My Confession: Reflections on Job 15

 

I continue my reflections on Job.

After hearing Job defend himself yet again, Eliphaz the Temanite responds.

The meaninglessness of Job's defence

Eliphaz accuses Job of engaging in empty rhetoric.

“Would a wise person answer with empty notions
    or fill their belly with the hot east wind?
 Would they argue with useless words,
    with speeches that have no value?" - Job 15: 2-3

He criticises Job's wisdom and claiming that Job's limited experience of a human limits his understanding of God.

“Are you the first man ever born?
    Were you brought forth before the hills?
 Do you listen in on God’s council?
    Do you have a monopoly on wisdom?
What do you know that we do not know?
    What insights do you have that we do not have?
 The gray-haired and the aged are on our side,
    men even older than your father."- Job 15: 7-10

Eliphaz puts forth his wisdom on the consequence of good and evil

Eliphaz then explains his position.

“What are mortals, that they could be pure,
    or those born of woman, that they could be righteous?" - Job 15: 14

“Listen to me and I will explain to you;
    let me tell you what I have seen,
 what the wise have declared,
    hiding nothing received from their ancestors
 (to whom alone the land was given when no foreigners moved among them):
All his days the wicked man suffers torment,
    the ruthless man through all the years stored up for him." - Job 15: 17 -20

In fact, he reiterated that the wicked will face punishment.

"Let him not deceive himself by trusting what is worthless,
    for he will get nothing in return.
 Before his time he will wither,
    and his branches will not flourish.
He will be like a vine stripped of its unripe grapes,
    like an olive tree shedding its blossoms." - Job 15: 31-33

Impressions

I think my first takeaway is that despite Eliphaz's claim that no mortal has monopoly on wisdom (Job 15:8), he presents his own wisdom to counter Job's earlier arguments. Eliphaz's justification was that Job was not the first man alive or the oldest or had a vast wealth of experience.

Such ad-hoc arguments may be good for a sound bite, but none of what Eliphaz said had any bearing on what Job had discussed before. What had Job done wrong that God allowed the misfortunate of the loss of wealth and the death of his loved ones to fall on him? (Job 12:7-9)

Finally Eliphaz affirms earlier claims (eg: Job 8:2-3)that Job must have done something wicked to deserve such fate. As this did not sway Job the first few times, Eliphaz repeat of the logic reveals that he may lack the wisdom that he felt Job lacked.

This lack of wisdom will eventually be addressed in the next chapters, Job 16-17.

With due respect: What about Christians? What about ...?

Pikachus are cute, right?
What about Charmanders?

Has it happened to you?
Recently I was explaining to a friend why socialism was a bad idea.

"Well what about theocracies?"

I was confused. So I asked him to elaborate.

He explained that modern day theocracies like Saudi Arabia are not pleasant to live in. I pointed out that (a) we were not talking about Saudi Arabia, and (b) a theocracy being bad does not justify socialism being good.

"Well then, what about the United States? It is a corrupt capitalistic democracy."

I signed. My friend suffered from a case of "whataboutism".

But what about ...?

Whataboutism is a form of logical fallacy. It seeks to discount an argument by raising irrelevant points or obscure examples without any attempt disprove the argument's claim.

I have seen many a friend, Christian and atheist, Singaporean and American and even scientist and artist, fall into this into this trap.

For instance,

"Mao killed around 45 million people."
"What about the United States? They massacred people at Kent Ridge?"

"The religious crusades killed many people."
"What about Stalin?"

For more examples:

With Due Respect: Men should not have a say in abortion!

Recently, the American state of Alabama voted to ban abortion in the state. Regardless of whatever our stand on abortion is, I feel there is always a debate and conversation to be had. Unfortunately, lots of the discussion seemed to be spend blaming white men lawmakers for making the decision.

In this post I will examine the question posted by the BBC, "should men have a say in the abortion debate?"

