Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:30 pm**

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:57 am Immanuel Can:

Actually, it is. It's called "legitimation," and every Ethicist or proponent of a political solution is obligated to do it -- that is, if he expects that other people will be rationally compelled to agree with him.
In that case the author of the book of Job must provide legitimation for describing what happened to Job as “ra’”.

That's correct. If there were no legitimate way to show that what was happening to Job was actually "evil," then we'd have no reason to regard his story as telling us anything more than, "Some guy got stuff he didn't like."

This should put it to rest, but probably not. You will continue to argue against the meaning of the term that was clearly not meant.

I think you've become a bit confused on that point, or maybe I haven't expressed it clearly. What you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that Job is just a story about "adversity." I'm on the side that says that this "adversity" was of a particular moral kind, i.e., "evil." If you're now admitting an objective conception of evil as attaching to what happens to Job, then we're actually not disagreeing at all.

If adversity is not evil then where does evil come into the picture?

From the Adversary, who clearly meant to do Job harm and to precipitate him into breaking faith with God. That's evil.

In the end, it's only the sovereign supremacy of God that turns what should have been nothing but a tragic injustice into an eventual benefit. Job has a better, stronger, wiser relationship with God at the end of the story than he had at the beginning. But that's not what was intended by the Adversary.

It makes Job himself much more self-aware, more humble, and more realistic about the true relationship between himself and the divine.

Any textual evidence to back up these claims?

Plenty. From Job 38 on, it's all about that. There's also some debate about Elihu's speech, since God never rebukes him for it, and He never condemns Elihu with Job's other three friends, so maybe Elihu's chapters all have to be taken into account too.

Job's conclusion:

“I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
4 ‘Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask You, and You instruct me.’
5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;
But now my eye sees You;
6 Therefore I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes.” (Job. 42:2-6).

That's the sound of a man who's learned something: that God is greater than Job knew, and the answers to his suffering are greater than he can even hear.

We're not to see his "adversities" massive though they are, as ultimately crushing to Job …

He cursed the day he was born. He did not overcome his adversity he endured it. All that he had that was taken away from him was not recovered by him. He did not heal himself. He would have continued to suffer pain and loss until he died. [/quote]
You may think so, though admittedly that's conjecture, since the story doesn't actually tell us that. What it does tell us is that without God, pain, loss, injustice, evil, and so on are all meaningless.

And speaking purely philosophically now, that's verifiably so.

It is clear that the evil Job endured was at the hands of this adversary, but that does not mean that all evil is at the hands of this adversary.

Quite so. Job's situation is not everybody's situation. And certainly human beings do plenty of evil all by themselves. For most of the evil you and I see on a regular basis, we have no need to refer to anything beyond the human race itself.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:17 am**

The common belief is that what we do affects our relationship with God. But is this true? Job’s friends believed his suffering is the result of something he did. This is a common belief but may not be true.

Luke 13:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

“Love of God is pure when joy and suffering inspire an equal degree of gratitude.” ― Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace

Job came to understand a truth Simone refers to but what appears unfair to us. This is because we exaggerate the importance of natural Man subject to natural laws. Stuff happens to animals having nothing to do with God’s conscious intent. It is hard to remember that as natural Man we are so insignificant. We acquire responsibility and become capable of more than dust to dust when we consciously inwardly turn (repent) towards God for meaning and acquire understanding rather than blindly arguing and reacting to external events. Towers will still fall and hit us on the head regardless of how our egotism believes we are furthering God's will on earth

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:00 am**

Immanuel Can:

That's correct. If there were no legitimate way to show that what was happening to Job was actually "evil," then we'd have no reason to regard his story as telling us anything more than, "Some guy got stuff he didn't like."

So, if everything you owned was taken from you, if your children died , if you were covered from head to toe with boils it would be nothing more than something he did not like unless there were some legitimate way to show that it was evil? What would stand as legitimation?

I'm on the side that says that this "adversity" was of a particular moral kind, i.e., "evil."

It only took you almost three pages to find your side. You are back to identifying adversity and evil after denying it. Here I think you are mistaken and the mistake arises because you take the Satan to be a moral agent. Natural disasters are part of the evil that befell Job and his family. Wind and lightening are not moral agents.

If adversity is not evil then where does evil come into the picture?
From the Adversary, who clearly meant to do Job harm and to precipitate him into breaking faith with God. That's evil.

In trying to untangle the knots you have created you have become more and more entangled. You both accepted and denyied that what happened to Job can properly be called adversity until you finally settled on calling it “ the particular KIND of adversity” as if that were not what I have been talking about all along.

In the end, it's only the sovereign supremacy of God that turns what should have been nothing but a tragic injustice into an eventual benefit.

But that is not what you said, is it? You claimed that the adversity itself, the evil itself, was good. But now, it is a tragic injustice. What changed your mind? Was it that I pointed out that the evil or adversity was not good, that in itself it was of no benefit, that is was his encounter with God and not what the adversary wrought that was good?

Any textual evidence to back up these claims?
Plenty. From Job 38 on, it's all about that.

Oh what tangled webs we weave … 38 on was his encounter with God. What I asked for evidence of was that Job benefitted from evil, from what you now call tragic injustice but you also called good.

