18. Job
Build a man a fire and he is warm for one night. Set the man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
- anonymous
Build a man a fire and he is warm for one night. Set the man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
- anonymous
Commentary by Lee Bright, version 0.1 on: Asimov, Isaac and Palacios, Rafael (1981) Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Wings Books: NY.
4Q101 Job fragment written in Paleo-Hebrew or possibly ancient Phoenician script. 4Q123 Joshua fragments.
There are two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done."
- C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
Everybody with any experience with philosophy knows that the Book of Job is about the Problem of Evil, particularly the Problem of Pain. But that is where the modern understanding ends. The problem that Job is dealing with is a refined version of the Problem of Pain that is off the radar of most moderns. That is partially because in the past few centuries, 'secularists' worked to weaponize the Problem of Evil by treating it as a purely logical objective way to interrogate the 'existence' of God. In contrast, for Job, the problem is entirely relational.
We can get to the heart of the problem with the Problem by asking a related hypothetical question:
If God could produce life and chose not to, would that be evil?
If one answers 'No', but still insists there is an objective Problem of Evil, that person is at pains to make the case in a universe with Russell's Paradox, the Halting Problem, Godel's Incompleteness theorems, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, and our fuzzy definition of time. Unless one has a particularly swanky recursive argument that makes no positive claims on God or the universe, we may rule out the objective Problem of Evil by Occam's Razor. That person is using the argument ignorantly or is out to feel self-justified in his hatred of God and/or life.
If one answers 'Yes', then by what infinitely applicable universal standard are we to judge God? Taken from this direction, the absurdity of an objective Problem of Evil practically leaps off the page. We, the living, being the source of evil, must be inherently evil, of which God's obvious solution is our death. The real reason to have an Objective Problem of Evil is to justify and excuse our evilness. If we pay close attention to the atheists and ambivalent theists who use the argument, self-justifying moral laxity often arises as the real overarching purpose.
So, what does this weaponized objective Problem of Evil look like? Here are statements leading to a syllogistic conclusion to the Problem of Evil from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2015):
If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
The Problem of Evil - plato.stanford.edu
The first thing to notice here is how the bold words must box in God. If God is real, He is completely unconstrained. So much so that it has always been an open question if conventional language and logic could ever contain Him. This puts a particular strain on the terms used in logical argument. For instance:
Is saying "God is omnipotent" ("all powerful") the same as the apophatic statement that "God is unlimited?" Usually, 'all' is taken as everything in a finite set, while 'unlimited' refers to Infinity ∞. From our mathematics, we assert the equations: ∞ - 1 = ∞, ∞ - 999 = ∞, ∞ ÷ 999 = ∞, etc. As is commonly known, infinity is a property that implies that any finite subtraction or division of power does not diminish God. Can we then trust any finite non-recursive argument against God?
By 'potent' or 'power', are we also assuming power over time? While omniscience might presume this, from Einstein's Theory of Relativity on, the answer must necessarily be 'yes'. So what are the principles of logic when dealing with a reality unconstrained by time if evil 'exists' in time? What is the capacity of humans, constrained by time, to judge a being not constrained by time?
The term "morally perfect" is particularly problematic in that even in human contexts, the lawgiver is often not subject to the laws or mores he gives. The law is for the people, not the ruler. The ruler is 'good' for giving and enforcing laws and mores, not for following them. Therefore, perfection in keeping them does not apply. Any rules for the ruler come from power on par or above him, such as a constitution, court system, congress, hegemon, or the threat of revolution. Who is the lawgiver for the laws and mores that God must follow? Who is the judge of the Judge?
What is being interrogated in the problem is the idea of God as 'good', but that is yet another unconstrained concept. Unless it can be shown that Good and Evil exist as symmetric opposites, the whole argument breaks down into the nuances of a relationship between agents. The 'goods' of "God is good" are absolute 'goods' because He is the ground of all being, but that does not mean all these 'goods' are law-like or that all 'goods' are absolutes. Nor does it mean that any 'evils' are absolutes (ala St. Augustine). What if the existence of Good is like the donut, and Evil is like the donut hole? What if God regards struggle as 'good' because it "builds character" - builds a stronger relationship in the Memory of God? Of course, we would regard struggle as 'evil' because it is physically and psychologically painful. But, if pain and struggle is 'good' in any sense, can pain ever be 'evil' in an absolute sense?
