In Defense of the God's Benevolence towards Job

[whag]

I didn't ask you to buy the interpretation of Job I espoused. You're the one who replied to me, not the other way around.

I pointed out the problems inherent in that interpretation, which, in fairness, you admitted was just your 2 cents.

Must have heard it from someone else then, eh?

Yes, it's boilerplate stupidity, like using the expression "duck, bob, and weave." You have plenty of time as evidenced by your engagement of the topic.

[whag]

Strawman, thanks for your PM. I understand better why you want to engage now that you specified it was a class assignment.

Enjolras, thanks for the honesty here. Check your PM's not long after I send this reply.

(2) The fact that they don't accept the Christian God's existence is irrelevant to my challenge towards skeptic's who see God as malevolent due to Job's afflictions. Luke Muehlhauser, Eddie Tabash, Skeptic's Dictionary, pretty much the entire wolfpack at infidels.org engages in reductio ad absurdum regarding Job.

I'm not part of that pack.

Can you give a grounds for your charge of waffling as I gave a ground for your demonstrable errors here?

I believe the assignment itself assumes the BOJ isn't what it actually is: a collection of disparate views coming together over a thousand years, starting in Babylon. Moreover, the assignment seeks to target fish in a barrel--immature skeptics. That won't end well for you and your opponent because it's a boring and lame premise.

I rescind my charge you're waffling. It's your teacher's fault for framing the assignment the way she did.

Rather than admit your mistake, you just ignore it.

What mistake was that? Let's circle back:

You were saying the same thing in a different thread. Obviously, many academic skeptical atheists believe many Old Testament accounts; particularly Job, showcases a malevolent God. However, this says nothing as far as commenting on the author's purpose. That is totally irrelevant. Most atheists would just suggest that the authors are blindly presenting the truth. Either way, what the author believes is irrelevant, if we're talking about how skeptic's interpret the information within each account.

Bold mine. There is no one author of Job--a fact that's lost on you and your professor and is entirely relevant to the fact that I cannot determine the conflicting "attributes" of a character composed over centuries by many oral transmitters and stitched together by multiple scribes. Hence, strawman. Your teacher merely inverted the reductio ad absurdem of the wolfpack.

It's an irrelevant mistake that hurt me none at all.

"How skeptic's interpret the information" in Job is not how I interpret the information. I'm not one of those "skeptic's."

I wasn't trying to hurt you, and I hope you don't want to hurt me.

And what in the world is the criteria for determining a "mature skeptic"?

You can start by not thinking the wolfpack at infidels.org represent all skeptics. This is a common schism at Tweb--the assumption that all new atheists represent all skeptics and the assumption that the 22% of US fundie Christians represent the views of all worldwide Christians. Please don't err in that direction, cuz you'll get flamed every time.

[Strawman]

Whag,

You're a very argumentative guy who is obviously looking for an argument. If none of this regards you... why are you typing here?

Strawman, thanks for your PM. I understand better why you want to engage now that you specified it was a class assignment.



I'm not part of that pack.

Never said you were.

the assignment seeks to target fish in a barrel--immature skeptics. That won't end well for you and your opponent because it's a boring and lame premise.

Again, you're yet to define "immature skeptics". Also, give me a rational criteria which discerns between "immature skeptics" and "mature skeptics".

Explain how you are more of a "mature skeptic" than the late, great JL Mackie. He engaged in the same logic which is present in the typical "Job argument" against a benevolent God. And how are you more of a "mature skeptic" than Kyle Gerkin, Gariy Sloan, Luke Muehlhauser, Paul Doland, and on and on.

"How skeptic's interpret the information" in Job is not how I interpret the information. I'm not one of those "skeptic's."

Thanks for repeatedly sharing that.

You can start by not thinking the wolfpack at infidels.org represent all skeptics.

Again, I never said that either.

You're only embarassing yourself here. I'm very glad you do not conclude that God is malevolent based on Job's afflictions that he allowed.

It's your teacher's fault for framing the assignment the way she did.

Another charge with no grounds. I'm guessing this is a common practice for you?

There is no one author of Job--a fact that's lost on you and your professor and is entirely relevant to the fact that I cannot determine the conflicting "attributes" of a character composed over centuries by many oral transmitters and stitched together by multiple scribes

My bold that you gave answers this. The author(s) belief remains irrelevant. Skeptics and Christians believe we can determine the attributes of God within the account; hence why the debate continues to this day. If you believe you cannot, then why are you posting here?

[jordanriver]

Whag,

You're a very argumentative guy who is obviously looking for an argument. If none of this regards you... why are you typing here?

whooa brother
don't go there.

this is where atheists/agnostics and theists are supposed to come together to spar.

[Enjolras]

Enjolras, thanks for the honesty here. Check your PM's not long after I send this reply.

Why don't you just respond to what I wrote in post #13 right here, in this thread? I'd be happy to engage with you on the topic.

[Strawman]

whooa brother
don't go there.

this is where atheists/agnostics and theists are supposed to come together to spar.

I'm all for people looking for respectful and intellectual dialogue, but someone looking for an argument is a million miles away.

[Strawman]

Hi Strawman, welcome to the forum!

If I was going to try to show the malevolence of YHWH I wouldn't think to go to Job first, but since you bring it up I'm curious as to what you have to say. I don't know that the text shows God to be malevolent, as much as an uncaring bully. He brings the topic of Job up to Satan, almost daring him to attack him. Then he allows all this cruelty. Afterwards he scolds Job for daring to question his justice. Apparently, you have to be God in order to question his goodness, which makes no sense to me. One of the weirdest things about the book is at the end where God is said to bless Job's life more than at the first by giving him more children. If God killed my children and then gave different children to replace them, I wouldn't exactly say that made up for it. I'd be pretty upset about the first ones, but apparently the author of Job thought that made it all better.