There's also some debate about Elihu's speech, since God never rebukes him for it, and He never condemns Elihu with Job's other three friends, so maybe Elihu's chapters all have to be taken into account too.

That may be, but even if Job did benefit from Elihu’s speech his speech is not the tragic injustice inflicted by the adversary. In addition, Job distinguishes between what he heard with his ears and what he now sees with his eyes. This raises an uncomfortable question for some - without the direct encounter with God how effective would what he had heard be? Being told something is no substitute for experiencing it. What would Job have learned if not for his direct encounter with God? Just words, literally, hearsay.

That's the sound of a man who's learned something …

Once again this is not something he learned from what the adversary did to him. What was done to him could not be both good and a tragic injustice. When he says he did not understand he is referring to his questioning God, something he would have never done before his adversity. He learns that what to man appears to be justice or injustice is not, but what justice is he does not learn, only that it is beyond him.

Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

Here is something that Job did learn. But what are these things? He has seen a world beyond man, a world of Leviathan and Behemoth. He learns that the world is vast and not controllable by man in the way his homeland is.

… that God is greater than Job knew ...

We are told from the beginning that Job feared God, that he was a simple or perfect (tam) man, that he told his children to sanctify themselves and he made burnt offerings on their behalf in case they had sinned and cursed God in their hearts. He is overwhelmed by God’s power but also dwarfed by the world beyond the world in which he makes his home.

You may think so, though admittedly that's conjecture, since the story doesn't actually tell us that.

You have not learned one of the essential lessons of the text - man is powerless to do more than the little he is able to do.

What it does tell us is that without God, pain, loss, injustice, evil, and so on are all meaningless.

That is one way to read it. Another is that the world and what happens are beyond our understanding. What God agreed to with the adversary remains unjust, evil, and meaningless from the human perspective. Job does not gain a godlike perspective and neither do we. He has simply become aware of just how limited our perspective is. And so, we are not in a position to judge what is beyond us.

For most of the evil you and I see on a regular basis, we have no need to refer to anything beyond the human race itself.

Again, you seem not to have grasped what the text is saying. What happened to Job’s children and possessions was the result of a combination of human action and nature. Natural disasters are adversities, calamities, bad, ra’. It is only because of the modern meaning of evil and its tie in with such things as moral agency that we do not refer to them as evil.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:36 am**

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:00 am
So, if everything you owned was taken from you, if your children died , if you were covered from head to toe with boils it would be nothing more than something he did not like unless there were some legitimate way to show that it was evil?

Right.

Imagine this: imagine that this world is absolutely nothing but the product of an ancient cosmic accident. Accidentally, it set of a chain of cause-and-effect material events, including the creation of you, and all the events that have happened to you. Some of those events, it turns out you don't like -- pain, embarrassment, cancer, slavery -- and some you do -- ice cream, gold medals, family, lottery wins -- but all of these are also just accidental effects of accidental processes.

If that were true, what would "good" or "evil" mean? What would be "owed" you, so that you could claim something was "injustice"? All moral judgments you could make would be mere fictions of your mind...value judgments you just happened to make because of chemical combinations in your brain that were ultimately as random as your appearance on the planet.

In such a world, nobody owes you to save you from "evil," and nothing owes you to give you "good." There is no "injustice," because nobody "deserves" anything, whether better or worse. In such a universe, there is simply no way for you to protest your situation (like Job does) because there's nobody for you to protest it to.

That's the real situation of the Naturalist/Materialist in this world. They came from nothing, go to nothing, and are owed absolutely nothing. And none of their value judgments really matter at all, to anybody but themselves. They can feel they have been treated unjustly; but that's no more than a feeling, and nobody owes it to them to fix it. If they get boils, and their family dies then it's just hard cheese for them.

That's why the Naturalist / Materialist perspective is utterly inhumane. So most people can hold it only as a mere ontological idea, never letting it get into other areas of life, like their ethics, their social relations and politics. Because if it ever gets in there, then like acid, it eats everything. So they live inconsistently -- but we can't really be too unhappy if they do that, because they'd be much worse as people if they did actually try to live out their ontology.

What would stand as legitimation?

"Legitimation" is the ability to show that your value judgments are not mere personal preferences or feelings, but are oriented to the objective truth about what morality is. It requires the existence of an Authority capable of sponsoring it.

You are back to identifying adversity and evil after denying it.

I never left that position. But then, I never had to: I have an Authority capable of legitimating an assessment of what happens to Job as objectively evil. It's the person who sees the whole thing as a metaphor that has the problem.

No Authority, no objective morality. No objective morality, no reality to anybody's assessment of anything as "evil."

In trying to untangle the knots you have created you have become more and more entangled. You both accepted and denyied that what happened to Job can properly be called adversity until you finally settled on calling it “ the particular KIND of adversity” as if that were not what I have been talking about all along.

You're mistaken. I said as follows: that to call what happens to Job merely "adversity" trivializes it. It was not mere "adversity," but that particular species of adversity which is an expression of evil. However, in spite of the evil intended by the Adversary in chapter 1-2, I wrote...

