// you’re reading...

Bible

Job- A Philosophical Analysis

The following extract is taken from Robert Sutherland’s new book “Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job” (Trafford, Victoria, 2004) It is reproduced with his permission and he retains the copyright. Mr.Sutherland is a Christian Canadian criminal defense lawyer instrumental in changing the Canadian law on aggravated assault and solicitor-client privilege. He is a Senior Fellow at the Mortimer J. Adler Centre for the Study of the Great Ideas. And he is a member of St.Stephen’s Anglican, Thunder Bay. The book has received high praise from Job scholars: David Clines, Norman Habel and Gerald Janzen. Several chapters and order information are online at http://www.bookofjob.org <http://www.bookofjob.org/>

A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

Myth is a fictional account of the origin of certain ideas, individuals or institutions. The actors and actions that drive the plot illustrate rather than demonstrate certain truths about the human condition. The actors and actions may incorporate certain historical details, but those details are fictionalized and embellished to draw out certain universal truths. Myth often involves stories about creation since the beginning of things is an appropriate time to discuss the “efficient cause” of things. However, it can involve stories about the apocalypse since the end of things is an appropriate time to discuss the “final cause” of things. Such stories speculate about the potentialities and actualities implicit in things. The reason myth involves both creation and apocalypse is that for many mythmakers the end is implicit in the beginning.

The Book of Job is a myth.

(a) The characters of God, Satan and Job as presented in the book merely dramatize certain aspects of the efficient cause of evil in the world. God created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering in order to create the highest form of love possible: a completely selfless love of man for God. As a perfect being, God would have made this decision to create a particular type of world in eternity, not in time. God’s wager with Satan at a particular point in time never happened. It is merely a dramatic way of exploring the moral dimensions of God’s decision to create a less than perfect world. Job is a perfect human being. His early life in Eden is merely an alternate world that God has chosen not to create.

(b) Moreover, the characters of Job and Leviathan as presented in the later parts of the book merely dramatize certain aspects of the final cause of evil in the world. Job represents the potential for moral integrity all human beings possess. His Oath of Innocence and his nuanced submission are powerful expressions of how human beings should respond to the evil in the world around them. They should challenge God. Human beings have a right to know the reason for evil in the world. But they should not prematurely condemn God. Leviathan is the creation of Ancient Near Eastern mythologies, with important ties to both creation and apocalypse. Leviathan as such never existed. Leviathan is the poetic embodiment of the evil that is all the death, disease and disability in this world. Its ties to creation draw out the “efficient cause” of all things. And its ties to apocalypse draw out the “final cause” of all things. In the author’s hands, Leviathan is merely a moral metaphor for God’s creation, control, destruction and justification of evil. And the metaphor itself suggests an apocalyptic resolution to the moral question. Evil is not God’s final purpose in the creation of the world. The time will come when Leviathan is drawn from the waters and served up as the main course at the Messianic banquet at the end of human history. Such a banquet is a fictional description of the meaning of the resurrection and Final Judgment. It will not occur in precisely that way. But it will be a time when God as the Messiah will declare and justify his final purpose in the creation and control of evil. The execution and explanation of that purpose could be the finest demonstration of God’s power: the power to bring good out of evil.

As it stands, The Book of Job is merely myth building on myth, but it is artfully done.

As a literary device, myth has truth value. Myth is not deceit. Deceit is the intentional communication of known error. Truthfulness is the intentional communication of a thought that accurately corresponds with reality. Myth advances certain truth claims about the divine and the human. But it advances those claims on an existential level, not a historical level. The images in the myth refer to things beyond themselves. Only the most ignorant of interpreters would confuse the image with its reference. When they do so, they commit the logical fallacy of confusing a metaphor with a truth. The truth of history is what actually happened. The truth of myth is what actually describes the human condition, either what it is or what it could be.

The Book of Job presents a number of truth claims that describe the human condition, either as it is or as it could be. It is worth considering those claims in some detail.

1. Is morality dependant on special revelation?

Is morality dependant on special revelation? No.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. Job is not an Israelite. Job does not live in the land of Israel. Job is not connected in any way to God’s chosen people, the Jews. Job does not have the benefit of any special revelation to Abraham or to Moses. Job does not have any knowledge of or access to the Jewish sacrificial system or the Temple in Jerusalem. Yet Job knows what is morally right and wrong and perfectly fulfills his moral obligations to God and man. This first truth claim is advanced through the description of Job living outside the land of Israel (Job 1:1) and the declarations by the author and by God of Job’s virtual sinlessness. (Job 1:1; 1:8; 2:3)

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

Human nature provides a sufficient basis for establishing morality. Goodness is the fulfillment of the natural needs or desires that define human nature. Evil is that which frustrates that fulfillment.

(a) The basic ethical duty that one “ought to desire” “what is really good” is a type of self-evident truth known as a commensurate universal. The good is the desirable and the desirable is the good. The terms “desire” and “goodness” are such basic or “universal” terms that cannot be defined apart from each other. They can only be defined in terms of or “commensurate” with each other. “Desire” is the dispositional potential for “goodness”. “Goodness” is the actualization of “desire”. The term “ought” expresses the “rational necessity” and “practical reasonableness” of desiring what is “really good” as opposed to what is merely “apparently good”. It is unthinkable that one ought to desire what is really bad or that one ought not to desire what is “really good”.

