Yes, Haught uses the fallacy of equivocation between trust and blind faith. As Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith is the I just say so of credulity. As Dawkins would note, one should go to scientists for inormation about the World and to theologians about castle-building in the air!
Science proves itself such that methodological naturalism works. We naturalists carry it to religion and the paranormal[ See Paul Kurtz’s “The Transcendent Temptation"] where we demand evidence,even non-scientific to show God. Theists have to overcome the presumption of naturalism. Doug notes about prayer,etc.
Yet others laud Haught as the answer to Dawkins when he only obscures! That is the nature of theologians- to obscure in order to make God plain.

Yes, Haught uses the fallacy of equivocation between trust and blind faith. As Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith is the I just say so of credulity. As Dawkins would note, one should go to scientists for inormation about the World and to theologians about castle-building in the air!
Science proves itself such that methodological naturalism works. We naturalists carry it to religion and the paranormal[ See Paul Kurtz’s “The Transcendent Temptation"] where we demand evidence,even non-scientific to show God. Theists have to overcome the presumption of naturalism. Doug notes about prayer,etc.
Yet others laud Haught as the answer to Dawkins when he only obscures! That is the nature of theologians- to obscure in order to make God plain.

We give far too much attention to theistic justifications for belief. Hook said it very concisely. They beg the question of what knowledge is and how it is acquired. As such, they have earned no place at the table of reasoned thought. That doesn’t mean that a theist should be disrespected, but it does mean that arguments for theism, qua arguments, don’t merit much attention.

Erasmusinfinity—sure you can quote it.

Kirk, glad to have you here to push on a bit in an intelligent way.

inthegobi - 03 January 2008 12:31 AM

What me, tell you about the meaning of unjust or unnecessary suffering? What do I know? But let’s ask an expert - other than Job, whose story bears closer reading than almost anyone gives it:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html
Briefly, there seem four positions. God is not all-knowing, or not all-powerful, or not all-benevolent (he doesn’t care), or suffering has to have meaning even when it’s unnecessary or unjust. None of them are easy.

Re. the Vatican essay, you’ll have to forgive me for not having the time or patience to wade through it. Perhaps a summary would be in order? Because on its face the story of Job is the story of a nasty God who tormented a decent soul in order to look good in front of the Devil. Hmm, not exactly a great example of omnibenevolence.

Re. your four positions: given that the standard theological God is defined as the all knowing, all powerful, perfectly good person who created and/or sustains the world, your first three options are de facto denials of God’s existence. OK, fair enough, but then a lot of the standard theological arguments start failing as well, and one does begin to lose touch with the neoplatonist theologians who kicked the whole thing off in the first place. If he’s not God, why does he merit everlasting devotion and obedience? Etc.

The fourth position is the standard theistic fallback. It amounts to a white flag of surrender. What it’s saying is that the theist has no account of evil in the world. The evidence from evil is quite conclusive that God cannot exist. What remains is basically an irrational turn to “faith” (which Harris has quite good arguments against, I’m afraid), or simple obscurantism in the name of the Lord. That is, claiming that “evil for God” is somehow different than “evil for us”—which goes back to what I said before: we have to change the definition of evil when God does it. But then whence the idea that we are created in God’s image? Whence the idea that God is omnibenevolent? Whence the neoplatonic idea that God created a comprehensible universe? It all goes out the window.

Or we give up on the fiction of God.

The problem of evil is monotheism’s Achilles heel. At least the polytheists had a ready explanation for the evil in the world. Monotheists (at least those of the standard variety) simply don’t.

It’s been quite a while since I read it, so forgive my paraphrasing.  Job says, “Hey, God.  I’ve done everything you wanted, yet you are screwing me over.  Why me?”

God says, “You stupid piece of feces.  How dare you think you are bright enough to understand, let alone question my motives?”

This seems to present a dilemma for the practicing christian.  If the christian accepts this and s/he rejects the concept that god is evil, then s/he cannot know what god considers evil.  As such, is the christian justified in defining ANY action as evil since s/he doesn’t know if god considers it such?  S/he don’t even know if going against the Decalogue is evil, only that s/he is commanded not to break those covenanants.

This would seem to allow any christian to do any evil thing that is not specifically prohibited in the bible (sleeping with one’s daughter, for example).  S/he may be breaking humans’ laws but such actions wouldn’t preclude him/her from entering heaven and sitting at the right hand of god.