Those are just a few observations; not exactly an argument. How do you take it?

Your problem seems to arise at 1:12 where God tells Satan, "you may test him [Job]". A question such as Why does God allow this? values an answer.

I'd like to start by looking at Job's character. While Job was good according to man’s standards (Job 1:1; 1:8; 1:4-5), in God’s sight there is no innocent person. If any man says that he is good according to God’s standards, then it is a demonstrably incorrect claim which is insulting to God’s perfect moral standards.

1. In Mark 10:18 Jesus declares that “No one is good except God alone”
2. In 9:2 Job admits “I know that this is true. But how can mere mortals prove their innocence before God”
3. Job admits in 9:20, “Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty”

When placing Job alongside God’s moral standards, his sins are many. As I mentioned above, though Job admits this in some places, he slips back into judging himself according to man’s standards repeatedly.

1. Job claims he is pure [23:10]
2. Job claims he is without sin [13:23]
3. Job claims that he is innocent [13:18]
4. Job claims that he is without guilt [6:29]
5. Job claims that God is malevolent [30:21; 19:22; 16:9]

Pride is among the hardest of sins to cleanse and it encapsulated Job. It hardens the heart and causes one to think unreasonably, which leads to more of an emotional outburst towards God rather than a logical inquiry; hence, Job's emotional outbursts. Further, given a hardened heart, it is impossible to trust in God no matter what. This is verified by way of Job's judgments against God. Until Elihu and God spoke to Job, he never let up with his charges against God. In fact, despite Job’s wisdom of God, his charges worsened in degree.

Is it possible for at least some of Job's afflictions to have come about as a means for God to teach Job the lessons he obviously needed taught? I think so. I personally am reminded of this possibility each time I took one of my younger kids to get their shots updated at around the age of two. I had to physically restrain each one while needles were plunged deep into their skin; all the while having to cope with their tearful, perplexing gaze into my eyes as, like Job, they shouted and writhed about in denial. I felt horrible, but my act was for a good purpose (their health and safety) but they lacked the capacity to understand what I was doing and why. Despite their lack of understanding, the seemingly unnecessary afflictions had to go on.

Further, all I need from a logical point of view is just the possibility of the above paragraph being true. Given this, then it follows that at least some, if not all, of our afflictions that God allows can not be properly understood by us since we lack the capacity to understand an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God. We are but finite beings with very limited cognitive abilities. This immediately qualifies Job’s afflictions. The amazing conclusion from this is that we should be thankful for our afflictions and show God gratitude for His acts of mercy, despite our natural inclination to kick and scream against them.

[The Pixie]

Your problem seems to arise at 1:12 where God tells Satan, "you may test him [Job]". A question such as Why does God allow this? values an answer.

God was testing Job, and had assigned an angel to be an adversary - or satan - to do that work. In the middle of the OT, the satan was just a role assigned to an angel. A great example is seen here:

Numbers 22:22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

The word adversary here is satan in Hebrew. The translators have chosen to use the English word "adversary" here, but used "Satan" in Job, even though in Hebrew it is the same word. Here we see satan acting for God. It was just a role God assigned to an angel.

[Enjolras]

Your problem seems to arise at 1:12 where God tells Satan, "you may test him [Job]". A question such as Why does God allow this? values an answer.

I'd like to start by looking at Job's character. While Job was good according to man’s standards (Job 1:1; 1:8; 1:4-5), in God’s sight there is no innocent person. If any man says that he is good according to God’s standards, then it is a demonstrably incorrect claim which is insulting to God’s perfect moral standards.

These passages do not, as you assert, qualify Job's goodness, by saying he was only good according to man's (implicitly inadequate) standards. 1:8 has God himself declaring him to be blameless. God, using whatever standard God uses, declares Job to be upright. This is repeated again in 1:22: "Job did not sin nor did he blame God." It is not the case that a man is declaring himself to be good. The divinely inspired author says Job is good and puts this assessment on the lips of God himself.

1. In Mark 10:18 Jesus declares that “No one is good except God alone”
2. In 9:2 Job admits “I know that this is true. But how can mere mortals prove their innocence before God”
3. Job admits in 9:20, “Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty”



When placing Job alongside God’s moral standards, his sins are many. As I mentioned above, though Job admits this in some places, he slips back into judging himself according to man’s standards repeatedly.

1. Job claims he is pure [23:10]
2. Job claims he is without sin [13:23]
3. Job claims that he is innocent [13:18]
4. Job claims that he is without guilt [6:29]
5. Job claims that God is malevolent [30:21; 19:22; 16:9]

Pride is among the hardest of sins to cleanse and it encapsulated Job. It hardens the heart and causes one to think unreasonably, which leads to more of an emotional outburst towards God rather than a logical inquiry; hence, Job's emotional outbursts. Further, given a hardened heart, it is impossible to trust in God no matter what. This is verified by way of Job's judgments against God. Until Elihu and God spoke to Job, he never let up with his charges against God. In fact, despite Job’s wisdom of God, his charges worsened in degree.

God himself declared Job blameless, but other passages indicate this may not be the case. Obviously the author of Job knew nothing of Jesus' opinions or the book of Mark. I think you will need to reconcile these inconsistencies. Even so, anyone subjected to such torture would justifiably lash out. God unleashes terrible torment upon Job, and Job responds with anger and indignation. Who wouldn't? If someone punches you in the face repeatedly you probably wouldn't appreciate it after awhile, no matter how committed to love and peace you are.

