The trials of Job

[2PhiloVoid]

The more I think about the book of Job, the more I sour to it. I don’t think its answer to the problem of evil is anything to rage about either, but its response to the moral version of the Euthyphro dilemma seems to be that morality is defined according to God’s purposes, no matter how petty they may be. This gives us no good reason to value God’s morality apart from what he might do to us if we don’t - and it even if we do, there’s no promise he won’t spare us. At this point, it’s simpler to say that God doesn’t exist at all and things just happen to people. Job’s story doesn’t offer a better answer and it primes believers to accept morally evil commands if they’re convinced those commands come from God, ala Abraham and Isaac.

...as I've told others, the Euthryphro doesn't apply to Christian theology. And it doesn't for reasons that even Bugs Bunny could make clear to the average joe.

Does anyone actually READ the Euthryphro? Or do we just bandy this notion around that we've borrowed and mal-adapted from Plato?

Showing up only to reveal he’s been in league with the Devil trying to break you tends not to elicit the hero’s welcome in people. I can’t imagine why...
The problem of evil is often neutralized by appealing to the possibility that God is preventing an even greater evil by allowing what he allows, but in this story we’re given God’s full reasoning. He wants to win a bet with Satan. It’s completely unnecessary, and this reasoning really does undermine the common response to the PoE.

Only if you're assuming an ethical paradigm fit for today's moral notions that pour out of a post World War 2 mentality of trauma............................one that would rather sell its morality and soul for the supposed moral axioms of practicality and pragmatics ... something which I'll NEVER do. No, rather than pragmatics, I'll hold out that there is a bigger Truth to it all, bigger than just the idea that many people in the world want peace, a peace that will, frankly, probably never come in just the democratic way that we all keep brain-washing ourselves to believe that it will come.

 

[Par5]

That's good to know that your morality is basically built on a house of sand. No, make that: hot air!

So you are saying that because I believe that murdering people is wrong, and in the Job story, murdering people in order to win a wager is wrong, that somehow my morality is " basically built on a house of sand. No, make that: hot air!".
I would be very surprised at anyone making such a statement because I said that murder was wrong, anyone except you that is. Coming from you it is no surprise, no surprise at all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you are saying that because I believe that murdering people is wrong, and in the Job story, murdering people in order to win a wager is wrong, that somehow my morality is " basically built on a house of sand. No, make that: hot air!".
I would be very surprised at anyone making such a statement because I said that murder was wrong, anyone except you that is. Coming from you it is no surprise, no surprise at all.

God owns the whole thing. He gives life and he takes it. It is his pervue --in fact, it is his responsibility to do as he will with what is his. You can make all the accusations you want, but God is not mocked. He is not one of us.

 

[gaara4158]

...as I've told others, the Euthryphro doesn't apply to Christian theology. And it doesn't for reasons that even Bugs Bunny could make clear to the average joe.

Does anyone actually READ the Euthryphro? Or do we just bandy this notion around that we've borrowed and mal-adapted from Plato?

If you mean to deflect the Euthyphro by saying that God’s morality comes neither from himself nor principles beyond himself but rather his Nature, then all you’ve done is kick the can down the road. The same dilemma applies to God’s nature.

The book of Job reveals that God has absolutely no regard for human welfare. He wants everyone toeing a line that denies the most human parts of ourselves and reminds us through Job that even if we are successful, nothing is earned. God’s judgment and mercy are completely unpredictable. Why would anyone bother with such a god?

You might reply that God’s disregard for human life is offset by his offer of eternal salvation. He doesn’t rescue people from torture or regrow amputated limbs, but he makes sure ultimate justice is served in the afterlife. Again, this is a more convoluted solution to the problem of evil than the idea that God simply... isn’t.

Only if you're assuming an ethical paradigm fit for today's moral notions that pour out of a post World War 2 mentality of trauma............................one that would rather sell its morality and soul for the supposed moral axioms of practicality and pragmatics ... something which I'll NEVER do. No, rather than pragmatics, I'll hold out that there is a bigger Truth to it all, bigger than just the idea that many people in the world want peace, a peace that will, frankly, probably never come in just the democratic way that we all keep brain-washing ourselves to believe that it will come.

