John Loftus has written a response to my earlier post on the book of Job. As Steve Hays has mentioned, Loftus misidentifies the author of the article. After misidentifying the author, Loftus goes on to make a lot of other mistakes. The mistakes are of such a nature that they could and should have easily been avoided. One mistake that Loftus repeats a lot in the article, a mistake that's foundational to his argument, is:
"Notice that God says there was no reason for the suffering brought on Job. God said it! This is gratuitous suffering without a point"
Loftus is referring to Job 2:3. In that passage, God mentions that Satan incited Him to bring harm to Job without cause. Anybody honestly and thoughtfully reading the text would have to acknowledge that such a phrase can be interpreted in more than one way. Does it mean that there was no reason of any type for allowing Job to suffer? No, it can't mean that. Even if God's reason was "winning a bet", as Loftus claimed earlier, it would still be a reason, however bad that reason would be. What Job 2:3 has to be referring to is whether there was a good reason for Job's suffering. But there would still be more than one way to interpret the phrase, even after we narrowed it down to the category of whether there was a good reason for Job's suffering. For example, is God addressing whether He had a good reason, or is He addressing whether Satan had a good reason? Since the latter is plausible, Loftus can't claim to know that the former is in view. But if it's plausible that God is addressing Satan's motives rather than His own, then the passage loses the significance Loftus has attached to it.
Loftus' problem isn't just that it's plausible to read Job 2:3 as a reference to Satan's bad motives. He also has a problem in that his reading of the passage is untenable. Loftus would have us believe that an ancient Jewish author was portraying God as saying that He makes people suffer for no good reason. Isn't it more likely that an ancient Jewish author would attribute a lack of good motives to Satan rather than to God?
Loftus writes:
"And Steve totally misses the carnage that God caused upon Job’s family, as well as upon Job himself. All of his and his wife’s sons and daughters were killed, as well as all of his sheep, camels and servants, except three of Job’s servants. This happened, according to God 'without any reason.'"
I've read the book of Job, repeatedly. I'm aware that other people suffered with Job. I mentioned that fact in my earlier response to Loftus. Adding other people's suffering to Job's doesn't make Loftus' argument convincing. Just as we can think of potential good reasons for Job's suffering, we can also think of potential good reasons for the suffering of others, such as Job's children and animals. Since Loftus can't deny the existence of potential good reasons, he repeats his fallacious appeal to Job 2:3. As Kaffinator has said in response to Loftus at his blog, "The whole post deflates on this single point". Loftus has built his case on Job 2:3, but his interpretation of that verse is just one possible interpretation among others, and it's an implausible one.
Loftus goes on to make more assertions that he can't possibly prove, such as:
"The God in this story does not care about Job, his wife, his children, his servants, and his animals at all."
Then why does God commend Job before Satan, bless Job after his suffering, etc.? How could Loftus possibly know that the God of the book of Job "does not care at all"? What does it tell us about John Loftus' irresponsibility when he repeatedly makes such careless assertions?
He continues:
"We want to know if God has a reason for the sufferings we encounter in this life. But in the story of Job the only answer we receive is that God can do whatever he wants with us to win a bet with the heavenly prosecutor….for his own self-serving 'glory.'"
As the quote of John Piper in my last post explains, God's self-glorification benefits His people. A sunset that glorifies God for His power and the beauty of His handiwork, for example, also brings pleasure to those who view it and gives His people confidence and peace in His power, His kindness, and some of His other attributes. There's nothing wrong with God's being self-serving. Who else would He serve?
Loftus writes:
"In the Old Testament Satan is seen as a Servant of God."
He's also portrayed as sinful and as an enemy of God. People can serve God in more than one sense.
Loftus goes on to quote a number of sources commenting on Satan or some other subject that's related in some way. Much of what Loftus quotes has little relevance to what was originally being discussed. He quotes Baker's Encyclopedia of the Bible saying that "there is no condemnation of him [Satan] by God" and that "There is nothing in the context to indicate that the angel is evil". But the angel is arguing that God is wrong. If there's a "bet" occurring, to use Loftus' terminology, then the angel has to be expecting God to be wrong. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the angel isn't evil? Job 2:3 has God saying that Satan had no good reason for wanting Job to suffer. It's a condemnation of Satan, so the text does condemn him. Job's accuser is accusing him in opposition to God's estimation of Job.
Loftus goes on to attempt to justify his comparison between Job's God and Josef Mengele:
"They both had the power to do what they wanted to with the people involved. And neither one of them acting in a kind matter. Neither one of them cared about those they were experimenting on."
Again, how does Loftus justify his definition of "kind" within his worldview? And where does the book of Job suggest that God was unkind and uncaring? The text says the opposite. God commends Job for his virtues, which included kindness, thus implying that God valued kindness as well. And God repeatedly shows His concern for Job by defending him before Satan, delivering him from his suffering, giving him greater blessings to enjoy afterward, etc. Again, does it seem that Loftus is reading Job honestly and thoughtfully? Or does it seem more like he's once again laboring to create artificial objections to Christianity?
Loftus continues:
"Just because God was supposedly Job’s creator doesn’t give him the moral right to do what he did to Job, his wife, his children, his servants and his animals 'without any reason.'"
We've already seen that Loftus' use of Job 2:3 is fallacious. And I would ask, again, where Loftus gets concepts such as "moral right" within his worldview. Or is he only saying that God's actions are immoral within a Christian worldview, but wouldn't be immoral within Loftus' worldview? If God's actions supposedly are immoral by Christian standards, then doesn't it seem likely that Loftus is misinterpreting the book of Job? Isn't it unlikely that an ancient Jewish author intended a passage like Job 2:3 to have a meaning that would be contrary to Jewish standards? If, on the other hand, Loftus' focus here is on the alleged immoral nature of Job's God according to Loftus' moral standards, then I would ask, again, where Loftus gets those standards.
Loftus's logic is as bad as he looks.
ReplyDelete