Is it possible for at least some of Job's afflictions to have come about as a means for God to teach Job the lessons he obviously needed taught? I think so. I personally am reminded of this possibility each time I took one of my younger kids to get their shots updated at around the age of two. I had to physically restrain each one while needles were plunged deep into their skin; all the while having to cope with their tearful, perplexing gaze into my eyes as, like Job, they shouted and writhed about in denial. I felt horrible, but my act was for a good purpose (their health and safety) but they lacked the capacity to understand what I was doing and why. Despite their lack of understanding, the seemingly unnecessary afflictions had to go on.

Let's see... comparing vaccinations to destroying everything a man has and killing everyone he loves. That seems a bit of a stretch. Would you take all of your kid's toys and pets and burn them in the front yard to teach them a lesson about humility? Would you lock them out of the house and throw acid on their naked bodies so you could determine if they really loved you with all of their heart? If they started crying and blaming you for hurting them, would you then yell at them and try to humiliate them by demonstrating how powerful and smart you are? If you did those things, what would be the natural conclusion of your neighbors? That you are a good dad teaching your kids a valuable lesson?

Further, all I need from a logical point of view is just the possibility of the above paragraph being true. Given this, then it follows that at least some, if not all, of our afflictions that God allows can not be properly understood by us since we lack the capacity to understand an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God. We are but finite beings with very limited cognitive abilities. This immediately qualifies Job’s afflictions. The amazing conclusion from this is that we should be thankful for our afflictions and show God gratitude for His acts of mercy, despite our natural inclination to kick and scream against them.

Imagine, if you can, that this story was not found in the Bible, but in the Koran, and everywhere the word "God" is used is instead replaced by the word "Allah." Would you come away after reading this story that Allah was a perfectly good and wise being whose actions could not be judged by finite beings with limited cognitive abilities?

[Strawman]

Hey, Enjolras. Thanks for the respectful response.

1:8 has God himself declaring him to be blameless. God, using whatever standard God uses, declares Job to be upright. This is repeated again in 1:22: "Job did not sin nor did he blame God." The divinely inspired author says Job is good and puts this assessment on the lips of God himself

It's worth noting that I gave 1:8 to ground Job's character. It's my contention that God is describing Job being good according to man's standards. I'll give a couple of reasons to ground that conclusion.

1. Obviously, if God exists, then there is a number of distinctions to be made between man's moral standard and God's. These distinctions necessarily follow, given the existence of God. So, not only does it make perfect sense for God to be describing Job according to man's standards, but it also explains Job's own admissions in 9:2 and 9:20 (read them in context) that he is not innocent according to God's standards.

2. A contextual analysis across the Bible, as I've shown in Mark 10:18, Job 9:2, and Job 9:20 provides us with examples showing that the necessary distinction is noted across the Bible. There are much more examples than those.

It is not the case that a man is declaring himself to be good

Remember, I gave 5 claims from Job proving that he does declare himself to be good. I also gave examples where he contradicts himself by way of his emotional outbursts. This all points towards more than just a minor problem with pride that Job needed cleansed of. Job was encapsulated by pride.

Obviously the author of Job knew nothing of Jesus' opinions or the book of Mark

That's irrelevant to the fact that there are examples all throughout the Bible which discern between God's standards and man's standards. Given that the distinction exists, then it necessarily follows that Job could not have been good according to God's standards. I mean, we're talking about the ontological foundation for goodness. We all are not innocent when compared to that objectively true standard.

Even so, anyone subjected to such torture would justifiably lash out. God unleashes terrible torment upon Job, and Job responds with anger and indignation. Who wouldn't?

Whether they would lash out or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that God may have a reason for those afflictions and those reasons may be temporarily or permanently incomprehensible to us due to cognitive limitations. We are like the 2 year old being taken to get shots. From the 2 year old's point of view, the act is just pure evil and involves seemingly gratuitous suffering by way of needles being plunged into his skin while those who supposedly love him are physically restraining him. But, those afflictions are necessary in order to bring about a good affect.

I won't dare try to act as if I'm omniscient and so can explain all of God's afflictions. All I need is the above possibility to be true in order to rationally ground God's omnibenevolence. Given that God exists, it necessarily follows that a good lot of His decisions and actions will be perplexing to us. When compared to such a God, we are much worse off than the 2 year old in the analogy above.

comparing vaccinations to destroying everything a man has and killing everyone he loves. That seems a bit of a stretch.

You're taking the analogy too far, it seems. I'm only using the analogy to further describe that which is necessarily true given God's existence.

Imagine, if you can, that this story was not found in the Bible, but in the Koran, and everywhere the word "God" is used is instead replaced by the word "Allah." Would you come away after reading this story that Allah was a perfectly good and wise being whose actions could not be judged by finite beings with limited cognitive abilities?

In all honesty, if Allah exists, I'd be unable to view this story as proving that Allah is not benevolent. Due to the fact that Allah is above and beyond us, there does exist the possibility that Allah may have reasons for afflictions which we are unable to immediately comprehend.

I'd like to end my reply with a question. What is the ontological foundation (outside of mere subjectivity) which pushes your moral judgements against God out of the realm of subjective opinion and into the realm of objective truth? That is, what grounds your moral judgement or statement against God's benevolence

[Enjolras]

Hey, Enjolras. Thanks for the respectful response.



It's worth noting that I gave 1:8 to ground Job's character. It's my contention that God is describing Job being good according to man's standards. I'll give a couple of reasons to ground that conclusion.

