Is Unfortunate Accident [Y] Necessarily Evidence That God Does Not Want Humankind to Engage in Activity [X]? Why I Doubt It
By Ken K. Gourdin
In response to the contention that space exploration disasters which, tragically, have led to loss of life are evidence that God does not want men to explore the cosmos, I responded:
God, per se, didn’t have anything to do with the Challenger disaster (or with the Columbia disaster, for that matter). Broadly speaking, those disasters happened because both craft were made by humans, anything made by humans is, by nature and by definition, flawed, and such flaws pose a risk that what happened in each case would happen. The only remedy to such problems is to build better craft which will not succumb to the flaws to which Challenger and Columbia succumbed, and to pay due attention to problems which start small … before they become bigger problems later on so that, hopefully, they can be remedied before those who use the craft pay the ultimate mortal price for doing so.
This is true of many such human activities. In the foregoing example, any number of such activities could replace space exploration. For that matter, life, itself, inherently involves risk. One need not necessarily seek out risk in order to be subject to it. Even if I do not engage in inherently risky activity, I could be the unfortunate victim of an unforeseen (and unforeseeable) accident even as I simply go about my normal daily activities. Such is the nature of living in a fallen world. As I’ve said so many times, often, we cannot choose our circumstances: the only thing we can choose is our reaction to them.