You’re missing the point. If you assume God has good reasons to do evil, whether they be pragmatic or in accordance to some higher truth to which you are ignorant, you’re just reverting to faith as justification. In light of WW2, it should be obvious why that’s a dangerous cop-out.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you mean to deflect the Euthyphro by saying that God’s morality comes neither from himself nor principles beyond himself but rather his Nature, then all you’ve done is kick the can down the road. The same dilemma applies to God’s nature.[/QUOTE

The book of Job reveals that God has absolutely no regard for human welfare. He wants everyone toeing a line that denies the most human parts of ourselves and reminds us through Job that even if we are successful, nothing is earned. God’s judgment and mercy are completely unpredictable. Why would anyone bother with such a god?

You might reply that God’s disregard for human life is offset by his offer of eternal salvation. He doesn’t rescue people from torture or regrow amputated limbs, but he makes sure ultimate justice is served in the afterlife. Again, this is a more convoluted solution to the problem of evil than the idea that God simply... isn’t.

Like it or not, God is the end of all erstwhile "infinite regression". Being who he is, he not only has the right and authority but in fact the duty (if indeed he owes us anything) to complete what he began with Creation.

As you have probably heard, we groan with suffering, and some with eager anticipation, and some with both, for the ending of this temporal vapor of existence, and our introduction into the permanent solidly real life, the finished product of which God instantly created for us by simple say-so (at least that is how I see it --I cannot be dogmatic about it). We make much of this life and its problems and our view of things. But we really are ignorant.

Your judgement of God is without merit. You seem to think he must answer to your set of priorities. And when you consider that he need not answer to you, you feel left out and treated unjustly (guessing by your statements). Well, consider the reasoning, that to create as First Cause implies many things, including that it would not make sense to do so for the purpose of destruction, nor for the purpose of injustice. As God, he is the judge of everything else -- particularly willed creatures -- and he will not be unjust toward them. The Judge of all the World will do what is right. You can count on that, or he is not God.

 

[gaara4158]

Like it or not, God is the end of all erstwhile "infinite regression". Being who he is, he not only has the right and authority but in fact the duty (if indeed he owes us anything) to complete what he began with Creation.

As you have probably heard, we groan with suffering, and some with eager anticipation, and some with both, for the ending of this temporal vapor of existence, and our introduction into the permanent solidly real life, the finished product of which God instantly created for us by simple say-so (at least that is how I see it --I cannot be dogmatic about it). We make much of this life and its problems and our view of things. But we really are ignorant.

Your judgement of God is without merit. You seem to think he must answer to your set of priorities. And when you consider that he need not answer to you, you feel left out and treated unjustly (guessing by your statements). Well, consider the reasoning, that to create as First Cause implies many things, including that it would not make sense to do so for the purpose of destruction, nor for the purpose of injustice. As God, he is the judge of everything else -- particularly willed creatures -- and he will not be unjust toward them. The Judge of all the World will do what is right. You can count on that, or he is not God.

My judgment of God is not merely academic in nature. In recognition of God’s complete authority over all things, seeing the way he chooses to use that power, I deem him unworthy of praise or attention. You can say I don’t have the authority to judge him, but I will exercise what authority I do have (my control over my own decisions) in accordance with my disdain for the one who exercises his authority with disdain for me. You can say he would be just to punish me, but I stopped caring about what he thought was just when it became clear that human well-being wasn’t at the center of his moral foundation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My judgment of God is not merely academic in nature. In recognition of God’s complete authority over all things, seeing the way he chooses to use that power, I deem him unworthy of praise or attention. You can say I don’t have the authority to judge him, but I will exercise what authority I do have (my control over my own decisions) in accordance with my disdain for the one who exercises his authority with disdain for me. You can say he would be just to punish me, but I stopped caring about what he thought was just when it became clear that human well-being wasn’t at the center of his moral foundation.

FWImaybeW, I believe his ends justify his means (God is allowed to do that, being the Creator and Owner), and that those we decry as treated unjustly, "having chosen against him who by his own predestination are not given the means of regeneration" --those, I say, are hardly going to represent humanity, in their final state, having lost his presence and restraint, being thus stripped of all virtue or any redeeming qualities such as we now esteem in them.

The one thing that makes the saved in the end higher than the angels, makes the lost lower than the demons. You will wish none of them a better existence.

 

[Silmarien]

The more I think about the book of Job, the more I sour to it. I don’t think its answer to the problem of evil is anything to rage about either, but its response to the moral version of the Euthyphro dilemma seems to be that morality is defined according to God’s purposes, no matter how petty they may be. This gives us no good reason to value God’s morality apart from what he might do to us if we don’t - and it even if we do, there’s no promise he won’t spare us. At this point, it’s simpler to say that God doesn’t exist at all and things just happen to people. Job’s story doesn’t offer a better answer and it primes believers to accept morally evil commands if they’re convinced those commands come from God, ala Abraham and Isaac.