In the end, it's only the sovereign supremacy of God that turns what should have been nothing but a tragic injustice into an eventual benefit.
But that is not what you said, is it? You claimed that the adversity itself, the evil itself, was good.

You've misunderstood, or I underexplained. Either is possible.

Any textual evidence to back up these claims?
Plenty. From Job 38 on, it's all about that.

Oh what tangled webs we weave … 38 on was his encounter with God. What I asked for evidence of was that Job benefitted from evil, from what you now call tragic injustice but you also called good.

No, see above. I said that Job was eventually blessed by God with the consummate good for humankind, despite the evil intended by the Adversary. That is, he obtained a more mature relationship with God Himself.

Once again this is not something he learned from what the adversary did to him.

Exactly. It was learned in spite of that, when in his faith he chose to cling to God anyway.

What it does tell us is that without God, pain, loss, injustice, evil, and so on are all meaningless.
That is one way to read it. Another is that the world and what happens are beyond our understanding.

It takes no great wisdom for anyone to tell us that, of course. And it wouldn't even be useful for us to know that, unless knowing that teaches us the other side of the story too: namely, that what we do not know, God does know. And when our resources are limited and inadequate, God's are not. That's the major lesson in Job, actually.

Job does not gain a godlike perspective

But he gains a better perspective on God.

...and neither do we. He has simply become aware of just how limited our perspective is. And so, we are not in a position to judge what is beyond us.

But if we, like Job, meet God, we are in a position to know WHO is beyond us.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:37 pm**

Immanuel Can:

If that were true, what would "good" or "evil" mean?

Just what they do now. Some would create a theodicy and others would either qualify the term ‘evil’ or choose another term. Some would reify good and evil and others would not. It is those who think that without God the kind of loss experienced by Job is nothing more than something he didn't like that I find evil, anathema to the well being of human beings.

What would be "owed" you …

Nothing is owed me, whether there is a God or not. Isn’t the assumption that God owed Job something just the kind of thing God faulted him for? That we are owed nothing is very unChristian idea!

… so that you could claim something was "injustice"?

What was God’s response to Job’s claim of injustice?

All moral judgments you could make would be mere fictions of your mind …

Not fictions, but not grounded in objective reality. Grounded in human experience and the natural bonds of human beings.

In such a world, nobody owes you to save you from "evil," and nothing owes you to give you "good."

Again, not comforting to your Christian worldview but born out in reality. God does not pick and choose those who are saved from war or famine or pestilence or disease or floods or hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes.

There is no "injustice," because nobody "deserves" anything, whether better or worse.

Ecclesiastes says there is no justice under the sun and our fate in death is the same for the righteous and the wicked.

We do, however, have a biological capacity for love and care and empathy as well as a capacity for hatred and revenge.

In such a universe, there is simply no way for you to protest your situation (like Job does) because there's nobody for you to protest it to.

And what does God say about Job’s protestations?

They came from nothing, go to nothing, and are owed absolutely nothing.

Not a story that is to your liking, but as Job learned the world does not bend to our desires.

And none of their value judgments really matter at all, to anybody but themselves.

And to each other. If you think that without God we are nothing to anyone but ourselves that, it seems to me, is a good sign that you need to critically examine your concept of God and man.

That's why the Naturalist / Materialist perspective is utterly inhumane.

No, that is why the theistic perspective is utterly inhumane. It takes away from us the very thing we are capable of, love, care, and compassion. They are human traits and to think that without God man would not have those traits is to regard human beings as less than they are, as incapable of humanity.

So most people can hold it only as a mere ontological idea, never letting it get into other areas of life, like their ethics, their social relations and politics.

The most obvious and glaring problem with this is that it is not born out by the facts. Unless you live in a protected enclave there are atheists living right along side of you, treating you with just as much regard, courtesy, and concern as you treat others.

… if they did actually try to live out their ontology.

Many do live out their “ontology”. They take responsibility for their actions and their lives. They do not blame sin and evil or believe that they are powerless against sin except for the grace of God. They are keenly aware that all we have is each other and the earth on which we live, and so they care and nurture them. They do not believe that God will provide and they do not believe that whatever they do, no matter how heinous or destructive, it is done in accord with the will of God. They do not believe that values come to us from on high but that they are created us because we value.

"Legitimation" is the ability to show that your value judgments are not mere personal preferences or feelings, but are oriented to the objective truth about what morality is. It requires the existence of an Authority capable of sponsoring it.

And what happens when people differ as to who or what that Authority is and what it sanctions and prohibits?

If the issue had been about an objective assessment that would hold equally well for evil and adversity. You are imposing a meaning on the term ‘evil’ or 'ra’'. You are of course free to read the text any way you wish but if we are trying to understand the story on its own terms then we cannot import foreign and anachronistic terminology.

A few passages from the Hebrew Bible where ‘evil’ occurs:

If we accept the good from God must we not also accept the evil? (Job 2:10)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

It should be noted that some translations do not translate ra’ in this passage as evil but ‘disaster, ‘bad times’ ‘sorrow’ ‘calamity’

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people. (Exodus 323:14)

Here too we find ra’ translated not only as evil but ‘disaster, ‘harm’, ‘destruction’, ‘calamity’

Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; then we shall say that an evil beast has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams.

