On the subject of religion, tragic events are often brought up. The religious use tragic events to support the claim that god loves you and will help you solve problems. A large list may be enumerated of people who after having suffered a tragic event turned to god for consolation and strength. On the other hand, the non-religious use tragic events to support the claim that god either hates you, don’t care, or is simply inept at his job. A large list may also be enumerated of people who shed their convictions as a result of tragic events, because surely god wouldn’t permit such horrible things to occur. The religious might counter this with a variety of possible arguments, all of which are open to further counter arguments, and so on. So what’s actually the case? Why do tragic events sometime convert people, and sometimes deconvert people?
The usual explanations simply can’t explain both phenomenons concurrently, because they’ve all been travelling down the wrong path. I submit that the conversions and deconversions resulting from tragic events really says nothing about god, but reflects simple human reasoning.
Tragic events are also emotional events, they elicit deep emotions from parties involved, especially the victims. The vast majority of the world’s people hold a belief in some kind of fundamental justice, that is to say, bad things shouldn’t happen to good people. It is only natural after the event to question why one had just suffered through it.
Worldviews are perspectives of the external environment which every person holds. The religious hold a view of divine purpose, of a world overseen by a supreme being, while the non-religious usually hold a naturalistic, non-purposeful view.
The people who convert after tragic events are generally those who are not knowledgeable about the specific worldview they hold. Those in “the middle”, the ones who have never given thought to matters of philosophy for whatever reason. It is only after the occurrence of an important event – often tragic – that they begin to explore the questions of the cosmos, of purpose, meaning, and of justice.
The reaction upon inquiry should be unsurprising: since nobody would like to think of oneself as “bad”, the necessary conclusion is that a bad thing has happened to an essentially good person. How might this be explained by the worldview held by the victim? On the one hand the image of a benevolent god is incompatible with the real sufferings of the victim, and on the other hand the proposition that there is no fundamental justice at all doesn’t fair well with intuition.
The remedy seems clear at this point, since the worldview one currently holds fails at explaining the event to satisfaction, one must explore alternatives which can explain it. The religious might shed a god whose wholesome image has been shattered, and the non-religious might seek consolation from religion, which brings with it the prospect that everything will be alright from now on.
Conversion or deconversion is dependent not on the virtue that any worldview holds, but rather upon the worldview with which one began with. But there are plenty of people who don’t change worldviews after tragic events, how can they be explained? As mentioned above, only those who have not until the event given though to these issues will be likely to convert, the people who are knowledgeable about their own position, and who have considered those positions, are more apt at explaining the event within the framework of their own worldview, it fits, and it works, so there’s no need to find an alternate solution.