David Hart - Actor, Director, Producer

David Hart questions the presence of God after the presence of natural disasters such as the tsunami of the Indian Ocean in 2004. Hart questions the goodness of God if hundreds and thousands of people including children died from the natural disaster. His position compares with metaphysical rebellion in camus in several ways. Some of the similarities include the fact that both question the sovereignty and goodness of God. Also, they claim to offer freedom to humans through the breaking off from the shackles and confines of religion. More of the comparisons are discussed below. 

Analysis 

David Hart’s book, The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami rejects the position that the evil of the tsunami was part of God’s good and great historical plan. Hart emphasizes thus, that the presence of the Tsunami was as a result of the evil of God, and therefore insinuating that God has an evil part and that human’s suffering is as a result of the suppression of human’s free will by God. He views the submission to God as jeopardizing the human free will which is also equivalent to the freedom of man, by God. Therefore, Hart alludes that God is man’s for and he came to save man from God. In that case, humans are not able to progress because of the oppression of religion. Hart’s position is similar to metaphysical rebellion in Camus, especially by Sade whose allusion is that human ultimate freedom is the separation and detachment from moral and social rules and norms. 

Sade’s target is to act as freely as possible by breaking free from the confines of moral and social norms to satisfy his sexual desires. He recognizes and claims that the main limitations of freedom are moral and social rules. Sade’s position is similar to Hart’s position in that both of them want to break free from religious rules and confines by rejecting God and imposing free will. Both find religion as the root of human oppression. However, while Hart views the oppression in terms of physical problems, Sade view it in terms of psychological and social problems and oppression. 

Hart rejects the idea that human suffering is part of God’s plan by referring to the New Testament proclamation of God as the provider of a liberal, free and gratuitous grace. He also says Luke 13 provides the idea that it is not part of God’s plan to mete out evil in proportion to human sinful nature. In as much as Hart attacks Christianity, he really recognizes the presence and the greatness of God. What he is against is the idea that God is responsible for the evils that are experienced in the world. He rejects the idea that it is the plan of God to dish out unjust and evil occurrences on earth just to achieve his preferred end. Therefore, it is as if Hart is asking, ‘then where does evil come from if it is not imposed by God?’ Stirner argues that God died and therefore morality died. Stirner, therefore, does offer a possible solution to Hart’s dilemma of the source of evil on earth. By thinking that God died and consequently morality, Stirner does not reject the idea that God was present before and thus created everything. Like Hart, he does believe that God played a huge role in the creation of the good that is in the world but left the creation and the good of their own devices. When that happened, humans experience a lot of evil with no one to control the nature of creation left unmanned. 

In Hegelism, humans are merely a product of their time and the character of humans is relative to time. Therefore, our time is a struggle of ideas that will create a good ending when we move to a better position in ideas. Thus, humans are separated by time and ideas of what is better. This is not similar to Hart’s position that the freedom of humans is not the reliance on a certain being, ideas or position. Hart rejects the idea that freedom is characterized by choosing of positions through some conditions but the ability of a person of peoples to achieve the full position latent in his/her nature. Therefore, Hart contrast with the idea of Hegelism that the ultimate freedom of man is dependent upon a specific position that is confined to time. In Hegelism point of view, the ultimate freedom of man is not in the now but in the future. That is, the now is a process for the making of a better tomorrow. Hart, however, recognizes that humans can enjoy their present time by the achievement of maximum freedom through the exercise of their achievement of their full potential latent through social, spiritual and psychological thought culture. 

Just like the principles of Camus that includes the pursuit of equality, free expression and the rejection of institutions that uphold violence, Hart questions the expression of God’s just nature through the reference of Ivan Karamazov’s questioning of children’s suffering. By the suffering of Children, the nature of God as good creates a dilemma because children are innocent and thus should be protected by God. Therefore, Hart rejects the position of Christian teachings that evil is part of God’s plan. He argues that if God depends on evil to have His plan accomplished, then God would not be sovereign. Since the Christians believe that evil is part of God’s plan, they uphold the tolerance of evil and thus being oppressive in its nature. Therefore, Hart’s aim is to liberate people from the teaching that accepts evil and confines people to a specific will and purpose. Therefore, he aims at liberating man by letting them have their own free will and freedom of speech. The slight difference is that Hart looks at it in the perspective of spirituality, moral and social nature. In that case, Hart believes that the existence of evil overrules the existence of a sovereign and powerful God. 

Conclusion 

Although Hart rejects the sovereignty and goodness of God, he does not offer the solution of ultimate freedom from the evils and disasters that are faced. If Hart does succeed in getting his message to the audience, the question that then begs is, ‘what next?’ The absence of religion means the absence of morality and the smooth flow of law and order that governs society and prevents further evils such as crime from ensuing. Therefore, Hart and the principles of metaphysical rebellion in Camus do not adequately address the problem of eradication of evils in the world. On the other hand, a society that embraces religion is governed by the morality that reduces the prevalence of social problems. 

Reference  

Hart, D. B. (2005).  The doors of the sea: where was God in the Tsunami? . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.