(Genesis 37:20) Some translate ra’ as ‘wild’ or ‘ferocious’

It should be noted that in the first three passages the evil done originates with God, and, as the alternate translations show it is descriptive of something that has happened or might happen that is deleterious to human beings. In the last passage an evil or wild or ferocious beast in not an objective moral evaluation legitimized by “an Authority”. In all the cases what is called ‘evil’ is so because of the harm it does to human beings.

Exactly. It was learned in spite of that, when in his faith he chose to cling to God anyway.

Where does it say he clung to God? The adversary was wrong, Job did not curse God, but he did question God, he challenge God, he claimed that God had treated him unjustly. He was adrift and clung to nothing but his own anger and dispair.

What it does tell us is that without God, pain, loss, injustice, evil, and so on are all meaningless.

… the other side of the story too: namely, that what we do not know, God does know. And when our resources are limited and inadequate, God's are not.

It is quite obvious from the story that we are told (although we do not see) that he is overwhelmed by God’s power, but was it necessary for Job to be broken before he could see what God showed him? How does Job’s awareness of God’s knowledge and unlimited resources make his pain, loss, injustice, evil, and so on any less meaningless?

But he gains a better perspective on God.

Not only a better perspective on God but a better perspective on man, who is dwarfed by the world beyond the world in which he makes his home. The perspective he gains is an awareness of just how inadequate his perspective is. So much less ours, who only hear with our ears and do not see with our eyes.

But if we, like Job, meet God, we are in a position to know WHO is beyond us.

And have you met God? Did he appear to you out of the whirlwind? Was it necessary for you to first suffer as Job did? Or is your God a familiar? A god who takes the form of a man? A god who suffers so you do not have to? A god who anyone can chat with?

These are rhetorical questions. If you are going to try and turn this into a discussion of Christianity it will be without my help.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:29 pm**

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:37 pm Not fictions, but not grounded in objective reality. Grounded in human experience and the natural bonds of human beings.

The point of a "ground" is that it does not move. Human experiences and bonds move all the time -- they change from person to person, and from society to society, and from age to age. So that's no ground at all.

We do, however, have a biological capacity for love and care and empathy as well as a capacity for hatred and revenge.

But if Naturalism is true, those are merely contingent facts. We owe those facts nothing: they could have been otherwise.

And meanwhile, we also have capacities for hatred, cruelty, racism and savagery of all kinds. That does not morally dignify them.

Job learned the world does not bend to our desires.

But his conversation wasn't with "the world."

And none of their value judgments really matter at all, to anybody but themselves.
And to each other.

Actually, no. You have no obligation to care about my value judgments, just as I have no interest in agreeing with yours, if none of them are objective.

"Legitimation" is the ability to show that your value judgments are not mere personal preferences or feelings, but are oriented to the objective truth about what morality is. It requires the existence of an Authority capable of sponsoring it.
And what happens when people differ as to who or what that Authority is and what it sanctions and prohibits?

Objective facts are not based on preferences. If morality is objective, then what people may or may not prefer is of zero consequence. It's not they who set the objective facts.

Exactly. It was learned in spite of that, when in his faith he chose to cling to God anyway.

Where does it say he clung to God? ...Job did not curse God...[/quote]
Right. You just answered your own question. The temptation was to "curse God." (Job 1:11).

"Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him..." (Job. 13:15)

[/quote]
It is quite obvious from the story that we are told (although we do not see) that he is overwhelmed by God’s power, but was it necessary for Job to be broken before he could see what God showed him? [/quote]
That's not a question I can answer. We're not told what would have happened if things had been different than they were.

How does Job’s awareness of God’s knowledge and unlimited resources make his pain, loss, injustice, evil, and so on any less meaningless?

It's not about mere facts about God. It's about Job's understanding of the truth about His own relationship with God. For to know God is the consummate good for human beings, compared to which adversities are nothing.

We learn a lot by adversity, and very little through prosperity. I think you'll find that axiom applies to life generally, not merely to Job.

But he gains a better perspective on God.
Not only a better perspective on God but a better perspective on man, who is dwarfed by the world beyond the world in which he makes his home. The perspective he gains is an awareness of just how inadequate his perspective is. So much less ours, who only hear with our ears and do not see with our eyes.

That's well put. The sum of it is, we're not as big and important as we think we are. And we're far less adequate to carrying on by ourselves than we often imagine ourselves to be.

These are rhetorical questions.

Then they are not asking for a reply, I must assume. That's your prerogative, of course. I shall honour it.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:37 pm**

Immanuel Can:

The point of a "ground" is that it does not move.

And that is why many contemporary philosophers have rejected the notion of an unmovable ground. But this is nothing new. Socrates’ human wisdom, his knowledge of his ignorance, has not been surpassed. That is not to say we know nothing as some wrongly assume, but that we know nothing of what he calls the most important questions. We simply do the best we can and avoid mistaking what we hear for knowledge.

But if Naturalism is true, those are merely contingent facts.

If naturalism is true there are no contingent facts, just facts.

We owe those facts nothing: they could have been otherwise.

Yup.