1. Obviously, if God exists, then there is a number of distinctions to be made between man's moral standard and God's. These distinctions necessarily follow, given the existence of God. So, not only does it make perfect sense for God to be describing Job according to man's standards, but it also explains Job's own admissions in 9:2 and 9:20 (read them in context) that he is not innocent according to God's standards.

2. A contextual analysis across the Bible, as I've shown in Mark 10:18, Job 9:2, and Job 9:20 provides us with examples showing that the necessary distinction is noted across the Bible. There are much more examples than those.



Remember, I gave 5 claims from Job proving that he does declare himself to be good. I also gave examples where he contradicts himself by way of his emotional outbursts. This all points towards more than just a minor problem with pride that Job needed cleansed of. Job was encapsulated by pride.

The problem with your position, as I see it, is that the text in chapter 1 repeatedly makes the case that Job is blameless, without qualification. There is no indication that Job is blameless only ‘in the eyes of men,’ but not God. If that is what the text meant, why doesn’t it say so? Why doesn’t it say “Job was righteous in the eyes of all men,” or something like that? If the author wanted us to see Job as a prideful, stubborn sinner he could not have been more misleading.

So what to make of other passages in the Bible that indicate another position? I see a few options:

1. There are differing views within Scripture. I don’t assume every passage must agree with every other passage, whether within the canon, or even in the same book. So the author of Ch. 1 had a different view that the author of Ch. 9 (obviously this would only be the case if there were multiple authors/ redactors).
2. Job may have had a different opinion of himself than God had of him.
3. Job may have been blameless in Ch. 1, but as a result of his torment slipped into sin later, as expressed in Ch. 9. This does not seem unlikely to me. Let’s say you start the day off in a great mood and are kind to everyone you see. Then someone cuts you off in traffic on the way to work and causes you to drive into a telephone pole. Now your car in ruined and you are late for an important meeting, which causes you to miss out on an important sale. Your mood is now naturally sour, and the rest of the day you are rude and short to everyone you encounter. Job's circumstances were much worse than that, or course, so you would expect him to be more liable to sin when calamity befell him.

That's irrelevant to the fact that there are examples all throughout the Bible which discern between God's standards and man's standards. Given that the distinction exists, then it necessarily follows that Job could not have been good according to God's standards. I mean, we're talking about the ontological foundation for goodness. We all are not innocent when compared to that objectively true standard.

Except that the actual words in the text disagree with your theological conclusion. It seems to me that your theological framework is preventing you from seeing what the text plainly says.

Whether they would lash out or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that God may have a reason for those afflictions and those reasons may be temporarily or permanently incomprehensible to us due to cognitive limitations. We are like the 2 year old being taken to get shots. From the 2 year old's point of view, the act is just pure evil and involves seemingly gratuitous suffering by way of needles being plunged into his skin while those who supposedly love him are physically restraining him. But, those afflictions are necessary in order to bring about a good affect.

I won't dare try to act as if I'm omniscient and so can explain all of God's afflictions. All I need is the above possibility to be true in order to rationally ground God's omnibenevolence. Given that God exists, it necessarily follows that a good lot of His decisions and actions will be perplexing to us. When compared to such a God, we are much worse off than the 2 year old in the analogy above.

It may indeed be that God has reasons for tormenting that are unknown to us. But you are claiming that the reason here is that Job was a stubborn, prideful sinner. The text itself says otherwise: It makes it clear that God was playing a game with Satan to prove a point.

You're taking the analogy too far, it seems. I'm only using the analogy to further describe that which is necessarily true given God's existence.

I'm taking the analogy further to more closely align to the story we find in Job.

In all honesty, if Allah exists, I'd be unable to view this story as proving that Allah is not benevolent. Due to the fact that Allah is above and beyond us, there does exist the possibility that Allah may have reasons for afflictions which we are unable to immediately comprehend.

As such, it would be impossible for you to make the case that God did not order destruction of the the Twin Towers on 9/11, or even the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo. There may be reasons that you are not aware of.

I'd like to end my reply with a question. What is the ontological foundation (outside of mere subjectivity) which pushes your moral judgments against God out of the realm of subjective opinion and into the realm of objective truth? That is, what grounds your moral judgement or statement against God's benevolence

I just had a long, complicated discussion on this topic with seer recently in the "Is God Immoral?" thread. The standard by which I assess the morality of an action is to ask whether or not it "promotes the well-being" of humans.

[Strawman]

The problem with your position, as I see it, is that the text in chapter 1 repeatedly makes the case that Job is blameless, without qualification. There is no indication that Job is blameless only ‘in the eyes of men,’ but not God

We've got two choices here: Job is either blameless according to God's standards or he is blameless according to man's standards. I'm suggesting that Job is blameless only in the eyes of men as a matter of necessity. Given that God exists, then it logically follows that no man can possibly be as morally perfect as the ontological foundation for moral values. Suggesting so is just self-defeating. Further, Job, himself, recognizes that he pales in comparison to God by way of Job 9:2 and 9:20.

Why doesn’t it say “Job was righteous in the eyes of all men

As explained above, it's a matter of something be intuitively obviously true, as Job recognized in 9:2 and 9:20. No man is morally perfect for only God is; therefore, Job was not.

Except that the actual words in the text disagree with your theological conclusion. It seems to me that your theological framework is preventing you from seeing what the text plainly says.

Hermeneutically speaking, this isn't a complex interpretation at all. Given your logic, [if] (for the sake of my point) the text said nothing at all about Job being omnipotent should we conclude that therefore Job is omnipotent. Surely, not. Hermeneutically speaking, we can conclude that Job was not omnipotent by way of it being intuitively obvious that Job was not.