Occam

Occam - 03 January 2008 05:39 PM

It’s been quite a while since I read it, so forgive my paraphrasing.  Job says, “Hey, God.  I’ve done everything you wanted, yet you are screwing me over.  Why me?”

God says, “You stupid piece of feces.  How dare you think you are bright enough to understand, let alone question my motives?”

This seems to present a dilemma for the practicing christian.

I’m sorry, but it seems to me that argument by crude ridicule is underwhelming and a bit juvenile.

Sorry, you quoted my premises, not my argument.  You may not have cared for the paraphrasing, but read Job 31 and you will see that he is listing all the evil he could have done but didn’t and all the good he did in the name of and for the glory of god; then he asks why god has seen fit to visit these calamities on him. 

In Job 38, it starts off, “Then the Lord addressed Job out of the storm and said, ‘Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance?’” Then for the rest of Job 38, 39, 40 and 41, he tells all the wonderful things he has done and challenges Job to say he could also have done or even understood them.

My paraphrasing, while less genteel or decorous than you would prefer, was quite accurate.  As such, I stand by the conclusions in my third and fourth paragraphs which, by the way, I don’t consider crude or juvenile. 

I suggest that if you wish to argue against my statements, you dig out your bible and read the book of Job carefully, first.

Please forgive me for not quoting precisely in my first post, but it was the best I could do since it was just about fifty-three years since I read it.

Occam

Occam - 03 January 2008 11:58 PM

Sorry, you quoted my premises, not my argument.  ... My paraphrasing, while less genteel or decorous than you would prefer, was quite accurate.  As such, I stand by the conclusions in my third and fourth paragraphs which, by the way, I don’t consider crude or juvenile.

We obviously differ.

Occam - 03 January 2008 11:58 PM

Sorry, you quoted my premises, not my argument.  You may not have cared for the paraphrasing, but read Job 31 and you will see that he is listing all the evil he could have done but didn’t and all the good he did in the name of and for the glory of god; then he asks why god has seen fit to visit these calamities on him. 

In Job 38, it starts off . . . .

(Groucho eyebrows) You understand a story by reading the ending first. But i’m being picky.

How about a few pointers?
(1)In the story - as a story - the author has put only one request in Job’s mouth. And that one request is the ONLY ACT performed by the character ‘Yahweh’, in the whole story. It is an amusing coda that Yahweh deals roughly with Job, not the point of the story; further proof that it’s not about God’s inscrutability is that Job’s happy even despite the tongue-lashing, and the author gives us ample reason to believe it by the end.

So let’s look at other interesting parts of the story, that aren’t well understood until you actually read the author’s own thought:

(2) The author does not tell us that Yahweh gave powers to the character ‘Adversary’ that Adversary didn’t already possess. All the author puts into Yahweh’s mouth is something like ‘Look here, you have power over him’ not ‘Let you have power over him.’ That Yahweh somehow is visiting evils on Job because Adversary tempts him to do so is a common mistake in reading this story.

(3) Yahweh threatens or warns Adversary each time: “Look there’s Job, and here you are -” Yahweh grabs Adversary by the collar and narrows his eyes a bit - ‘but don’t hurt him” he says in the first part, then ‘Dont’ kill him’ in the second. Adversary ends up hurting Job anyway, and in my opinion Job symbolically dies (recall that this is the about the 6th century BC: salvation for more than kings was much in the air. The wife is a good example of the older thought that once you’re dead, that’s it: ‘The dead don’t praise Thee/ Neither do they who go down below’, an early psalm says.) The Adversary is foiled exactly because suffering, and even death, are in fact just food for the just and pious man to become even more of what Adversary is so envious of. Or that is the Author’s thought, so it seems.

(4) The facts of the story are that Adversary keeps *tempting* God to do act against Job Himself, through a weird set of hypothetical negatives of the form: “If you were to be not like you are, Yahweh, then Job would not be like he is.” But Yahweh isn’t like that, and Job isn’t like that. So A’s whole ‘case’ is counterfactual. Adversary has two targets, not one. First, he wants Job to curse God just like he, Adversary does in his heart - that’s one fact slowly being revealed to the reader in the two scenes in Yahweh’s Court. Second, Adversary wants God to will suffering, again just like Adversary does in the story. All the knowledgeable characters n the story know that: Job, the Court, Yahweh; even Adversary, who never once dares to actually contradict Yahweh. Tres interesant.

