. I would like to see an actual reasonable argument against this that claims otherwise and is logical. My whole point is that I don't think one can be provided.

I would add that everyone has the right to their own opinions and beliefs. I'm all for this, but I do think that many people hold certain opinions and beliefs that may not hold up to critical scrutiny, and that just because you have the right to think and believe what you want, doesn't make it true or right.

Yes I am being judgmental. Everyone makes judgments on a daily basis, consciously or subconsciously. The difference is whether any real thought went into them.

---

you do appear to be making an appeal to some universal standard of rationality. To my mind the idea of divine providence is not irrational (it may not be a true idea) and it is perfectly rational it seems to me to accept that we construct ideas the full import of which we can't comprehend. Further it could be said that to call it 'selfish' is a harsh judgement...the person is trying to make sense of something 'extreme' so to speak and anyway at bottom aren't we all a bit selfish at times...