It makes it clear that God was playing a game with Satan to prove a point.

Nowhere do you provide any scriptural support for this. All I need is just the possibility that God could have had a beneficial reason for the trial. Given God's omniscience, the possibility of Him having a reason that Job could never comprehend due to cognitive limitations seems to necessarily follow.

It may indeed be that God has reasons for tormenting that are unknown to us. But you are claiming that the reason here is that Job was a stubborn, prideful sinner

I'm defending that above, however I most definitely do not need to state the reason. All I need is to point out our and Job's cognitive limitations when compared to God's omniscience.

As such, it would be impossible for you to make the case that God did not order destruction of the the Twin Towers on 9/11, or even the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo. There may be reasons that you are not aware of.

Is there a point to this? It appears to be a red herring, since I can easily grant your rhetorical point and note that the original subject or point remains completely unscathed. And You're dancing awfully close to a moral judgement, which immediately puts yourself into the realm of moral ontology. Most non-theists stay away from there for a reason. You bravely enter it with:

The standard by which I assess the morality of an action is to ask whether or not it "promotes the well-being" of humans

Well, that's just your subjective opinion as a foundation, which keeps your moral judgement in the subjective realm. Also, you cannot confuse someone's physical well-being with someone's [moral] well-being. Just because someone is being [physically] hurt does not mean that therefore they are being morally hurt. What you need is something other than merely your opinion as a foundation.

While you're throwing Sam Harris' "Moral Landscape" at me, you're going to have to answer to the same criticism many share regarding it. That is, and without arguing in a circle, [why] should we define good as "that which supports someone's well-being"? What if I wanted to define good in another way?

In Craig's response to Harris, he explains that "At the end of the day Harris is not really talking about moral values. He is just talking about what's conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet. Seen in this light, his claim that science can tell us a great deal about what contributes to human flourishing is hardly controversial. Of course, it can — just as it can tell us what is conducive to the flourishing of corn or mosquitoes or bacteria. His so-called "moral landscape" picturing the highs and lows of human flourishing is not really a moral landscape at all." (Navigating Sam Harris' Moral Landscape)

[Enjolras]

We've got two choices here: Job is either blameless according to God's standards or he is blameless according to man's standards. I'm suggesting that Job is blameless only in the eyes of men as a matter of necessity. Given that God exists, then it logically follows that no man can possibly be as morally perfect as the ontological foundation for moral values. Suggesting so is just self-defeating. Further, Job, himself, recognizes that he pales in comparison to God by way of Job 9:2 and 9:20.

As explained above, it's a matter of something be intuitively obviously true, as Job recognized in 9:2 and 9:20. No man is morally perfect for only God is; therefore, Job was not.

Well, in Job God himself said Job was blameless, and the author of the book further states explicitly that Job did not sin through his trials. These are not words put on the lips of mere, fallible men. Therefore it seems your argument is with God and the author of Job, not me. I'm not committed to finding perfect theological consistency throughout this book, nor throughout the canon.

Hermeneutically speaking, this isn't a complex interpretation at all. Given your logic, [if] (for the sake of my point) the text said nothing at all about Job being omnipotent should we conclude that therefore Job is omnipotent. Surely, not. Hermeneutically speaking, we can conclude that Job was not omnipotent by way of it being intuitively obvious that Job was not.

But the text does state Job was blameless, so your reasoning doesn't really fit here. Since you are committed to an inerrant and consistent text and canon you must find a way for it all to make sense. I think it's best to read what it actually says, rather than what fits my theological preconceptions.

Nevertheless, Job being blameless is not necessary for my case to be made. He doesn't even need to be a moral paragon in comparison to his peers. A decent chap is all that is needed to show God is an unjust bully.

Nowhere do you provide any scriptural support for this. All I need is just the possibility that God could have had a beneficial reason for the trial. Given God's omniscience, the possibility of Him having a reason that Job could never comprehend due to cognitive limitations seems to necessarily follow.

I'm defending that above, however I most definitely do not need to state the reason. All I need is to point out our and Job's cognitive limitations when compared to God's omniscience.

Sure, God could have a reason unknown to us or Job. One could always make that case. If this is the heart and substance of your argument, we really don't have a disagreement here. My point is that based upon the information we do have, God looks unjust. If you want to posit some unknown not found in the text to make your case, that's fine. I could also posit some evil motive not found in the text. Where does that get us?

Is there a point to this? It appears to be a red herring, since I can easily grant your rhetorical point and note that the original subject or point remains completely unscathed.

Yes, the point is that your argument could be used to justify any behavior said to be of a divine origin. That's why I find it so uncompelling.

And You're dancing awfully close to a moral judgement, which immediately puts yourself into the realm of moral ontology. Most non-theists stay away from there for a reason. You bravely enter it with:

Lots of nontheists make moral judgments...not sure why you find this so remarkable.

Well, that's just your subjective opinion as a foundation, which keeps your moral judgement in the subjective realm.

Your opinion that God's will is good and should be obeyed is every bit as subjective as mine.

Also, you cannot confuse someone's physical well-being with someone's [moral] well-being. Just because someone is being [physically] hurt does not mean that therefore they are being morally hurt.

Agreed.

What you need is something other than merely your opinion as a foundation.

My opinion is not the foundation; that would make for a subjective morality. "Well being" is the foundation, which is objective.

While you're throwing Sam Harris' "Moral Landscape" at me, you're going to have to answer to the same criticism many share regarding it. That is, and without arguing in a circle, [why] should we define good as "that which supports someone's well-being"? What if I wanted to define good in another way?

