It’s inevitable that questions of theodicy arise when natural disasters occur. The problem of suffering may be one of the oldest and most intractable problems in all of human thought. It certainly is a concern in Christian theology (and all monotheistic religions; polytheism tends to come up with better answers to the problem). The Book of Job and Ecclesiastes both struggle with suffering, although in different ways.

Theological pronouncements on why this or that happened are inevitable. Seldom are they as crass as that of Pat Robertson’s, but to be satisfied with “It’s God’s will” is no better. Philosophers distinguish between natural evil, such as earthquakes, and moral evil, that brought on by human activity or human will. We can explain an earthquake scientifically; what we can’t explain is why now, and why such devastation. Yet the human spirit wants to make sense of such events, to claim that life and natural events have meaning, especially in the face of what seems like meaninglessness.

I’m intrigued by the way people use such tragedies, to reinforce their own religious or political ideas, their own world views. It’s as if the desire to make meaning becomes even stronger at times like this.

But I’m also beginning to become rather annoyed with the inevitable “Where’s God in all this?” that comes from more progressive religious voices. They too want such events to have meaning, or at least, to be teachable moments. I’m just not sure such answers are more satisfactory in the end than the simple, “It’s God’s will.” Sometimes I think the least productive thing we can do is try to make sense of natural disasters like Haiti. Sometimes, the answer might be, like Candide’s was “let’s cultivate our own garden;” or in this case, let’s raise some money for Haiti relief.