International non-intervention in Syrian conflict and God's non-intervention

by yadda yadda 2 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Throwing this out there for discussion:

  Why do atheists curse God for not intervening in humankind's affairs to prevent or mitigate suffering and evil, yet the world stands by and basically lets Syria get torn apart year by year with thousands of innocent adults and children dying, and millions having to flee their country, without the world intervening to end that terrible suffering? A whole generation of Syrian children have been brutalised or traumatised by this never ending conflict.

  The world, United States, Russia, China, etc, say there is no moral right for any exernal nation to intervene in this internal Syrian political conflict/war citing that it is right of each sovereign nation to self-determine it's own affairs.

  How is this any different from the argument of a Christian that God has stepped back and is not intervening in humankind's affairs for basically the same reason, ie, the right of self-rule and self-determination of humankind without intervention from some external third party force?

  What is the difference?
• 

  cofty

  What is the difference?

  One difference would be that a deity is by definition omnipotent. It would be trivial for him/her to minimise suffering.

  On the other hand, when a nation gets involved in a military conflict for humanitarian reasons, there is always unforseen consequences that can end up making things worse.

  The British RAF did get involved with bombing runs using Typhoons. It made a difference but without lots of boots on the ground and lots of dead soliders it was only temporary relief for a few.

  Is there a viable alternative government in the wings for Syria? Would it be possible to get involved in a way that would alleviate suffering that didn't commit the West to years of war? What would success look like? What would an exit plan look like?

  If only life was simple.
• 

  Julia Orwell

  Syria has no oil. If it did, like Libya, something would have been done, like in Libya.
• 

  designs

  Modern Syria is another history lesson in the long term effects of Empires and Colonialism. They export oil and agriculture products. Large reserves of oil have been located off shore between Syria and Cypress.

  The country shows a wide array of ethnic groups and religions. some have tried to live in peace and others are bent on control and domination. Russia, china, and Iran heavily subsidize the Assad regime.

  The Civil War is a proxy fight for those countries heavily invested in the current regime against the West. The inter-religious fighting means heavy losses for any foreign army to invade. The Western Nations have all of their usual spy networks on the ground with groups they see having some potential to come out on top as Russia and China do as well. Iran is actively sending troops and militants to the fight.

  This civil war could easily carry on for decades like other regional wars are still active after decades of conflict with little signs of relenting.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  What is the difference?

  One difference would be that a deity is by definition omnipotent. It would be trivial for him/her to minimise suffering.

  But wouldn't that just mean might = right? If you're strong enough you should intervene? And in any event, that doesn't address the apparent reason for non-intervention by much more powerful nations to end the terrible suffering of millions of Syrians, ie, that nations (and by extension, humanity itself) should have the right of self-determination?

  Do you believe sovereign nations should have such a right? If so, then shouldn't planet earth as a whole have such a right?
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  On the other hand, when a nation gets involved in a military conflict for humanitarian reasons, there is always unforseen consequences that can end up making things worse.

  The British RAF did get involved with bombing runs using Typhoons. It made a difference but without lots of boots on the ground and lots of dead soliders it was only temporary relief for a few.

  Isn't that just the equivalent of the standard Christian response for God's non-intervention, ie, that God in his almighty and far-sighted wisdom sees the "unforseen consequences" that would occur from intervening in humankind's affairs. In other words, some broader, bigger good is achieved through non-intervening?

  Why is that an excuse for the USA, England, et al, to avoid intervening and saving all those little children, babies, women etc who are getting killed and traumatised in Syria, but God is not permitted a similar excuse?
• 

  designs

  The Western powers with their capitalistic determinations, and having experienced conflicts that have lasted for decades and drained money from the middle class, are willing to let these conflicts rage on and see who is the last man standing ( and it is the guys who lead these killing fields wherever they appear).

  Centuries from now the human species may evolve to a point where fighting will diminish to a point it is socially not tolerated any more. We are not there yet but we address, as a international civilization, the humanitarian needs of the refugees.
• 

  cofty

  It's about balancing the costs and benefits.

  All humanitarian action has a financial cost and a cost in human lives.

  If an action has a high probablility of bringing about a long-term benefit at a reasonable cost - whatever that is judged to be - then we should act.

  If it will take a protracted military intervention costing billions and risking thousands of lives of our military, and if the outcome will be a short-term and precarious stand-off, then it may be more ethical not to act.

  It may be more effective to try to broker an agreed settlement and use carrots rather than sticks.

  Do you believe sovereign nations should have such a right? If so, then shouldn't planet earth as a whole have such a right?

  No.

  Nobody has a right to "self-determination" if that means oppression of the weak. There are no magic solutions.

  Oh wait a minute - doesn't god do magic?
• 

  cofty

  Why is that an excuse for the USA, England, et al, to avoid intervening and saving all those little children, babies, women etc who are getting killed and traumatised in Syria, but God is not permitted a similar excuse?

  What would it cost god to stop childhood cancers or crippling genetic desease or earthqaukes and tsunamis?

  By the way it's not England its the UK.

  Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish soldiers die in foreign wars too.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  I said England, etc. Does that exclude other United Kingdom countries? Sensitive Scotsman?

  What would it cost god to stop childhood cancers or crippling genetic desease or earthquakes and tsunamis?

  Where should God draw the line between letting humankind determine our own destiny and being a magic genie that just stops all suffering? Should he just act to prevent children suffering and dying, suffering caused by humans, or all suffering entirely whether natural or manmade?

  Here's a thought experiment: An alien race suddenly appears and makes contact with earth. They offer to cure all and every single ill, form of suffering, and evil globally and universally, no questions asked and at no price to pay the aliens? No crime or evil or form of suffering could ever be committed, it would be stopped instantly before it occurred.

  What humanity accept that? What sort of debate would occur? Where would humanity reasonably draw the line?