And meanwhile, we also have capacities for hatred, cruelty, racism and savagery of all kinds. That does not morally dignify them.

And meanwhile belief in God has not changed that. Nor has the existence of God.

But his conversation wasn't with "the world."

His encounter was.

Actually, no. You have no obligation to care about my value judgments, just as I have no interest in agreeing with yours, if none of them are objective.

Right, we have no such obligation. Some of us, however, believe we can learn from others. Some of us have respect for others. Some of us, believe that tolerance of different beliefs and judgments is conducive to harmony in a world we share with others.

Objective facts are not based on preferences. If morality is objective, then what people may or may not prefer is of zero consequence. It's not they who set the objective facts.

But I do not think that morality is objective. Societies have had a shared morality, a morality that most accepted but that morality has not been shared with other societies. Today there is no shared morality. There are many issues about which we cannot find agreement and nothing that stands above as the objective truth that all can all see and understand and accept. What you may hold to be objective morality may run counter to what another believes to be objective morality.

"Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him..." (Job. 13:15)

While some translations have “trust” others translate it as almost the opposite:

Lo, He doth slay me -- I wait not! Only, my ways unto His face I argue. (Young’s Literal Translation)

It may be that he will slay me. I have no higher expectations. Nonetheless I will defend my ways before him (Sacks, Commentary on the Book of Job)

In his notes Sacks says that this is the ketir (what is actually written). The geri (how the tradition says it is to be read) is trust. He leaves it at that. Another puzzling aspect of a puzzling story.

That's not a question I can answer. We're not told what would have happened if things had been different than they were.

That is correct. And so you cannot say that what befell him was good since you cannot say what would have happened if things had been different.

For to know God is the consummate good for human beings …

Job does not know God, he knows that God is incomprehensible to man. Does the text say that God is the consummate good? DoesJob concluded that god is the consummate good? Would the consummate good allow the adversary do to Job what he did?

We learn a lot by adversity, and very little through prosperity.

Perhaps, but Job was a simple man, a perfect man who turned away from evil. Was he really in need of learning? Did learning have anything to do with God’s allowing the Adversary to afflict Job? There is no mention of how it might be of benefit to Job or how he might learn from it. What must an upright man learn in order to serve his God that he did not already know?

The sum of it is, we're not as big and important as we think we are.

And yet you think you are owed something that cannot be paid if there were no God.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:40 am**

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:37 pm Immanuel Can:

The point of a "ground" is that it does not move.
And that is why many contemporary philosophers have rejected the notion of an unmovable ground.

But notice, they still want to talk about "good" and "bad," about "justice" and "injustice," but with no grounds for doings so.

But if Naturalism is true, those are merely contingent facts.
If naturalism is true there are no contingent facts, just facts.

"Contingent" means the opposite of "necessary." It means "could have been otherwise," which you agree with below:

We owe those facts nothing: they could have been otherwise.
Yup.

And meanwhile, we also have capacities for hatred, cruelty, racism and savagery of all kinds. That does not morally dignify them.
And meanwhile belief in God has not changed that. Nor has the existence of God.

Ad hominem tu quoque. It doesn't help your case. Even if I were personally a complete hypocrite, it would not suddenly transform Naturalism so that it became moral. Naturalism is inherently amoral; and that's a problem that is intrinsic to it, whether or not there were other alternatives around.

Actually, no. You have no obligation to care about my value judgments, just as I have no interest in agreeing with yours, if none of them are objective.
Right, we have no such obligation.

You forgot the "if" clause. You assume we have no such obligation. I do not.

Some of us, however, believe we can learn from others. Some of us have respect for others. Some of us, believe that tolerance of different beliefs and judgments is conducive to harmony in a world we share with others.

But that is all merely contingent as well; and nothing in a Naturalistic universe even remotely shows which view is more moral -- to "accept others," or to eat their children.

Objective facts are not based on preferences. If morality is objective, then what people may or may not prefer is of zero consequence. It's not they who set the objective facts.
But I do not think that morality is objective.

The facts don't care.

You may "think" morality is not objective, and I may "think" it is. That will change nothing, either way. If morality is objective, then your claim not to believe in it just stands to makes you a bad person if you violate it; interestingly, if I disbelieve in subjective morality, and do anything I want to contravene it, then that rationally doesn't make me "bad" at all -- for in subjective morality, nothing is objectively so. You may then call me "bad," if you feel you want to; but I won't objectively be it.

Societies have had a shared morality,

Contingent.

Today there is no shared morality.

Right. That's the problem with moral relativism. In the end, it means there is none at all. Philosophers today use the term "incommensurability" to describe that situation.

We learn a lot by adversity, and very little through prosperity.
Perhaps, but Job was a simple man, a perfect man who turned away from evil. Was he really in need of learning?

He thought so; at least, he came to the realization that he had not known nearly as much about God or suffering as he had thought he knew.

The sum of it is, we're not as big and important as we think we are.
And yet you think you are owed something that cannot be paid if there were no God.

No, I don't, actually. If there were no God, we not only couldn't be paid; we couldn't even deserve to be paid . Like everything else, our own existence would be merely contingent. We could have not existed, and the universe would not have cared.