As the Existentialists have shown, existence is a paradoxical concept without an objective definition. At best, we might say existence is what is left over after all else has been described. But that means if something could be completely described, it does not exist as any more than the sum of its parts that can't be adequately described. Even from a physicalist perspective, we must specify a timeframe and scale for something to exist objectively. The atomic Unobtainium (such as Ununennium) created in a laboratory for a fraction of a second might in some strained way be said to have existed, but not in an everyday, normal usage kind of way. Neither is God a thing among things - His 'existence' is atypical. More than that, He is the unconstrained ground of all being. Things that exist are all "standing out" from Him.
In a rigid physicalist worldview, Good and Evil, taken by themselves, are not physical things, nor do they have any physical properties at any scale, and therefore simply don't exist. To a physicalist, statements 3 and 5 are false; therefore, the logical Problem of Evil is unsound. A physicalist might advance the argument hypothetically as if a god could "exist", but this naive use of "god" as a thing in regular "existence" is arrogant at best, and has little to do with God or his equivalent in any of the longstanding world religions (see The Memory of Schrodinger's Cat).
Though the physicalist might try to sidestep or hide the fact, the presupposition to any knowledge is that the universe is orderly. This is most definitely a metaphysical rather than physical fact, but it is directly and unavoidably connected to all physical and nonphysical existence. Both questions and answers must presume this universal order. In asking a question about God's existence, are we saying then that the omnipotent and omniscient orderliness of the universe (ie, the Logos) exists? If yes, then God exists! Furthermore, if that orderliness constitutes or is inseparably attached to the 'goodness' or "moral perfection" of God, the logical Problem of Evil is obviated. Since the Problem of Evil cannot be about the existence of God per se, is it really a question about the existence of Evil?
Does Evil correspond with disorder or chaos, conditions where order is missing? If so, this disorder and chaos must be from God's perspective. Since God must be equated with the universal order, the only place to find Evil is in the actions of created moral agents that are capable of rebelling against Him.
The statements asserting the desire of God and the existence of evil bring up a blurring of the fact-value distinction. Most famous for his skepticism concerning the lack of logical relation between cause and effect, the philosopher David Hume is also known for the dictum "No is implies an ought." In deductive logic, descriptive statements about the existence of something cannot produce prescriptive statements about what ought to be done without smuggling in a worldview or value system. This dictum led to the fact-value distinction in epistemology. What is being smuggled in by asserting the existence of evil?
The terms Good (or "morally perfect") and Evil hide other moral agents besides God. Some situation is 'good' because a moral agent has judged it as good. Some situation is 'evil' because a moral agent has judged it to be evil. Therefore, the Problem of Evil is completely relative to the moral agents doing the judging. Yet there are no agents besides God explicitly mentioned in the objective formulation, making the whole problem irrelevant.
An answer to the Problem of Evil is to eliminate all other moral agents, at which point all will be good or at least evil will be absent. This takes us right into the first chapters of Genesis. Taking and eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad will result in death, eventually. Both the Sumerian and Biblical flood stories represent humanity as noisy, discordant, and evil in thought and deed; thus, a great flood and other stories of famines and wars (often stylised as floods) are related to human evil. It is the redeemed remnant in these stories that carries the message of God. The book of Job asserts that mankind is evil again and again and again. That is, it would be 'good' for God to eliminate humanity at any time. That would solve the Problem of Evil. Instead, because God loves us, he is going to let us hang on until humanity denies Him to the point that mankind finally destroys itself. So is the Problem of Evil merely the paradox caused by God allowing humans moral agency - humans corrupt themselves by choosing both good and evil, and then turn around and judge God?
The obvious alternative to judging God is humbly asking for His forgiveness and humbly accepting redemption on His terms. In the end, it is the latter that Job falls a little short on.