Arguments based on identity, not logic

The authors of this question are committing a logical fallacy in their statement. Since men do not under pregnancy or abortion, the argument is that men do not have a right to set the law.

The best form of the argument is this :

1) Men do not go through pregnancy or abortion
2) Abortion law should be only set by individuals who go through pregnancy or abortion
3) Therefore only women should set the law since it only concerns the women.

However, this line of argument is flawed.

Logical failure: Does not match reality

We would not apply this line of logic to any other circumstance. Imagine making the following statements:

"We cannot set animal rights because we are not animals."

"We cannot make laws concerning illegal immigration because we were never immigrants."

"We cannot set laws concerning burials because we were never dead or buried."

All these statements are obviously incorrect yet when it comes to abortion, we are more than happy to follow it.

Logical failure: Your identity makes you more virtuous

The argument also assumes that the identity of speaker or lawmaker is essential to the support of the argument.

Let me make this clear: arguments are valid or invalid regardless of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, eye colour, height, weight etc. An argument should be weighted on logical consistency and real-world application, rather than identity.

Allowing such shenanigans would set a dangerous precedent -- we would have no common ground of logic to reach a proper discussion.

Conclusion

It is irresponsible and rather quite disappointing that the BBC chooses to promote identity as a narrative in their articles.

Theology 1.0: What is poisoning the well?

An ad-hoc fallacy
Imagine two people having a debate. The first man begins by denouncing his opponent of being liar, an adulterer and untrustworthy person.

His statement (while it made be true) is an ad-hoc fallacy. It is an attempt to disprove an argument by discrediting the person. In debates, this tactic is called "poisoning the well" (Sire, 2006).

But how does this apply to apologetics?
In our attempts to reason with our non-believing friends, we may unwittingly use such tactics. Let's see some example statements:

"This person doesn't know anything about theology."

"He comes from a church that promotes materialism."

"She does not come from a reputable school."

Sometimes, the tables get turned. For instance, my Christian friends and I have been accused of being "fundamentalists", "imposing morality" and "misguided idealists".

Conclusion
Every argument should be treated on its own merit, and should be independent of the reputation of the person making the argument.



References
Sire, J.W. (2006) Why good arguments often fail

With Due Respect: My Christian friend is a bad example!

"The worst people I know are Christians"

When I was in the military, one of the reasons I hesitated in becoming a Christian was because some of the worst people I worked with were Christians. They would avoid responsiblities, feign illnesses and were undependable. Their terrible work ethic and moral behaviour were reprehensible to me.

Why should any non-Christian be attracted to Christ in the light of the behaviour of his followers?


Some Christians have done terrible stuff
Now I have to admit this: Some Christians have done terrible stuff in history. Many people have listed the examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition that have caused many deaths in the name of Christ. Torquemada, one of the Spanish Inquisitors, deported more than 40,000 Jews and was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 2,000 people during the Spanish Inquisition.

If following Christ maybe leads to people doing horrible things, it is little wonder people find Christianity a turn-off.

Some non-Christians have also done terrible stuff
However, we need to be fair. Non-Christians have also done many terrible things in the name of their worldview. During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao of China caused the death of millions for his view of atheisitic Communism. During World War II, the Japanese killed millions in the name of their divine Emperor or Shinto Buddhism.

If not following Christianity also may result horrific things, where does this lead us?

What about the issue of truth?
However in philsophy, this line of logic (that the argument is bad because the person saying it is bad) is an ad-hoc argument (Sire, 2006). In other words, an argument is cannot be considered invalid just because a person is of bad character.

As someone who is seeking the truth, one must be able to explore statements independent of whoever says it.

Conclusion
In our effort to discern the truthfulness of arguments, one must be wary not to focus on the ills of the speaker. However, in Christianity we have Jesus saying that he is God. Why not spend time discerning his claim?

References
Sire, J. (2006) Why Good Arguments Often Fail