It's only if we are inherently valuable, creatures worthy of dignity and respect because derived (just as Locke, the instigator of all our Modern, Western intrinsic human rights language, said) from the Supreme Being, that we can be "owed" any kind of respect or justice at all. And even then, we get no more and no less and no other than the Supreme Being assigns to us.

So like Job, we're in no position to go accusing God of not giving us 'our fair share,' so to speak. The Naturalist has to think we were "owed" nothing at all by the way of justice, dignity, fairness or happiness anyway. So he can't logically complain, and ask, "Why is the world not fair to me?"

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:00 am**

Immanuel Can:

But notice, they still want to talk about "good" and "bad," about "justice" and "injustice," but with no grounds for doings so.

No absolute, eternal, unchanging, objective grounds. Such a thing has never existed. It is the illusion of grounds. Like Wile E. Coyote, don't look down. If there were grounds there would be no disagreement regarding such things.

Ad hominem tu quoque. It doesn't help your case. Even if I were personally a complete hypocrite, it would not suddenly transform Naturalism so that it became moral

.

It has nothing to do with you. Neither naturalism nor theism changes the fact that there is hatred, cruelty, racism and savagery of all kinds in the world. Naturalism, by which I mean the rejection of supernatural causes, entities, and explanations, is morally neutral. Morality is a matter of human nature and deliberation.

You forgot the "if" clause. You assume we have no such obligation. I do not.

I did not forget it, I have made it clear that I reject objective value judgments.

But that is all merely contingent as well; and nothing in a Naturalistic universe even remotely shows which view is more moral -- to "accept others," or to eat their children.

Is the only thing that keeps you from eating your children that God told you not to? Do you imagine that this is a common practice among atheists?

The facts don't care.

And believing something or asserting something does not make it a fact.

… if I disbelieve in subjective morality, and do anything I want to contravene it, then that rationally doesn't make me "bad" at all

Rationally, it would not make you “bad” only if there is no distinction between good and bad in subjective morally. There is.

Today there is no shared morality.
Right. That's the problem with moral relativism.

That is the reality of morality. You assert some set of objective moral truths, others assert some other set of objective moral truths, and there is no way to resolve it. Moral claims are not moral facts.

It's only if we are inherently valuable, creatures worthy of dignity and respect ...

This is a view that many relativists and atheists share. Differences arise with regard to what follows from our inherent value.

The Naturalist has to think we were "owed" nothing at all by the way of justice, dignity, fairness or happiness anyway.

The naturalist holds that we owe each other, not by virtue of a supernatural being, but because we are human beings who value other human beings. We are by nature social animals. From a very young age babies exhibit empathy, becoming distressed if another baby cries or seeing a frowning face. It is because we care that we are concerned with justice, dignity, fairness or happiness, and we care because that is the kind of beings we are. Care is not learned it is inborn, part of our biology as social animals.

Are we done discussing Job?

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:07 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm
gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:33 am
thanks for thoughtful (your post shows a mind that thinks - a welcome thing to me- and sadly rare today it seems - maybe I'm jaded/biased though in thinking such a thing is rare) reply - i agree fully with it BTW.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm Biblically speaking, that's just what Israel actually did. The Torah is a repetition of cycles of decline away from faithfulness, followed by punishment and return. The Golden Calf or the Sin of Peor would be just two good examples. The Babylonian Captivity is another. And in that, your allegorical interpretation becomes hard to sustain;

yes I know of the Torah's "morality" - using pagan armies to correct Israelis/Irsael conduct.

the "rod" of correction via God.

a view that I think author of Job rejected.

He wrote his work in a time when the Israelis were not "wayward" WRT to God's mandates for moral conduct.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm for Job does not accuse God, nor does he abandon his faith. Israel clearly has done that,
not at the time Job was written.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm from time to time...worshipping the Baals, becoming lawless and corrupt, then being returned.

yes - per other times and other works of the Bible WRT to those times.

not WRT to when Job was written though.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm Yes. And this belief is similar to what anybody assumes when they think the universe owes us some kind of fairness; if that were true, then mishaps could be evidence of nothing but sin of some kind. And Job's friends accuse him of secret sins, because they can't find any more obvious ones. Their deduction is logical, if their worldview were true; unfortunately for them, it's just not.
author of Job was "ahead of his time" and reject the above viewpoint! - and one (among 2-3 other reasons) i like both the work Job and its author.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm One would agree on the human level. Sickness happens to good people and bad; and so does good fortune. We don't live in a universe attended by automatic just and proportional consequences.
precisely! a view you, i and the author of Job shared concerning the human condition.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm If that were true, the author would be rejecting Torah.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! HE WAS!!!!!!!!! - just as the author of Jonah was fully rejecting the works of Ezra!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

both authors were Humanists!!!!!!

Torah theorlogy and Esra were Tribalists! - the opposite! of the mentality of Job/Jonah (jonah is another fav of mine - love the pagan fisherman in that work - being more "godly" moral than the lazy sleeping "godly" jonah - during the storm.