You do define good in another way: for you, God's will is good. (I assume that is your position; please correct me if I've misstated it.) I'll throw the same question back to you: without arguing in a circle, why should we define good as "God's will"?

In Craig's response to Harris, he explains that "At the end of the day Harris is not really talking about moral values. He is just talking about what's conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet. Seen in this light, his claim that science can tell us a great deal about what contributes to human flourishing is hardly controversial. Of course, it can — just as it can tell us what is conducive to the flourishing of corn or mosquitoes or bacteria. His so-called "moral landscape" picturing the highs and lows of human flourishing is not really a moral landscape at all." (Navigating Sam Harris' Moral Landscape)

I can turn the same argument back at you: at the end of the day, all you are talking about is the will of your god. Christian theology can tell us a great deal about what the Christian god's will is and is not. Of course, it can -- just as Muslim theology can tell us about the will of Allah, and Mormon theology can tell you about the will of the Mormon god. I don't find that terribly useful.

I'll refer you to the debate Craig had with Shelly Kagan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo . In my view, Kagan makes the point very strongly that ethics under a theist perspective offer no compelling advantage over those of a nontheist. Craig didn't like that conclusion, but all he could really say in the end was that a nontheist perspective didn't seem right to him for various reasons. Kagan countered each of his objections, and Craig just kind of sat there, not knowing where to go from there.

[Strawman]

Enjolras,

I present the subject in a different way than William Craig. I prefer to let Craig deal with his engagements and I deal with mine.

As far as the rest of your response, you are ignoring information repeatedly and just re-stating your conclusion. This is not at all as simple as analyzing a passage or two. I'll do my best at pointing out what you are ignoring and why your exegesis cannot be contextually validated. I definitely see your point, but when you call in a contextual analysis it falls apart. I'll start with this:

in Job God himself said Job was blameless

You can't just look at a passage or two and interpret them alone. Hermeneutically speaking, you're ignoring a large chunk of the basic criteria for exegesis. I'm going to try and point you to some passages, which are related to the ones you are analyzing:

1. Bildad the Shuhite gives a speech to Job in chapter 8, which is nicely summarized in 8:6 and 8:20. He contends that "(6)if you are pure and upright, even now he will rouse himself on your behalf... (20) Surely God does not reject one who is blameless". In the chapters before, Job felt rejected despite not sinning (7:20), which explains Bildad's mocking him with "if you are pure..." and "Surely God does not reject the blameless". To Bildad, Job's afflictions were to be viewed as proof that Job was not sinless.
1.1. While I'm on chapter 7, take a look at 7:21 where Job says, "Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?" As I pointed out earlier, Job is most definitely noticing the distinction. To further verify that, I'll get back on point and look at Job's response to Bildad:

"Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can mere mortals prove their innocence before God?" (9:2)

When you combine these, Job basically says to Bilbab's points "[it is true] that if I were truly innocent according to God's standards then I would not have my current afflictions". Given your exegesis, we are led to believe that Job is basically saying, "Though I am innocent, I know it is true that, if I were truly innocent, I would not have my current afflictions". That distinction matters a lot.

2. Job 9:19-20 reads "... if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him? If I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty".

Matthew Henry explains that "Job begins to manifest a disposition to condemn God, that he may justify himself, for which he is afterwards reproved. Still Job knew so much of himself, that he durst not stand a trial. [If we say, We have no sin, we not only deceive ourselves, but we affront God; for we sin in saying so]..." (the brackets is in reference to "if I were innocent...")

So, when you say,

But the text does state Job was blameless

you are ignoring a contextual analysis. Given the context, we see a man who is emotionally outraged and so constantly flips from feeling he is "innocent" to 'well, maybe not so much once challenged by God'. Job's contradicting himself shows that he does discern between man's standards and God's standards. In his outrage, he's constantly switching from one to the other.

Further, this gives us the reason for Job's trial. While letting some of his rage out, Job shows that he seriously believes he is sinless [in the same sense that God is], which enables him to judge God, the ontological source for goodness, as malevolent (Job 30:21; Job 19:22; Job 16:9).

Now, when you charge me with "adding to the text", the charge is demonstrably not true. When I see passages like "if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him?" this obviously is speaking of God being the ontological foundation for moral values, because, indeed, "who can challenge" the moral lawgiver? As a matter of fact, the distinction comes into play as soon as God enters the picture. Logically speaking, you might as well suggest "well, passage A does not say God is omnipotent; therefore, we can't add that to the text". That's ridiculous.

Sure, God could have a reason unknown to us or Job. One could always make that case. If this is the heart and substance of your argument, we really don't have a disagreement here. My point is that based upon the information we do have, God looks unjust.

The information we have, as of right now, is you agreeing that"God could have a reason unknown to us or Job". If God could have a reason unknown to us or Job, then how can you conclude with any probability at all that "God is a bully"?

Job being blameless is not necessary for my case to be made. He doesn't even need to be a moral paragon in comparison to his peers. A decent chap is all that is needed to show God is an unjust bully.

That leads me to our subject regarding objective moral values and how it relates to non-theism and God. You state that "well being" is the ontological foundation for moral values, "which is objective". First, there is a huge difference between something existing objectively and being objectively true. I can write "well being" on a piece of paper and, yes, it's objectively existent, but it does [not] follow that therefore it is objectively true.

So, despite your feelings to the contrary, when you say "well being is the foundation" that means absolutely nothing. Given a non-theist pov, I can counter with "unwell being is the foundation" and it will contain just as much truthful content as your statement. Your opinion is the foundation. As is with Harris, re-defining terms does not cancel out the subjectivity but only further enhances it.

