LittleToe:
Don't you see that you are setting up the sociological experiment based upon your own biases and predilections?
But of course! What else would I base it on?
You acknowledge that "God" isn't to blame and that at any number of points Man could have helped himself and/or his neighbour, yet you still want the ultimate fallback fallguy.
It's really not about who's to blame. If someone cares about the lives of individual humans, and has the power to save those lives at no personal cost, then he will do so. Obviously, one or more of those things is not true of your god.
But there's a further element that is often disparagingly thrown about in terms of "God's thoughts are higher than ours", that being that culturally why are Western ethical models to be favoured other other potential models?
Because they're better. Western ideas of individual rights for all are demonstrably superior to any system that devalues human life. Now, your god may not care about humans at all, or he may care about the species and not the individual, or the alleged spiritual component of our being rather than the physical body. If any of those is true, that could explain why he doesn't step in.
Why should the "Doctor" step in?
Because he alone has the power to do something about it. I don't think he's obliged to step in. Perhaps his Hippocratic Oath gives him such an obligation, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that he could step in and help. If he does so, there's a very good chance that he can save a human life that would otherwise be lost - at no risk to himself. It would be disgusting and inhumane of him not to help, even if ethically justifiable.
It's analogous to the mugging scene where a gang of three or four in mugging someone and there's a hundred people on the street. Is it my fault that it happened, if I observe it from an upstairs window? Is it ethicall worse if I'm walking pass the end of the alleyway? What is I happen to have a knife? What if I have an Uzi - should I shoot the gang? What's the "right" course of action ethically - in London, New York, Paris, Nairobi, Calcutta, Peking?
In my view, you're not obliged to help at all. Whether you should help would depend on the level of danger. If there's a good chance that you'd be risking your life to save someone else's wallet, then it doesn't make sense to step in. If you can prevent the mugging without putting yourself in danger, then you should probably do something. If the victim's life is in danger, then you may wish to take a greater risk. These are really pragmatic rather than ethical questions. If you were Superman, what would you do? I would still argue that you have no obligation to step in, but I would think a lot less of you for not doing so than if you were a mere mortal.
it is necessarily the case that said deity could prevent any sort of catastrophe, but, at least sometimes, doesn't.
Why is that "the case"?
Because he's defined as being omnipotent meaning that he's capable of preventing such catastrophes, and some catastrophes still happen, meaning they have not been prevented.
Further, on the point of the analogy, the other people are other humans who have all the skills and abilities necessary to alleviate suffering or avert disaster. Why does "God" have to step in? Isn't there a case that He might be saving Himself for the truly miraculous?
We can't prevent hurricanes, earthquakes or tsunamis. We can't even predict the consequences of our actions or inaction in attempting to prepare for such events. There is nowhere in the world immune to natural disaster. We simply don't have those abilities, and many millions of people will likely die in natural disasters before we develop them. What does God need to save himself for? Is he limited in some way? If he had prevented the tsunami that killed over 100,000 people last year, would he then have been unable to avert a greater disaster?
Why is anyone "obliged" to do anything?
They're not, but we judge people by their actions. It's not about being obliged to behave in a certain way, it's about choosing to do so.
If there is a god, it is clear to me that the suffering of humans does not overly concern him. There are plenty of explanations for his inaction, but I can think of none that is compatible with the idea of an omnipotent god who cares about the lives and welfare of individual humans.