I love Amos too BTW - the earliest work of the bible - when Jews were a ruling power and full of pride and gleeful over the their God's destruction of their neighbors - Amos also a Jew (but one of a greater non tribal mentality- saw his own as prideful and petty and unworthy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm For Torah says that Israel was often judged for having done evil (Isaiah 59:2, for example) and some of this was by being dominated by less-Godly nations(see the minor prophet Habakkuk). So again, the allegory for which you hoped breaks down.
I know fully the theology of the Torah.

my "allegory" (did i make one?)???????????

all is state is my view of the author of Job - which i think is as my original post.

and yes, I think he rejected the Torah theology of "national correction".

as I think the author of Jonah did.

and author of Amos would have done if he were writting in a time when the Jews did not rule. (from his work you see a univeral justice - fixated upon the sin of pride (which of course did not apply in the time of Job/Jonah - when the formerly prideful are inslaved/occupied.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm Now, a caveat: I'm not saying that any other nation, in Israel's place, would have done any better; indeed, they may well have done far worse. But Torah is quite clear that Israel did not stay faithful, the way Job did. And that's a big problem for your interpretation.

with respect. disagree fully.......I know of Torah theology and that of Job's theology. they do not agree!

Israel was faithful at time Job was written and author of Job was not agreeing with Torah theology WRT to occupation via Gods will by Persians.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm I think we can go farther with this line of thought, without failing to be humble. God does not rebuke anybody for questioning per se: only for demanding an answer according to their own tastes.
yes agree.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm Okay. That doesn't really impinge on the question of any real-world referent (whether people generally, or Israel) for this particular story, does it?
nope. just clarifying for those believers that might get all "uppity" with my views on God thinking I'm a Christian/Jew/Muslim. just state that I'm none of those for clarity - not out of any sense of identity of hubris.

Atheism offers nothing - i'm one out of upbringing in a such a household - not a child "at war with God" due to being raised in a Fundie home. As long as a guy or gal is a moral person - they can be Zorroastrian, Hindu, etc.................of no matter to me. you a like God? more power to you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm I don't know that you have to believe anything in particular to be qualified to evaluate the meaning of the allegory.
I don't think you have to Believe - IMO..................of course I'm biased in that view being an Athiest

.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm I am. But that also needn't matter for the present purpose.
thats ok, whatever floats your boat.

just a theme i have no interest in.

I'm an Ant - God (assuming he IS) is the sidewalk.

as an Ant I'll never understand the sidewalk (in fact its orders of magntude less!!!!!!!!!!!!! - as an ant i will never even see the sidewalk!!!!)

such debates are of no interest to me not knowing the mind of God.

-maybe in the next life (which of course as an athiest i deny therein of) - but if there is such, and i find myself on a higher plain of understanding/nature WRT to God - then maybe I'll post a "thread" (or whatever that equivalent of in that realm is).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm
Well, I think the problems inherent in that interpretation remain significant; and not for any reason of my own, but because key parts of the proposed nationalist interpretation don't seem to me to account for major parts of the Job narrative. I'd be happy to accept it, at least as one level of a multi-level interpretation, if I could make it square with the story; but I can't see it yet. Maybe you can clear up how Job can be faithful, but Torah says Israel has been regularly unfaithful.
my interpretation is per Job and Job only. it constradicts (yes i think the author of Job had a problem and even rejected the Torah view of "god using pagan nations to punish israel"...........................at thet time that work was written Jews were occupied by Persia and were not sinning.

not IMO nor sinning in the oppinion of the author of Job.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:46 pm
Again, my caveat: in saying "Israel has been unfaithful," I'm not denigrating Israel more than my own nation, or than any other. I'm quite pro-Semitic, as my pseudonym implies: "Immanuel" is a Hebrew name,(עִמָּנוּאֵל)‬ found in Isaiah 7:14, and some other places. I'm just saying it's human nature NOT to be faithful, at least not for very long.

2 more cents
I'm a humanist and view Israel (not Jews) as an Apartheid State. I fully support the Palestinians (WB occupation is illegal under international law).

I think the authors of Amos, Job and Jonah - if they were with us today would also condemn Israel and side with the Palestinians.

..................

but i'm an antisemite - AIPAC says so. (anyone that critisizes Israel - even as they beat the shit out of Palis - are anti semites.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:24 am**

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:19 pm There are actually two separate stories involving Job, one Jewish, and one not Jewish. The Jewish one makes no reference to a bet between an alleged Satan and an alleged God.

really? Ahriman is not mentioned in a tanakh version of Job?

tell me more.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:50 am**

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:32 pm gaffo:

Job = Isrealis of 200 BC (under 200 yrs of occupation by Persians)
We do not when the book was written. According to Bible.org closer to 2000 BC than 200 BC., but I do not think it relevant to a timeless story.

folks of 200 BC understood that Job was "them"

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:32 pm I think it probable that more sophisticated readers and listeners have always realized that they are being addressed. Then as now people ask why, what the reason is for what happens to them.

you have your view "sola scriture" for you. I do share that view as valid (per a force fit of "Scripture" - I affirn EACH WORK in "Bible" separated by author's character, intent, theology, and centuries..........................to all others works in the "Biblle.

for me i note the time each work was written and the intent of the author (to his brethen of THAT TIME) - then i knowing of history am able to know more of the "mind and intent" of the author of each work - according to the time it was written (and to whom)