Well, the Euthyphro Dilemma and the Problem of Evil are two entirely different things. It's true that the Hebrew scriptures do tend towards divine command theory, but I don't think the takeaway from Job was that what happened to him was good because God commanded it. I read it more as an assertion that we're not really in a position to judge what God does and does not do. (I am not entirely comfortable with this, since there are conceptions of God that I would certainly reserve the right to judge if they end up being true, but at the same time, I don't think it's particularly healthy to immediately rush to judgment over how the world should and shouldn't work. Our information is incomplete.)

I don't think it's easier to say that God doesn't exist at all and that things just happen to people. Once you do that, the problems in defining what a morally evil command even is only multiply, since we can't ground an inherently moral dimension to reality at all. You've solved the problem by eliminating any robust concept of morality, but then there's no problem to solve and no reason we can't have a God who's a moral monster.

...as I've told others, the Euthryphro doesn't apply to Christian theology. And it doesn't for reasons that even Bugs Bunny could make clear to the average joe.

Does anyone actually READ the Euthryphro? Or do we just bandy this notion around that we've borrowed and mal-adapted from Plato?

It applies to any Christian who subscribes to divine command theory.

If you mean to deflect the Euthyphro by saying that God’s morality comes neither from himself nor principles beyond himself but rather his Nature, then all you’ve done is kick the can down the road. The same dilemma applies to God’s nature.

How so? Tying it to God's nature is basically the traditional Platonic answer to the Euthyphro. Plato was grounding the notion of the Good beyond the pagan gods, not trying to eliminate it altogether. I don't see any dilemma in saying that the principle behind reality is Goodness itself, and that this is where everything finally ends. (Honestly, it might be less problematic than the alternatives.)

 

[Starcomet]

My judgment of God is not merely academic in nature. In recognition of God’s complete authority over all things, seeing the way he chooses to use that power, I deem him unworthy of praise or attention. You can say I don’t have the authority to judge him, but I will exercise what authority I do have (my control over my own decisions) in accordance with my disdain for the one who exercises his authority with disdain for me. You can say he would be just to punish me, but I stopped caring about what he thought was just when it became clear that human well-being wasn’t at the center of his moral foundation.

I believe God is a being that does care about human development. It is still however distant and if it truly exists, it ultimate motives are unknown to us. My approach is still somewhat deistic as I think it merely watches and observes and only subtly and indirectly guides sentient life. I reject the idea that such a being is malicious or petty.

 

[gaara4158]

FWImaybeW, I believe his ends justify his means (God is allowed to do that, being the Creator and Owner), and that those we decry as treated unjustly, "having chosen against him who by his own predestination are not given the means of regeneration" --those, I say, are hardly going to represent humanity, in their final state, having lost his presence and restraint, being thus stripped of all virtue or any redeeming qualities such as we now esteem in them.

The one thing that makes the saved in the end higher than the angels, makes the lost lower than the demons. You will wish none of them a better existence.

The problem with God being above moral judgment is that moral judgments exist for the purpose of guiding decisions. If we are not allowed to make moral judgments regarding the actions of God, then by definition we cannot determine whether God is good or evil. If we cannot determine whether God is good or evil, how are we to decide whether to revere or reject him? He describes himself as all kinds of great, but surely an evil god would say the same thing. Meanwhile we see him doing things we would deem undeniably evil if committed by someone not placed above morality. Isn't it a little too convenient?

Well, the Euthyphro Dilemma and the Problem of Evil are two entirely different things. It's true that the Hebrew scriptures do tend towards divine command theory, but I don't think the takeaway from Job was that what happened to him was good because God commanded it. I read it more as an assertion that we're not really in a position to judge what God does and does not do. (I am not entirely comfortable with this, since there are conceptions of God that I would certainly reserve the right to judge if they end up being true, but at the same time, I don't think it's particularly healthy to immediately rush to judgment over how the world should and shouldn't work. Our information is incomplete.)

I don't think it's easier to say that God doesn't exist at all and that things just happen to people. Once you do that, the problems in defining what a morally evil command even is only multiply, since we can't ground an inherently moral dimension to reality at all. You've solved the problem by eliminating any robust concept of morality, but then there's no problem to solve and no reason we can't have a God who's a moral monster.