In summary, statements 1 and 3 have important asterisks; 4 and 5 are not necessarily true; 6 and 7 may follow for another type of god, finite and rigidly constrained by time, but not for a Judeo-Christian one; only statement 2 stands solid. While the imprecision and tacit implications of the terms used don't get rid of the feeling of the problem, it does make it doubtful that the Problem of Evil could ever be a logically sound argument. It is better to state the Problem of Evil as an answerable research question:
If God is good, why are experiences judged to be evil?
Logic was formally discovered/discriminated/invented from human language at least 3000 years ago. Being infused in natural language and necessary for knowledge, Logic speaks to a fundamental pattern in the orderliness of the universe. Therefore, sound logical arguments are indispensable to the creation and understanding of knowledge. Yet, logic does not always work. It can produce logically valid contradictory statements - these are called paradoxes. Consider Zeno's paradox of the Dichotomy devised by Zeno of Elea (490-430 BC) and referenced by Aristotle: "that which is in locomotion must arrive at the halfway stage before it arrives at the goal." To take a journey, one must first travel half the distance there, then half the distance, then half the distance, ad infinitum. It seems then one can never arrive.
Zeno's dichotomy paradox and its solution (2020) ScienceWorld - youtube.com
Not all paradoxes are so devoid of practical application. Consider the solvable Braess’s Paradox where a shortcut, additional support, or additional link added to a network or framework can have the opposite of the intended effect by switching the system structure from parallel to series. Solving Braess's paradox in various systems can reduce traffic jams, water shortages, building collapses, and more, often by simplifying the overall system.
The Spring Paradox (2021) by Steve Mould - youtube.com
This mechanism shrinks when pulled (2025) by Veritasium - youtube.com
How Closing Roads Could Speed Up Traffic - The Braess Paradox - youtube.com
Even taking the spirit of the problem and ignoring the other issues, the Problem of Evil has several elements common to logical paradoxes:
There is a widely known paradox in statements 1 and 2 called the Omnipotence Paradox.
There are 3 or more infinitely unconstrained concepts in play: unlimited power, unlimited knowledge, and existence.
Any argument in judgment of unconstrained reality, such as God, the orderliness of the universe, or the ground of all being, must be recursive, perhaps infinitely so.
Logically, logic can only work in a field that applies to logic. The famous philosopher David Hume showed there is no a priori (ie. deductive) connection in a simple observation of cause and effect. A corollary of Hume's skepticism is that no "Is implies an ought " - this is called the fact-value distinction. The whole Problem of Evil argument is in denial of Hume's skepticism.
Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem formally proved that logic and mathematics will never be complete. Arguments containing infinitely unconstrained terms or requiring infinite recursions are more likely to require as yet undefined logic or be altogether undecidable.
The Omnipotence Paradox is a series of situational questions, such as "Can God create a square circle?" Other situations involve overcoming logical contradictions or self-denying situations that can only be accomplished once. Most of them follow the form of one of the Liar Paradoxes or the Genie Paradox:
If a genie grants a man a wish and the man wishes that wishes don't come true, what did the genie do?
Incidentally, many of these paradoxes are possible to answer if cleverly interpreted. For instance, if the genie of the Genie Paradox above kills the man, the problem is solved. Is there an Omnipotence Paradox-type question that endures?
Can God circle a square? Several mathematics students likely have circled a square by transforming a square from a polar coordinate system to a Cartesian coordinate system. Likewise, on a bigger scale, it is extremely likely that somewhere in the universe, there is a circle-like shape in non-Euclidean spacetime that would be a square when translated into Euclidean geometry. Mathematically, increasing the power of the equation of a circle from 2 to an even integer greater than 4 creates a superellipse with the shape of a square. If a square is approximated as a superellipse of a certain power, changing the power to 2 will make it a circle.
Can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it? Yes, He merely creates just one rock of any mass and size. Without another rock, it cannot be lifted, as there would be nothing to lift it from. If one insists on two rocks, take the moon, which is continually falling around the Earth without hitting it - no lifting required. This problem is easily answered because it was originally constructed from obsolete physics. We don't need to go very deep into the nature of God to find an answer.