BTW the only reason Job is thought (by Sola Scripurist - not actual Biblical scholors ) to be older than my assumed 200 BC (800 BC is the date they claim BTW) - is due to the preable of Job..................with its Polytheistic canaanite poetic license (that is what it was BTW - poetic license!!!!!!!!!!!!! by the Author (who know his audience would not it was so!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - such sad irony that folks today know less than the audience author of Job did and take the preamble as a literal view of the mentality of Jews at time Job was written (Jews were polytheistic, Satan preamble in job shows this!!!!!!!!.

lol.
folly.

its called poetic license (harkening(sp) back to the "house of Cananites.............where there were many gods (heveanly court) mot, Baal. Yhwha, ect............(Baal is Yhwh brother BTW and El is their daddy...........Asharia is God Wife too of course). Preamble of Job was written in a style that would date it to 800 BC if taken literally.

it was written 600 yrs later.

if anyone would like to start a thread as to why the author wrote the preamble that harkens back to cananite polytheology, I'd welcome it.

I've often thought of "why would he do so" many times myself.

----must have serves some sort of "thematic license" of some sort, just not found it myself.

................

oh ya, BTW Job was written bet - 300 to 200 BC.

there only one "historical marker" - Bellal/Satan/ ahriman ................who did no exist in Judiam prior to the second exile.

so, since Job references "satan" it HAD to have been written AFTER the return of the Jewish Exies via the defeat of Nebikanazer(sp).................so post 490 BC.

and seeing its all about "Why are we still occuppied"................it must have been written long afer 490 BC for the author to write a work to address the congregation's question.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:39 am**

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:44 pm Satan has a dramatically different meaning for Christians than it does for Jews,

true, (BTW Jews prior to 587 did not have Belial.

thank Iddo for them adopting him later.

.......

per

the latter/today Jews Belail.

He served God - per Zachariah.

accuser of man's faith toward God (god's "dirty work man".

Belial's personality decended from the time he first showed up (adopted by Jews from Persians (Ahriman) by Iddo)) - and mandated to the pleab jews never exited when Iddo and Ezra returned be excepted within Judaism as a deity (one they did not except prior to the return of the top 20 percent elite exiles.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:44 pm and the Jews did not even have Satan appearing in the Adam and Eve story,

correct Sir. "snake" in Genesis is from:

enuma elish

the "snake" in that work is clearly an unnamed Babylonian God......who spoke the truth BTW (for another thread).

not "satan" - who was not know to either Jews (Cananites at that time) nor Babylonians.

Genesis predates Belial by 700 yrs.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:44 pm the Christians changed the story by making the snake Satan.

yes and no.

per what is left to history (NT Apocolypse work) yes.

BUT, the author of the Apocolypse was a former Essene (the clues as to my view of this is in that work (greek in that work as poor(not the author's native language)/Abbaddon a deity only mention here and in the Kumran Scrolls - for another thread of anyone is interested.

i.e. IMO the author of Appocoypse would not invent the view of "snake = Satan" himself.

rather he would relate that - by the time his work was written down - equivocation. by Jews and Christians.

- this is just my view.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:44 pm Just pointing out that when people like Gaffo use a Christian interpretation of a Jewish story, they never get it right. Ever.

what did i not get right sci?

you have a mind - if you are able to get outside of your tribalism and not just ignore me as a tribal dick would (and lable me as an anti semite for being oppossed to injustice).

i.e. willing to converse if vise versa - or it not so be it.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:55 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:37 pm
Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:19 pm There are actually two separate stories involving Job, one Jewish, and one not Jewish. The Jewish one makes no reference to a bet between an alleged Satan and an alleged God.
Not a "bet," and not "between," as if mutuality were involved. It's an antagonism.

The term Satan means "accuser."

it important to understand the "Decent of Satan" per Judiaic (and later Christian) thought.

from originally serving God as the accuser of man (refer to Zachariah).

to a "bet" between God and Belial.

...............(and how we know the authorship of Job is AFTER Zach)....................

To the latter view in the time of Jesus (and today).

where Belial no longer serves God as an accuser to man, but is actually an enemy of God himself!

................Theological evolution in action is what we have.

just was we had 2000 yrs ago.

El is not YHWH father, but is YHWH himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

................

um no. El is Yhwh's daddy. and Baal's too BTW

but i'm just an athiest so ignore me.

lol.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:04 am**

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:32 pm

I don’t think it is quite so simple. The assumption, as his friends make clear, is that there must be a reason why this has happened. We know the reason and by our lights it was neither reasonable nor just for God to allow it. When Job challenges him God responds by saying that Job cannot understand. It is a matter of God’s will and God’s will cannot be understood in terms of reason and justice. Ecclesiastes is similar in this regard.

Remove God and the adversary and you get the atheist version, sht just happens. The rest remains the same. Things do not happen for a reason determined by right or wrong action, and, as Ecclesiastes says, there is no justice under the sun.

agree, refer to my prior reply.

thank for thoughtful reply to me.

concur fully Sir.

Philosophy Now Forum

Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job

Re: Book of Job