This is exactly why you failed to answer my questions: "[why] should we define good as "that which supports someone's well-being"? What if I wanted to define good in another way?"

You threw a red herring in response by switching the question around on me. You catch red herrings by granting the response to a particularly brought about subject (i.e. my questions) and examining if the brought about subject remains unscathed. Indeed, my questions remain unanswered. With respect, the fact is that you cannot answer it without immediately proving the subjectivity inherent within and you know it.

Theism, since it contains a valid ontological foundation outside of human thought, gives a different kind of answer to the question

why should we define good as "God's will"?

because God matches the necessary requirements in order for moral statements to become really or objectively true; that is, His character is independent from human thought, His character is non-subjective, His character is unchanging, He is transcendent, and He is personal by nature which immediately explains moral obligation, moral guilt, and moral duty.

Now that I have at least tried to answer the question, can you?

I find another red herring here:

ME:Well, that's just your subjective opinion as a foundation, which keeps your moral judgement in the subjective realm.
YOU: Your opinion that God's will is good and should be obeyed is every bit as subjective as mine.

Even if I grant your point, the original point I brought up still remains unscathed by you. Do you have a response to the fact that the standard by which you assess morality, no matter how you define it, will [always] be subjectively based given that you are subjectively defining good according to your own subjective preferences. [You are defining it not independent from human thought], which provides an immediate and quite strong distinction between our beliefs. With respect, throwing a red herring at it is rather pointless.

I can turn the same argument back at you

It's the fact that you're leaving my questions towards you untended that catches my eye.

Lots of nontheists make moral judgments...not sure why you find this so remarkable.

It's not that they make moral judgements at all. A lot of non-theists tend to side with Dawkins and the late Mackie. Dawkins in his "River out of Eden" famously summed up the result of atheism that "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". (pages 131-132)

A far greater atheist thinker, the late atheist philosopher JL Mackie remarked:

"There are no objective values... The claim that values are not objective is meant to include rightness and wrongness, duty, obligation, any actions being rotten and contemptible, and so on..." (page 1 and page 49)

I'm not using an argument from authority at all. I am, however, pointing out the irony that quite a lot of atheist thinkers actually agree with me here. Given atheism, there can be no objective moral values since there is no valid ontological foundation for them.

[Enjolras]

Enjolras,

I present the subject in a different way than William Craig. I prefer to let Craig deal with his engagements and I deal with mine.

As far as the rest of your response, you are ignoring information repeatedly and just re-stating your conclusion. This is not at all as simple as analyzing a passage or two. I'll do my best at pointing out what you are ignoring and why your exegesis cannot be contextually validated. I definitely see your point, but when you call in a contextual analysis it falls apart. I'll start with this:



You can't just look at a passage or two and interpret them alone. Hermeneutically speaking, you're ignoring a large chunk of the basic criteria for exegesis. I'm going to try and point you to some passages, which are related to the ones you are analyzing:

1. Bildad the Shuhite gives a speech to Job in chapter 8, which is nicely summarized in 8:6 and 8:20. He contends that "(6)if you are pure and upright, even now he will rouse himself on your behalf... (20) Surely God does not reject one who is blameless". In the chapters before, Job felt rejected despite not sinning (7:20), which explains Bildad's mocking him with "if you are pure..." and "Surely God does not reject the blameless". To Bildad, Job's afflictions were to be viewed as proof that Job was not sinless.
1.1. While I'm on chapter 7, take a look at 7:21 where Job says, "Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?" As I pointed out earlier, Job is most definitely noticing the distinction. To further verify that, I'll get back on point and look at Job's response to Bildad:

"Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can mere mortals prove their innocence before God?" (9:2)

When you combine these, Job basically says to Bilbab's points "[it is true] that if I were truly innocent according to God's standards then I would not have my current afflictions". Given your exegesis, we are led to believe that Job is basically saying, "Though I am innocent, I know it is true that, if I were truly innocent, I would not have my current afflictions". That distinction matters a lot.

2. Job 9:19-20 reads "... if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him? If I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty".

Matthew Henry explains that "Job begins to manifest a disposition to condemn God, that he may justify himself, for which he is afterwards reproved. Still Job knew so much of himself, that he durst not stand a trial. [If we say, We have no sin, we not only deceive ourselves, but we affront God; for we sin in saying so]..." (the brackets is in reference to "if I were innocent...")

So, when you say,



you are ignoring a contextual analysis. Given the context, we see a man who is emotionally outraged and so constantly flips from feeling he is "innocent" to 'well, maybe not so much once challenged by God'. Job's contradicting himself shows that he does discern between man's standards and God's standards. In his outrage, he's constantly switching from one to the other.

Further, this gives us the reason for Job's trial. While letting some of his rage out, Job shows that he seriously believes he is sinless [in the same sense that God is], which enables him to judge God, the ontological source for goodness, as malevolent (Job 30:21; Job 19:22; Job 16:9).

Now, when you charge me with "adding to the text", the charge is demonstrably not true. When I see passages like "if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him?" this obviously is speaking of God being the ontological foundation for moral values, because, indeed, "who can challenge" the moral lawgiver? As a matter of fact, the distinction comes into play as soon as God enters the picture. Logically speaking, you might as well suggest "well, passage A does not say God is omnipotent; therefore, we can't add that to the text". That's ridiculous.