They're two different things, but the story of Job creates strong implications for both issues. We may not have all the information, but if we waited until we had all the information before we made any judgment, we'd never judge anything. Job's story tells us that we can do everything right, and God might allow us to be punished just the same. It's good to prepare people for that eventuality because innocent people really do end up suffering, but as far as establishing God as a trustworthy character this story is counterproductive. If it's possible to justify Job's suffering through some divine reasoning, who's to say God can't also justify breaking promises to us by some similarly unfathomable logic? For all practical purposes, it appears that God does not play by the rules. So why play with him?

It is simpler to explain the bad things that happen to people who don't appear to deserve it if we suppose that there is no divine agent making sure justice is served than it is to suppose that there is one and whenever "bad" things happen to "good" people it's because we're all wrong and that divine agent is right. There's nothing logically impossible about a god who is a moral monster, you're right, but then we're talking about a god who metes out justice in exactly the same way we could reasonably expect things to play out with no divine agent at all. There being no divine agent really is simpler.

I believe God is a being that does care about human development. It is still however distant and if it truly exists, it ultimate motives are unknown to us. My approach is still somewhat deistic as I think it merely watches and observes and only subtly and indirectly guides sentient life. I reject the idea that such a being is malicious or petty.

I find deism (and even Unitarianism, as I see from your profile) to be among the most benign forms of theism, so I have no problem with your position. I do wonder where you get your beliefs about God if you reject so much of the malice and pettiness attributed to him in the Bible, but that's for another thread.

 

[Starcomet]

I find deism (and even Unitarianism, as I see from your profile) to be among the most benign forms of theism, so I have no problem with your position. I do wonder where you get your beliefs about God if you reject so much of the malice and pettiness attributed to him in the Bible, but that's for another thread.

I will be more than happy to answer any questions!

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem with God being above moral judgment is that moral judgments exist for the purpose of guiding decisions. If we are not allowed to make moral judgments regarding the actions of God, then by definition we cannot determine whether God is good or evil. If we cannot determine whether God is good or evil, how are we to decide whether to revere or reject him? He describes himself as all kinds of great, but surely an evil god would say the same thing. Meanwhile we see him doing things we would deem undeniably evil if committed by someone not placed above morality. Isn't it a little too convenient?


They're two different things, but the story of Job creates strong implications for both issues. We may not have all the information, but if we waited until we had all the information before we made any judgment, we'd never judge anything. Job's story tells us that we can do everything right, and God might allow us to be punished just the same. It's good to prepare people for that eventuality because innocent people really do end up suffering, but as far as establishing God as a trustworthy character this story is counterproductive. If it's possible to justify Job's suffering through some divine reasoning, who's to say God can't also justify breaking promises to us by some similarly unfathomable logic? For all practical purposes, it appears that God does not play by the rules. So why play with him?

It is simpler to explain the bad things that happen to people who don't appear to deserve it if we suppose that there is no divine agent making sure justice is served than it is to suppose that there is one and whenever "bad" things happen to "good" people it's because we're all wrong and that divine agent is right. There's nothing logically impossible about a god who is a moral monster, you're right, but then we're talking about a god who metes out justice in exactly the same way we could reasonably expect things to play out with no divine agent at all. There being no divine agent really is simpler.


I find deism (and even Unitarianism, as I see from your profile) to be among the most benign forms of theism, so I have no problem with your position. I do wonder where you get your beliefs about God if you reject so much of the malice and pettiness attributed to him in the Bible, but that's for another thread.

I don't suppose you can help it really, but you continue to equate making necessary judgments concerning good and evil, with making judgments concerning God. They are not even nearly the same. You not only have no right, but you have no ability to judge him, as his works are his alone. We are not his peers.

And to go with that, can you explain why the First Cause with Intent would have any reason to create for reasons of malice?

 

[Silmarien]

They're two different things, but the story of Job creates strong implications for both issues. We may not have all the information, but if we waited until we had all the information before we made any judgment, we'd never judge anything. Job's story tells us that we can do everything right, and God might allow us to be punished just the same. It's good to prepare people for that eventuality because innocent people really do end up suffering, but as far as establishing God as a trustworthy character this story is counterproductive. If it's possible to justify Job's suffering through some divine reasoning, who's to say God can't also justify breaking promises to us by some similarly unfathomable logic? For all practical purposes, it appears that God does not play by the rules. So why play with him?