(5) Just in case the reader is attracted to Adversary’s rigged case, the author gets pretty tart with anyone in the story who might support Adversary’s case: Job’s wife is an ‘idiot’; the three friends are ridiculed by ‘not noticing’ him, looking at him ‘from afar’, and talking while looking up in the air ‘to the heavens’, like a bunch of academics - like an individual’s suffering is just a data-point for a theory. (The author would have no truck with evolutionary explanations of suffering, which make the individual’s suffering irrelevant to discuss.)

(6) There IS a place in the story that an atheist might like. Probably the three friends section is the author’s indictment of traditional religious or cultural answers to Job’s suffering, all of which assume it’s Job’s fault wihout actually noticing that it can’t be Job’s fault, since the author already told us he’s the perfectly just and pious man.

(7) Another common mistake: every bad action isn’t just done by Adversary, he’s the cause of the whole contest. Even Yahweh’s disgusted with him: ‘You *used* Me against Job’ is Yahweh’s tart reply to Adversary at the beginning of the second test in chapter 2. God’s goodness gave Adversary the freedom to display his character, and Adversary is all too eager to oblige. It would be hard to imagine a world where we are free to decide and yet are stopped from carrying out every act of ill-will.

(8) Yahweh and Adversary make two claims: Y’s claim is that A is an envious SOB who’s ill-willed right to the core; A instead blames God for being a softie, and having unchallenged worshippers like Job. The author firmly shows that A’s case is utterly false; by extension, A’s own actions makes Y’s original charge obvious to the Court watching the events - and that Court is us, the readers. The whole thrust of the story is “Which story is the better, Yahweh’s or Adbersary’s?”

With gentle persuasion, perhaps we all should read the story carefully now, together. If not, at least compare its form to Pullman’s when you have a minute. Who’s the tauter stylist? Who is more psychologically real about things like envy or suffering? (PUllman, in an interview, touted his books are more psychologically realistic than CS Lewis’s books.) Who’s got more bang per sentence?

Isn’t there a thread on suffering? Let’s transfer it there, if you wish. But read the story first; no more handy brochures. Don’t be ignorant of ancient literature, it’s bad for you.

thanks for sending me back to reading Job,

Kirk

Er, the reference to the Adversary is a red herring, unless we are going in for Manichaeism. There is only one God, and he is all-powerful. So let’s not go blaming the bad stuff on Adversary. He’s only a convenient foil for the story-line. Theologically he’s powerless.

inthegobi - 04 January 2008 07:44 AM

… further proof that it’s not about God’s inscrutability is that Job’s happy even despite the tongue-lashing, and the author gives us ample reason to believe it by the end.

This isn’t further proof of God’s scrutability, it’s further proof that the story is supposed to tell us that true happiness comes from irrational faith. (Have faith in God’s plan even if it seems things are going all to hell for you). It’s a convenient fiction, or rather an adult fairy-tale.

dougsmith - 04 January 2008 08:24 AM

This isn’t further proof of God’s scrutability, it’s further proof that the story is supposed to tell us that true happiness comes from irrational faith.

Actually - just the opposite.

Jayhawker Soule - 04 January 2008 08:53 AM

dougsmith - 04 January 2008 08:24 AM

This isn’t further proof of God’s scrutability, it’s further proof that the story is supposed to tell us that true happiness comes from irrational faith.

Actually - just the opposite.

Explain? “Opposite” in which way? And how is this story consistent with an ethically perfect God?

dougsmith - 04 January 2008 08:24 AM

Er, the reference to the Adversary is a red herring, unless we are going in for Manichaeism. There is only one God, and he is all-powerful. So let’s not go blaming the bad stuff on Adversary. He’s only a convenient foil for the story-line. Theologically he’s powerless.

I only meant to point out the story, as a story. Certainly the author’s intention is exceedingly clear when you read the story as the author wrote it, rather than ‘riffing’ on what you and i feel about it. Ditto with ‘Adversary.’ I’m not even touching upon the issue of whether these characters really exist in themselves, but clearing up the batty theories about what the story says. We cannot even ken the allegorical thought of the author without that. And ‘Adversary’ might as well be your neighbor, who’s got plenty of power over you right now, more than enough to make you suffer. So it’s not the name of the character but your hobby-horse of denying supernatural beings that’s the red herring. For now, it doesn’t matter a hoot if there’s a supernatural adversary.