Similarly, the Problem of Evil arises as an Omnipotence Paradox-type of question: "Can God create Evil in a Good universe?" The answer is yes - human moral agents. Human moral agents will intend, perform, and judge things as being Good and Evil, thus Evil gains a kind of existence. Destroy the humans, destroy the Evil. So the real question is, why is God willing to let us linger on as individuals and as a species until we destroy ourselves?
But does Evil actually 'exist' symmetrically opposite to Good? That is a requirement of the Objective Problem of Evil. Any other variation of 'opposite' and 'exist' produces something much less than objective. If there is no real Evil and there is real Good, that's it for the Problem of Evil, full stop.
If Evil is known in relative comparison to good, like high pressure vs. low pressure, or hot versus cold, then the understanding of what is Good is analogous to the measurement of the wind speed or temperature gradient generated respectively by the differential pressures and temperatures. In static conditions, Good is the potential difference with another situation, place, or course of action. Good as potential difference is then inextricably bound up with Wisdom.
Good as mere potential difference is not an ideal theology for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, particularly for churches whose clergy take confession, such as the Catholic and Orthodox churches. It also flies in the face of experience. Whether by omission or commission, sin and therefore Evil, can be a system-level rough edge or character flaw, but sin is often particular and discrete.
We have an analog for how this could be in the flow of electricity in a circuit.
First, a bit of review: In chemistry, the basic building blocks of matter are atoms. Atoms are made up of a nucleus of positively charged protons (+1 charge) and neutral neutrons (0 charge). The Atomic Number is the number of protons in the nucleus, which determines most of the chemical properties and identifies what element it is on the Periodic Table. "Orbiting around" the nucleus are negatively charged electrons (-1 charge). Each "orbit" or shell is a different discrete energy level that can only hold so many electrons, with the lowest energy levels filled first. It is these discrete energy levels that put the "quantum" in Quantum Mechanics.
For an atom with a Net Charge = 0, the number of protons and the number of electrons must be equal. An ion is an atom with a positive or negative net charge. A cation is a positively charged ion with fewer electrons than protons in the nucleus, and an anion has a negative charge with more electrons than protons. The outermost energy level of an atom is called the valence shell. Electrons are gained, lost, and shared in the valence shell, and this accounts for chemical bonds, chemical reactions, and the source and flow of electrons in an electrical circuit.
Benjamin Franklin & Static Electricity - circuitbread.com
A flow of charge forms when electrons move from a more negatively charged area called an anode, through a conductor to fill and balance out a more positively charged area called a cathode. The difference in charge between the anode and the cathode is called the electrical potential or voltage because it is typically measured in volts. Electrical potential is like a kind of pressure pushing the electrons into holes in a similar way as water pressure or air pressure pushes liquid or gas into pipes, gaps, and holes.
What is Electricity: An Intuitive Understanding - circuitbread.com
When many atoms are put close together, such as in a solid wire, the valence shells merge into very closely spaced energy levels called the valence band. The unfilled next energy level up from the valence band is called the conduction band. Valence electrons can only have energy levels in the valence band and the conduction band. The energy "space", or quanta, between the valence band and the conduction band that electrons would have to jump is called the band gap.
In good conductors of electricity, the valence band is only partially full, and there is an overlap between the valence band and the conduction band - no band gap. Good conductors allow the ready movement of electrons into the many "empty holes" of the valence and conduction bands. Good insulators have their valence band full of electrons with few if any holes for electrons to move into, stifling movement. They also have a large band gap (>3 eV), requiring the right amount of excess energy to make the jump across the band gap to the conduction band, where electrons are free to move.
Band Gap and Semiconductor Current Carriers (2018) by JB Magoncia - circuitbread.com
Veritasium: Semi-Conductors & Electron Holes 1-min Clip - youtube.com
The amount of charge moved over time is called the current, or amperage, which is usually measured in amperes (A). A high potential difference will push a lot of electrons through a good conductor in a short period, possibly overheating the conductor or components if the conducting wire or component is not large enough; therefore, to protect the components in an electrical circuit, a resistor is often added to limit the current or a fuse is set.
Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED (2025) by Veritasium - youtube.com
While the electrons are going from negative to positive in a closed circuit, the convention that electrical engineers use when making circuit diagrams and calculating or measuring is that current goes from positive to negative! That is, they follow the direction of the electron holes (+eV) would travel rather than the electrons moving in the opposite direction! As a kind of shorthand or convention, treating the holes as if they exist works fine until there is a question of existence, at which point it is wrong and misleading. Usually, this convention is blamed on Benjamin Franklin making the wrong guess long before atoms and electrons were discovered.
What are the basics of a semiconductor? - circuitbread.com
In the first level of this analogy with Good and Evil, electrons represent Good, and the empty holes the electrons can fill represent emptiness, Bad, or Evil. A single atom might represent a in a molecules, or crystals of atoms represent different individual people.
Although both good and evil events not as discrete as the electrical model, we can go on in the analogy:
The individual
Insulators represent a people of conservative stability that is mostly filled with good, but perhaps unchallenged.
Conductors are people who go whichever way the wind blows. Both good and evil come and go. They are sheep.
Jumping the band gap represents progress. Yes, there are more holes to fill with good in the conduction band, but evil also has more ability to move up the valence band.
https://www.stjamesah.org/evil-doesnt-have-being/
Throughout the Bible, statements regarding evil show that at least some of the writers use Good and Evil in this shorthand or conventional kind of way. The most direct statement comes from the apostle Paul
The Genius Device That Rocked F1 | An Interview With Its Inventor - youtube.com
Voltage, Current, Power, and Energy - circuitbread.com
Individual
Family / Household
Kin / Club / Gang
Clan / Band / Neighborhood
Tribe
Community / People
Society:
Nation
Household → Neighborhood → Community → Municipality → Nation
Soldier
Fireteam: 2 to 4 soldiers
Squad: 7 to 15 soldiers
Platoon: 20 to 50 soldiers
Company / Battery / Squadron: 60 to 250 soldiers
Battalion / Regiment / Legion: 300 to 1,200 soldiers
Brigade: 3,000 to 8,000 soldiers
Division: 10,000 to 22,000 soldiers
Corps: 50,000 to 150,000 soldiers
Army: 50,000 to 100,000+ soldiers
Army Group: 1,000,000+ soldiers
The Problem of Nature arises from our morally superior expectations and human perfectionism differing from a God who created a wild world "red in tooth and claw." The entire problem in all its concrete forms pivots around the judgments and experiences of the moral agents involved. That is, it is primarily a relational problem rather than an 'existence of God' problem.
When in the garden, ha'adam was provided everything he needed for flourishing with one stipulation - do not take away and eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad. The insinuation is that there were no other universal law-like morals that were asserted. Every more was tribal, local, and relational, except perhaps with the Voice "walking" in the Garden. There was no organized way to judge God, nor need to be particularly anxious about Him.
Farming is in its infancy. Animals are being domesticated for the first time. There are no great cities yet. There is no separation from nature. Mankind is still essentially wild - an animal among animals. While death happened much more often and lives on average were much shorter, only the useless person without meaning in the community needed to be anxious about death. The Problem of Pain existed only in the experiences of severe, prolonged suffering and personal meaninglessness in the community.
Archaeology tells us the people of this time lived fairly egalitarian lives. There is hardly any material culture that marks out the leaders from the laymen in these earliest settlements. Certainly, leaders must have had some special advantages, but it is not enough to show up in artifacts. Areas thought to be especially religious in function had symbols but were free of idols. That suggests that worship was more relational and less transactional.
Then they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, whatever that entails. Anxiety set in. Dominion was given. Curses were given. Eve was named. Adam anxiously set off away from the wild Garden to a desolate place he could control and became self-domesticated. Adam's progeny became full moral agents, and clothed in civilization.
The relationship with God becomes increasingly transactional - this for that - worship for special favor. The increase in the specialties of urban life leads to the separation of aspects of God and nature into different gods, followed by the proliferation of gods, followed by idolatry to make transactional relationships even more efficient.
The corruption of the original relationship to a whiny transactional relationship with no clear direction widened the chasm of separation between man and God. Without clear direction and meaning, death became something to be feared.
physical pain vs. psycho pain
psycho pain is the root of the problem of pain
self-esteem error
progressive expectation
problem of death
death is only evil to the evil, the bland, and the unredeemed
free-will is a choice of servitude