The earthquake disaster in Haiti has brought up several things in the past few weeks, not the least has to do with what it means to be religious in the face of so much suffering brought about by what insurance companies call an "act of God".

Sending the religious issue boiling over into the realm of the absurd was Pat Robertson (I cannot bring myself to actually call him reverend) saying that the Haitian people brought this on themselves by making a pact with the Devil to free themselves from French rule. Those of you familiar with Pats comments after 9/11 or Katrina will be no stranger to his nonsensical sermons on these matters. How the man can on the one hand seem to be so compassionate by celebrating the massive efforts to help the victims of all of these disasters, and on the other slap an entire nation in the face and call them evil and deserving of God's wrath is quite beyond me. He may have a special kind of bi-polar disorder that doesn't manifest itself in the traditional way.

Pat Robertson is a matter for his own church and his own God. I would completely ignore him if his supporters didn't have substantial power in the government. Either way, if you don't already think he is a bastard, I'm not going to convince you of it and I won't even try. I only bring him up because he highlights what I see as a fundamental problem with belief in a God. I read an article about the question of why God would allow things like the Haitian earthquakes to kill all those people and one of the early comments caught my eye:

"God made man as his greatest creation. In order for humans to be all they can be we must live in a world like this one. "

One could almost make that make sense for those who survived or even the ones that weren't there to experience the earthquakes... almost. We learn from tragedy as well as triumph. We're better people for having lived through adversity. True enough even if you believe that God wasn't in the picture. But for the victims of the disaster, how are they better off? What lessons did they learn? Of course if you die innocent then you're supposed to go off to heaven, but then if that's all it's about then what is the point of life? If a three-year old who is crushed in an earthquake just about the time he's learning to speak is going to the same place that an 80-year old who dies of natural causes, then the 80-year old spent a great deal of time and has very little to show for it by comparison. Is life just a sentence to be served in the hope that we'll get an early release?

On the one hand, God is infinitely compassionate, all-powerful and just. On the other hand, he allows innocent people to die for pretty much no reason... randomly, one might say. Believers and unbelievers alike die in these tragedies, the innocent as well as the guilty. In the mortal world, if you can help and you decide not to you are thought of as less of a good person, especially if helping wouldn't have cost you anything but would have saved a lot, perhaps someone's life. In certain circumstances, such as if you are a doctor, if you refuse help you could wind up losing your license, being slapped with a fine or even a prison sentence. If God does it, we just say "his ways are mysterious" or that it is somehow for our own good, or more often both. Then we shove all discussion on the matter aside in the name of helping people.

I find that very unsatisfactory.

It's not the magical invisible man in the sky that I take issue with. This transcends actual belief in God. The idea of a God or gods I can wrap my brain around, even though I have seen no evidence that any of them do or have ever existed. It's the nature of their supposed existence that confuses me. There are plenty of these kinds of logical contradictions: God is perfect but we're flawed. God wants us to be happy, yet he kills innocent children (or if you prefer: lets them die). God gave us free will, yet punishes us for using it. I know the standard, popular answers to all of these inconsistencies. I've heard them many times and I find them insulting. They never address the question. They only dodge it with the apparent hope that you'll just shut up and go away.

I don't mean for this to be an anti-religious rant. I'm an Atheist, but I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want, no matter how silly it may appear to me. However, when several thousand people die and the only thing you have for me is "God works in mysterious ways".. Even Pat Robertson's answer makes more sense. Straight up malevolence is preferable to apathy or some spooky, unfathomable five-cent answer that doesn't pass a simple test of logic, and if the reason why God would do such things is truly a mystery to you as well, is it really so hard to just say "I don't know." and leave it at that?

And while we're on the subject, why is it so important that God be infallible? Judging by his handling of natural disasters, his perfection paints a darker picture of his true nature than the fact that he just made a mistake. Maybe he was busy averting something else that might have made the whole planet explode and if he had taken the time to help out Haiti, we all would have been screwed. I could understand that. However the idea that it would have been an immeasurably small effort on his part to have saved every single life that was lost, yet he chose not to even do that much makes him look like a real bastard, whatever his reasons turn out to be. Which Deity is more deserving of respect and admiration... worship... even? If God has a plan and can do virtually anything, then why isn't whatever he is planning already done? What's the hold-up?

These are not the only problems I have with religion. My personal reasons for my unbelief are personal, and I don't usually talk about them except with people who ask, but the questions that I raise here are problems I feel are inherent and I don't apologize for picking these particular nits, for the simple fact that they come up again and again and the obvious attempts to address them publicly do nothing of the sort. I am left with more questions than I began with about religion and a vague sense that someone doesn't want me to know something. You are entitled to your own belief. You can keep it to yourself, you can try to justify it or you can try to convince me you're right. If you choose the first tactic, we're done... End of story. You live your life and allow me to live my life and the subject will never come up again. However, if you choose any of the other two, your arguments should at least be internally consistent, and you haven't got a prayer (pun intended) of convincing me unless you've got more than a "You just have to have faith" play-book under your arm.