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.

My Confession: My Reflections on Job 12 - 14

 

I continue my reflections on Job.

Job rejects the idea that he is deserving of punishment
After Zophar accuses Job of being guilty of hidden sin, Job counters that Zophar should not claim to know the mind of God,

“I have become a laughingstock to my friends,
    though I called on God and he answered—
    a mere laughingstock, though righteous and blameless!" - Job 12:4

“But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
    or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
   or let the fish in the sea inform you.
 Which of all these does not know
    that the hand of the Lord has done this?" - Job 12:7-9

“My eyes have seen all this,
    my ears have heard and understood it.
 What you know, I also know;
    I am not inferior to you.
 But I desire to speak to the Almighty
    and to argue my case with God.
 You, however, smear me with lies;
    you are worthless physicians, all of you!
 If only you would be altogether silent!
    For you, that would be wisdom." - Job 13:1-5

Job puts his trust in God
Job continues to trust God, even though he does not understand the reason for his plight. He asks for God to hear him out.

“Only grant me these two things, God,
    and then I will not hide from you:
Withdraw your hand far from me,
    and stop frightening me with your terrors.
 Then summon me and I will answer,
    or let me speak, and you reply to me.
 How many wrongs and sins have I committed?
    Show me my offense and my sin.
 Why do you hide your face
    and consider me your enemy?" - Job 13: 20 -24

Job also recognises his life and legacy is in God's control.

“At least there is hope for a tree:
    If it is cut down, it will sprout again,
    and its new shoots will not fail.
Its roots may grow old in the ground
    and its stump die in the soil,
 yet at the scent of water it will bud
    and put forth shoots like a plant.
 But a man dies and is laid low;
    he breathes his last and is no more." - Job 14: 7-10

Thus Job knows that his only hope for restoration lies with God.

"Surely then you will count my steps
    but not keep track of my sin.
 My offenses will be sealed up in a bag;
    you will cover over my sin." - Job 14: 16-17

Impressions
One thing I did admire is while Job rejected the idea that he is in the wrong (as accused in the earlier chapters). He also rejects the idea that he needs to justify himself in front of his friends and knows the only being that holds his fate is God. God may choose to spare or strike him.

"Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;

    I will surely defend my ways to his face." - Job 13: 15

Again, Job is willingly to be honest with his feelings about his circumstance with God, and not cover it up with pomp and flattery.

"If only you would hide me in the grave

    and conceal me till your anger has passed!

If only you would set me a time

    and then remember me!

If someone dies, will they live again?

    All the days of my hard service

    I will wait for my renewal to come." - Job 14: 13-14

Although I do not want Job's circumstance, I do pray I have faith and honesty to that closest with God.

With Due Respect: Are children born atheist?

 

Children attending a Japanese church, 2023

In the 2006 book God Delusion, famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins asserted that "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents".

He also tweeted that "Babies have no religion".

In such statements, Dawkins assumes that infants are born with no inclination to religion, and religious ideas are taught to them, rather than learnt naturally. However, he fails to account for a few things.

Babies are naturally religious
In most studies, infants are seem to accept teleological answers over purposeless ones. For instance, children are more likely accept that "Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty". They see the natural world as purposeful and designed by a higher being. 

Even if their parents are atheists, they tend to understand that their parents (and therefore humans) are imperfect and therefore prescribe supernatural abilities to a creator of the natural world. 

Based on such research, British philosopher Charles Foster (in his 2010 book Wired for God) concluded that atheism was not a default or natural belief for humans, but it was something that had to be taught.

Singaporean children, or children with Singaporean parents? 

Genetic fallacy
Another classic fallacy that Dawkins is committing is the genetic fallacy. He attempts to disapprove the validity of a belief by stating where it came from (i.e. the parents). This line of argument is false as the origin of the argument has little to do whether a claim is true.

Just because the abusive Imperial Japanese used aircraft carriers to sink allied ships does not mean that this strategy is bad or false.

Conclusion
Whether a baby's default state is religious or irreligious does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Truth is beyond genetics and culture.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

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