I understand your point of view and why you hold it, but I think what I have already written addresses what you are saying here. There is no point in repeating myself again, so we'll just have to agree to disagree here. If this point about Job being blameless was really important to me or to my argument I would pursue it further, but it's a minor side discussion as far as I am concerned.

The information we have, as of right now, is you agreeing that"God could have a reason unknown to us or Job". If God could have a reason unknown to us or Job, then how can you conclude with any probability at all that "God is a bully"?

It's a prima facia assessment. If I happen to witness a large man repeatedly punching a baby in the face, I'm justified in thinking he's doing something wrong. Maybe he has a really good reason for doing it, but would I be out of line for thinking there is something seriously wrong going on here?

That leads me to our subject regarding objective moral values and how it relates to non-theism and God. You state that "well being" is the ontological foundation for moral values, "which is objective". First, there is a huge difference between something existing objectively and being objectively true. I can write "well being" on a piece of paper and, yes, it's objectively existent, but it does [not] follow that therefore it is objectively true.

So, despite your feelings to the contrary, when you say "well being is the foundation" that means absolutely nothing. Given a non-theist pov, I can counter with "unwell being is the foundation" and it will contain just as much truthful content as your statement. Your opinion is the foundation. As is with Harris, re-defining terms does not cancel out the subjectivity but only further enhances it.

This is exactly why you failed to answer my questions: "[why] should we define good as "that which supports someone's well-being"? What if I wanted to define good in another way?"

You threw a red herring in response by switching the question around on me. You catch red herrings by granting the response to a particularly brought about subject (i.e. my questions) and examining if the brought about subject remains unscathed. Indeed, my questions remain unanswered. With respect, the fact is that you cannot answer it without immediately proving the subjectivity inherent within and you know it.

Theism, since it contains a valid ontological foundation outside of human thought, gives a different kind of answer to the question

My point in throwing your questions back at you was not to avoid answering, but to show that you have the exact same difficulty answering such questions that I do. Theism has no intellectual advantage or high ground here whatsoever, as I see it, even if God exists. Your answer isn't a different kind of answer; it is the exact same kind of answer. I say 'well-being' is the foundation, you say its "God's will.' You ask "What if I wanted to define good in another way?" You are free do so. I could try to appeal to common values that we might hold, but in the end you can always disagree. So what? You assert "God's will" is the foundation. Well, what if I want to define good in another way? What can you really say to convince me otherwise? Not much, as far as I can see. If someone doesn't value God's will, where do you go from there to convince them otherwise? The decision to care about and value God's opinion is entirely subjective.

because God matches the necessary requirements in order for moral statements to become really or objectively true; that is, His character is independent from human thought, His character is non-subjective, His character is unchanging, He is transcendent, and He is personal by nature which immediately explains moral obligation, moral guilt, and moral duty.

None of this shows that God is good or a proper foundation for morality. As Kai Nielsen has pointed out, "There is nothing logically improper about saying 'X is omnipotent and omniscient and morally wicked.'"

Now that I have at least tried to answer the question, can you?

I find another red herring here:



Even if I grant your point, the original point I brought up still remains unscathed by you. Do you have a response to the fact that the standard by which you assess morality, no matter how you define it, will [always] be subjectively based given that you are subjectively defining good according to your own subjective preferences. [You are defining it not independent from human thought], which provides an immediate and quite strong distinction between our beliefs. With respect, throwing a red herring at it is rather pointless.



It's the fact that you're leaving my questions towards you untended that catches my eye.

Here's how I see things. Morals can be compared to a ball game. What is the ‘objectively’ correct game to like and value? There is no objectively correct game; that is a subjective decision. But once you make that subjective decision there are objective rules to follow. There is nothing objectively wrong with taking a ball and carrying across the floor without dribbling it, but once you accept the rules of basketball, that is objectively not allowed. The decision to value and play that game is subjective, but once you are playing the rules are objective.

So you can play the 'well-being' game, or the 'God's will' game, so to speak. If you don't accept 'well-being' as the foundation I can try to appeal to you based upon common ground we might hold, but in the end you may not choose to play. It is the same with 'God's will.' You can try to appeal to me by threatening me with judgement and so forth, but I might not want to play the game. I might think God is wicked, and therefore the 'God game' is not of value or worth playing.

What I am talking about here are axiomatic values and assessments; the foundation of beliefs. There is a point at which one can go no further in proving a case. There are fundamental logical principles, such as 'do not contradict oneself.' What if someone doesn't want to be logical? Well, if you don't accept the idea that one should be reasonable, there's nothing more to be said. It is the same with valuing human 'well-being.' If you don't value human well-being, I can't appeal to something else to convince you otherwise. It is the same with 'God's will.' One must choose to value it before it becomes a meaningful or objective position to you.

It's not that they make moral judgements at all. A lot of non-theists tend to side with Dawkins and the late Mackie. Dawkins in his "River out of Eden" famously summed up the result of atheism that "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". (pages 131-132)

A far greater atheist thinker, the late atheist philosopher JL Mackie remarked:

"There are no objective values... The claim that values are not objective is meant to include rightness and wrongness, duty, obligation, any actions being rotten and contemptible, and so on..." (page 1 and page 49)

I'm not using an argument from authority at all. I am, however, pointing out the irony that quite a lot of atheist thinkers actually agree with me here. Given atheism, there can be no objective moral values since there is no valid ontological foundation for them.

Mackie and Dawkins are atheists who think there are no objective moral values without God. Richard Swinburne and Richard Holloway are both theists who think there are objective moral values apart from God. Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen and Erik Wielenberg are atheists who think objective morality is possible without God. Nothing is to be gained in this discussion by pointing out where various 'authorities' have landed on the issue.