Is it inconsistent to praise God for apparent action while claiming that apparent inaction is a mystery?

Question

Finally the site is open! I've been waiting to ask this for a week or so. I have been pondering typical responses concerning intercession and resultant positive/negative outcomes and am hoping someone can assist with explaining the actual argument being used, or perhaps that should be used.

The gist of the problem is that I perceive believers in my circle to say both of the following:

• When desirable outcomes occur (according to common sense), God shall be praised for his actions which bring these outcomes about
• When undesirable outcomes occur (according to common sense), we have no idea what God's motivations are behind such apparent inaction

My intuitive reaction to this reality is that these statements are saying that it is both possible and impossible to know what God would or would not do, but I'm not sure my intuitions are correct and am looking for help with the underlying arguments.

Perhaps the issue is that it seems implied that God would bring about a positive outcome because of his omni-max qualities. If my understanding of this implied basis for praise is correct, I think the philosophical conundrum is this:

If one claims to know the reasons for an agent's actions (or at least that the agent brought about some outcome via action), can one claim to be entirely ignorant of reasons for an agent's inactions?

Put one last way, can one gather information about an agent's reasons for actions such that:

• the information informs one only about reasons for action,
• the information states nothing whatsoever about reasons for inaction,
• any perceived actions provide no new information about the likelihood of future action/inaction,
• and any apparent inaction provides no new information to confirm/disconfirm the original information concerning reasons for action?

Answer 1

The simple answer is that God should be praised for all things, good or bad, and thanked for all things, good or bad. Of relevance would be the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which states:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;

Chapter 3: Of God's Decree

As for the aspect of mystery, I don't think it's inconsistent to involve that as well. The fact that x takes place is enough to praise God (speaking theologically here), whilst the means by which x came to take place could be a mystery to those involved in praise.

This answer may sound more theological than you had expected, but that is largely in part due to the nature of your question.

For what it's worth, a Christian (speaking of my own class of 'believer'), ought to be thankful for all things, desirable or undesirable. That doesn't mean we don't mourn tragedies on another level, in our ignorance of God's reason for decreeing such tragedy, but it does mean that we must ultimately defer to (as stated above) the most wise and holy counsel of his own will.

There is a flip-side to this coin as well. Unbelievers ought to refrain from "Where was your God when..." type of arguments when tragedies take place, unless they think it is equally worth asking "Was your God responsible for..." when great things take place.

Contrary to the comment that it is inconsistent to claim an all-powerful all-knowing god, and still take aspirin when you have a headache, it is not inconsistent to take an aspirin when you have a headache while at the same time believing all that takes place follows from an eternal decree. Man only knows the decree as it is manifested in the past, and therefore has no future goal to comply with in not taking an aspirin. If a person takes an aspirin, that act of taking an aspirin was also decreed eternally yet cooperatively done by the individual in time.

Answer 2

If positive outcomes are equated with action and negative outcomes are equated with inaction, then I think the two views are consistent with each other. The four criteria of discreet information gathering are also satisfiable in general: for example, at random times, I give you a dollar, because "I think you should have this now"; defining "random time" in any specific way such as a Poisson distribution violates the third condition of not providing information, but there are mathematical probability distributions and physical interpretations of time which don't. God does not speak of what he does not know, and he does not act when unnecessary. Tautologically, if God acts, action was necessary, and if God speaks, he knows. This view is compatible with God being all-knowing and all-powerful, as long as "all" is limited in an unknown and unknowable way, which it seems to be, effectively. The reason we should praise God for positive outcomes is that his action has given us an example of how to achieve these outcomes and a guide for making them ever better. On the other hand, God's inaction is of no help in understanding negative outcomes, and we are left alone wondering why bad things happen. In that sense the question is a variation on the problem of evil.

Answer 3

The below assumes that God has a plan and only interferes if things are not going according to plan.

From a logical perspective you could say that there needs to be action in order to be a reaction.

Now if you believe in God and him having a plan you could say that if things are following his plan already he remains inactive as there is nothing to do. (Learn from your mistakes human.)

Or if action is needed so that the human can get safe to the next mistake to make God will step into action and prevent any harm from his sheep since they still got lessons to learn before departing.

If you assume God is there to make everybody happy every time then inaction can indeed only be a mystery because it does not make any sense if God indeed just wants the "best" for everybody. (Whatever best means.)

Answer 4

In the Neo-Platonic tradition of thought --highly influential on many religions of the world, notably Christianity --God is identified as the source of all and only good (all good things, and only good things). Evil is not considered, in this view, to have its own metaphysical existence, it is only the absence of good.

One of the dominant metaphors for this, dating back to Plato himself, is to picture God as the sun, good things as the sunlight, and anywhere that bad or evil holds sway as areas in the shadow. In that context, it is not inconsistent to thank the sun for the sunlight, but not to blame the sun for the shade.

While most modern believers are not explicitly neo-Platonic, the influence of that view continues to have an impact on beliefs such as the seemingly paradoxical ones you just described. You may not personally be persuaded by this metaphor, but hopefully it will help explain how and why believers can thank God for the good things, but not blame God for the bad ones.

Answer 5

It is incredibly inconsistent and I think it is what drives away certain logic minded individuals from the church. For example, myself. When analyzing certain arguments and this argument comes to light, I find that many believers get exasperated, frustrated, and then attempt to change the subject or resort to name calling. I would only attempt an argument like this with someone I was friendly with, so it has not come to blows, and the only name calling was jocular in nature, but it typically happens nonetheless.

I saw a meme on the net somewhere that said "Yes, your God will give you sunshine on your wedding day." The picture had a pretty woman in a wedding dress next to an extremely skinny black child, presumably from Africa somewhere.