Aiee, do you want to talk about unjust suffering or could it be you really want to talk about . . . (Church Lady voice ) Satan?

[Kirk:] ... further proof that it’s not about God’s inscrutability is that Job’s happy even despite the tongue-lashing, and the author gives us ample reason to believe it by the end.

[Doug: This isn’t further proof of God’s scrutability, it’s further proof that the story is supposed to tell us that true happiness comes from irrational faith. (Have faith in God’s plan even if it seems things are going all to hell for you). It’s a convenient fiction, or rather an adult fairy-tale.

Again, what’s the author’s point? Does he do his job?

So far, no-one cares tuppence about poor Job. Certainly not one of you here. He’s a pious and just man by definition of the story; perhaps - perhaps! - you’re as envious as Adversary at the disgustingly cheerful look on his face. Perhaps - perhaps! - even religious people are envious of their neighbors. Who doesn’t hate Flanders just a bit in his black little heart, even other Christians? Perhaps - perhaps! - ‘Adversary’ isn’t a super-being. Perhaps - perhaps! - the author, his audience, and a reader who’s not looking to mock the tale right from the beginning knows that.

There was a very good reason for me to hesitate to start debating this. Suffering is hardly an issue to toss off in a few posts, and it’s rather a bad move to make light of the explanations for it, sinc ethat might encourage us to make light of individual suffering as Job’s friends are indifferent to his own suffering.

If you crave the evolutionary side of the story, pick up a little dialogue by John Perry, who gives Augustine’s ‘theodicy’ about unjust suffering, and then turns to an evolutionary of unnecessary suffering. Note that the two accounts are not exactly about the same kind of suffering: Augustine’s account has a weak explanation for merely unnecessary suffering (like a tsumani, or baby bats suffering as they die), and the evo account doesn’t even touch on unjust suffering.

Let’s be more serious about this. Several people made ignorant comments about the meaning of the Job story, and I’ve given some good pointers that deny those comments, just using the story’s own words.

You guys, some days.

Kirk

dougsmith - 04 January 2008 08:58 AM

Jayhawker Soule - 04 January 2008 08:53 AM

dougsmith - 04 January 2008 08:24 AM

This isn’t further proof of God’s scrutability, it’s further proof that the story is supposed to tell us that true happiness comes from irrational faith.

Actually - just the opposite.

Explain? “Opposite” in which way? And how is this story consistent with an ethically perfect God?

Yes, why don’t *you* tell us how *the story* is inconsistent with the god presented in the story? That’s the only ‘god’ the author knew, and so the only god that is being critiqued in the story.

Perhaps you dont’ care about the character of poor Job anymore than you care about any suffering religious man. Perhaps you agree with his wife. Perhaps you agree with some Fourth Friend who would give Job’s character yet another theory - evolutionary pressures require suffering, and often that suffering is activated even when it won’t help you. This would be a hypothesis that suffers all the defects of those of the other three friends, because it is as irrelevant to *Job’s* complaint as the other three! never mind *us*, what about *you* and *me*??

Now you’re free to take the wife’s position or a Fourth Friend, but then you have to reply to the author’s objections, as found in the mouths of the characters. I think I’ll stick to promoting the author’s intent before i even consider giving my own position baldly.

Does this help focus us?

Kirk

inthegobi - 04 January 2008 09:10 AM

Does this help focus us?

No, I’m honestly not picking up on where you’re going with this. The claim is that the God of the OT is not morally perfect. Further, the claim is that an omnicompetent God is not consistent with the evil found in the world. Job’s story was brought up as illuminating the issue of unjust or unnecessary suffering. But it does nothing of the sort. We still have the question as to why a just God would torment Job, a man who, by the lights of God and the OT, does not deserve torment. On its face, the story of Job is the story of a capriciously malicious deity and a decent man who is all too willing to be slavish under the torment. Sure, God gives him the goodies at the end for not cracking under the pressure ... but really, would we call such actions moral or just if God were just another human doing them? Not in the slightest.