Did Tsunamis Wash Away God?

Australia is a largely secular country on the doorstep of the terrible tsunami tragedy. Thoughtful Aussies are trying to sort out the meaning of the disaster, perhaps even more earnestly than we are. One such attempt, authored by Dr. Edward Spence, an Australian philosopher at Charles Sturt University, appears under the headline, "Waves of Destruction Wash Away Belief in God's Benevolence." (here, registration required; hat tip Real Clear Politics)

Spence's thesis is this: Perhaps, though omnipotent, He is not benevolent. That might explain why, although it was within His power to stop the tsunami, He simply chose not to: God has His own reasons and we are not to ask why. However, this answer will not suffice since by definition God is perfect. Being perfect, He must of necessity not merely be omnipotent but benevolent as well.

To be proved valid, Dr. Spence's thesis must survive this analysis: Would the characteristics of a non-benevolent God explain the nature of life on Earth?

The answer is clearly no. If one looks at the universe, Earth is a uniquely hospitable place, and it took an insurmountable amount of chance (from an evolutionary point of view) or an incomprehensible amount of care and effort (from an intelligent design point of view) to make it so. Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross writes of this extensively (here), describing the exquisite fine-tuning required to provide a temperate atmosphere, fresh water, modest seasonal change, just the right amount of night and day, radiation protection and more, without any one of which Earth would be just another frozen orb floating in a hostile universe.

Human creation is by definition a benevolent act, so the Creator must be a benevolent creator.

Spence also fails to consider the question of God's sorrow, which helps to explain disasters. He accepts, then rejects because it offers no comfort, the Greek philosopher Epicurus, the said the gods were simply indifferent to human joy and sorrow. This conflicts with a bio on Spence, which describes him as "a moderate Epicurean."

Neither moderate nor full-blown Epicurians can answer this question: How do we know that God isn't weeping benevolent tears of incomprehensible sorrow in Heaven as he watches this tragedy? Because he did not act to stop it does not prove God is not benevolent, it merely proves that for some reason we don't understand, he didn't intervene. Not couldn't, but didn't intervene.

Like most whose faith is challenged by disasters large and small, Spence fails to consider that God exists in a different time continuum than we do. For them, these deaths are final; for God they are a slightly quicker end to a short span of human life, after which eternity beckons. But, some might ask, if another day or week or year were granted a certain person swept away in Indonesia or Sri Lanka, might they have accepted Christ, been saved by grace, and had a different eternity?

Don't you think an omniscient God who lives outside our time would know that person's heart? Besides, none of us knows when our end will come, whether by speeding truck, clogged arteries or waves of destruction. How could He give them more time and not give us all more time?

Spence can't figure out his conundrum and concludes still confused about the nature of God: Ultimately, the problem of evil confronts us not as a puzzle to be solved but as a mystery to be experienced. How confused Secularists can become. It's all quite clear to me, but then I didn't even know people could be categorized as "moderate Epicureans" and would probably be considered horribly unsophisticated by most university philosophy professors.