I don't think the Book of Job actually implies that God has broken all of his promises to Job and refuses to play by the rules. All it says is that we don't know what the rules are. Job does regain everything in the end, so even in Job, we ultimately have a picture of a God who will test you to the limits for indecipherable reasons without actually abandoning you.

We do have to face the fact that really bad things happen, but I don't actually think the world is so evil as to make an omnibenevelont God impossible. I honestly think that's a very disturbing judgment to make concerning life, and one that leads to uncomfortable moral questions, since it implies that life is a net evil.

It is simpler to explain the bad things that happen to people who don't appear to deserve it if we suppose that there is no divine agent making sure justice is served than it is to suppose that there is one and whenever "bad" things happen to "good" people it's because we're all wrong and that divine agent is right. There's nothing logically impossible about a god who is a moral monster, you're right, but then we're talking about a god who metes out justice in exactly the same way we could reasonably expect things to play out with no divine agent at all. There being no divine agent really is simpler.

I'm not sure why you're using Occam's Razor here. The Book of Job isn't formulated as an argument for the existence of God--it's a piece of literature discussing the Problem of Evil. It's hardly the only way to look at it, so "I don't like Job so atheism is simpler" is a really strange jump to make.

I mean, you can look at Job from different angles even from within the Judeo-Christian traditions. I'm very fond of the Wisdom literature, particularly Ecclesiastes, but at the same time I think they're pretty representative of the sort of despair and Mysterianism that pre-Christian theism tends towards. If you're looking at it from a Christian perspective, you have to recognize that there's suddenly a fuller picture that the Hebrew Scriptures may hint at but don't quite grasp. That changes the interpretation.

 

[zippy2006]

It's good to prepare people for that eventuality because innocent people really do end up suffering, but as far as establishing God as a trustworthy character this story is counterproductive. If it's possible to justify Job's suffering through some divine reasoning, who's to say God can't also justify breaking promises to us by some similarly unfathomable logic? For all practical purposes, it appears that God does not play by the rules. So why play with him?

What do you suppose the author of Job was trying to communicate to the Hebrew people?

 

[Par5]

What do you suppose the author of Job was trying to communicate to the Hebrew people?

Yes, but why in order to communicate that message did he have to paint his god as a being that would inflict such extreme cruelty and hurt on a mere mortal? You would think that an omnipotent being could put across such a message without resorting to violence.
I think the story only has meaning for those who believe in a god that inflicts punishment on those it deems as having committed a misdemeanour. The meaning being that although god does at times punish people there are times when people may feel that god is punishing them unfairly when god has no hand in it at all.
For someone who has no belief in a god the story is redundant. Good things and bad things happen to good people and bad people in equal number. There is no finger pointing at some deity because you experience bad things and no thumbs up to a diety when you experience the good things. You simply enjoy the good and do your best to deal with the bad.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes,...

"Yes"? My question wasn't rhetorical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It applies to any Christian who subscribes to divine command theory.

I suppose it may to some extent, but as you know, I'm not a Divine Command Theory advocate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you are saying that because I believe that murdering people is wrong, and in the Job story, murdering people in order to win a wager is wrong, that somehow my morality is " basically built on a house of sand. No, make that: hot air!".
I would be very surprised at anyone making such a statement because I said that murder was wrong, anyone except you that is. Coming from you it is no surprise, no surprise at all.

No, I'm not saying any of that ... but if that's how you want to 'see' it, then so be it. I can't make you think like an actual philosopher and become aware of your own false assumptions and fallacies. And since you persist in stereotyping my thoughts when you don't have a clue as to what they are, then it appears we can't even have a conversation.

 

[Silmarien]

I suppose it may to some extent, but as you know, I'm not a Divine Command Theory advocate.

You know, I'm not really sure what you are in terms of this question.

Once I figure out what your stance is, I'll let you know whether or not I think it's vulnerable to the Euthyphro.

 

[zippy2006]

Because if we’re going to grant God the ability and moral authority to do absolutely *anything,* even things that seem out of character, then the claim that God is behind any given event appears completely unfalsifiable, doesn’t it?

This idea is at the heart of the book of Job, is it not?

(In Rick’s voice) So then God’s character is incomprehensible, making your statement that God can’t act out of character effectively meaningless. If we can’t recognize anything as being in or out of character for God, we can’t really say whether God would or wouldn’t act out of character for moral reasons or otherwise.

What is the punch line, the reductio?

In general you seem to be saying that God's incomprehensibility implies God's untrustworthiness. If that is your argument, would you care to elaborate?