(b) These needs that define human nature are naturally knowable by all rational persons who have reached the age of moral accountability. The criteria by which they are known: universality, eradicability and irresistibility are objective. [1] The real goods that fulfill those needs are equally knowable.

(c) The process by which moral rules are derived is logically valid. Moral conclusions can be validly drawn from a major premise containing a statement of value and a minor premise containing statements of fact. No violation of the naturalistic fallacy is present in such deductions or derivations. [2]

Human nature is not independent of God. Human beings are contingent not necessary beings. The fact that they exist provides strong evidence that a necessary being God exists. The existence of God can be rationally established by the cosmological argument which begins with the contingency of man and perfections within him and arrives at the conclusion of an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, and all-good being, God. Aquinas’s five ways is the classic expression of that argument. [3] Human beings are the creation of God.

To say that morality is independent of special revelation is not to say that morality is independent of God. God has made human nature what it is and given human beings the necessary tools to derive a natural knowledge of good and evil. That natural knowledge has been termed God’s general revelation in nature as opposed to his special revelation in a religious text or tradition.

2. Must God create the best?

Must God create the best of all possible worlds? No.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. God is the author of evil in the world. The evil is both natural and moral. God is causally responsible for the existence of that evil. His decision may or may not be blameworthy depending of the legitimacy of God’s reason in sending the evil. While God may use natural or supernatural intermediaries, such intermediaries are secondary instrumental causes. He is the principal; they are his agents. They have no agency or power to act without his permission and direction. This second truth claim is advanced through Satan’s challenge to God to do evil (Job 1:9-11), God’s authorization of a first set of evils (Job 1:12), Satan’s infliction of that evil on God’s order (Job 1:12-19), God’s confession that he has done evil without any cause in Job (Job 2:3), God’s authorization of a second evil (Job 2:4-6), Satan’s infliction of that evil at God’s command (Job 2:7), Job’s confession that God has done evil. (Job 2:10), God’s creation of Leviathan as the first of the great acts of God (40:15) and the author’s final comments. (Job 42:11) God is presented as the direct cause of all natural evils such as death, disease, disability and the like. Leviathan is the embodiment of those evils and God is the creator of Leviathan. God is presented as the indirect cause of many moral evils. As the creator and sustainer of human beings and human will, he is implicated in all human actions. They are foreseen and cannot occur without his permission. If human nature is created without a natural subordination of the passions to reason as seems to be the case and may be implied with the creation of man out of Leviathan, then that involvement and foresight is even greater. God is presented as a direct contributory cause of all moral evils in the sense that he has the duty and ability to intervene to prevent them but chooses not to do so.

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

First, the best of all possible worlds may not be possible. God cannot create what is impossible to create. The “best of all possible worlds” describes a world of goodness only, with no evil or imperfection in it. The idea of such a perfect world is probably incoherent. Why? One can easily imagine two or more finite worlds that are equally good. The goodness is expressed in different ways in each world. While there would be no evil in any of those worlds, it would be impossible to say one is better than another. In such a situation, there is no “best”. All are equally good. Before God can be faulted for creating a world where there is evil, it has been shown there is one and only one perfect world that God should have created. So far, philosophers have not done so. [4]

Second, God would not be unjust in creating a world with some evil in it. He would not be wronging anyone in doing so. He would not be depriving them of anything to which they had a right.

(a) God would not be wronging those persons who would have existed in a perfect world without evil, but who do not exist now because God has chosen to create a world with evil in it. Such persons never came into existence. They never had any right to existence. God was never under any obligation to bring them into existence. They do not exist now. So if they do not exist, then God has not wronged them by choosing not to create them. [5]

(b) God would not be wronging those persons who do exist in a world with evil. Such persons would not have existed in a world of perfect goodness. They have imperfections and would not have existed in such a perfect world. But the lives they have in a less than perfect world are not so miserable on the whole that it would have been better if they never had existed. God does not wrong anyone who claims that they were not created in a perfect world, because their complaint is unreasonable. They would not have existed in such a world. And it is better that they exist in some world than not exist in the perfect world. [6] .

Third, God would not be unloving in creating a world with some evil in it. God is not only just, but loving. An important part of love is grace. God loves others without worrying about whether or not they are worthy of his love. Imperfect persons living in an imperfect world are intrinsically less valuable than perfect persons living in a perfect world. They have evil and imperfection in their character and in their lives. But God does not care. God sees what is valuable in every person. He does not worry about whether he could have found someone else more valuable somewhere else. This is the virtue of grace. It is something God has. And it is something others should have. In creating an imperfect world, God creates imperfect persons who are not as worthy of his love as those who would have existed in a perfect world. This choice is explainable and justifiable in terms of the particular type of love known as grace, which is a virtue rather than a defect in character. [7]

3. Does God act for a reason?

Does God act for reason when he creates the world? Yes.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. God acts for a reason for creating that evil. That reason is not punishment or character development. That reason is creation of a certain type of relationship between God and man. Evil is morally necessary to allow selfishness and selfless love to develop separately so that man can selflessly love God. If human beings know with certainty that God rewards those who love him, then human beings might be tempted to use God for their own ends. Selfishness corrupts selfless love. This third truth claim is advanced through declarations by the author and by God of Job’s virtual sinlessness (Job 1:1; 1:8; 2:3), Satan’s first speech in heaven (Job 1:9-11) and God’s acceptance of the terms of the test proposed. (Job 1:12: 2:6)

All persons act for a reason. That reason is goodness. The good is the desirable and the desirable is the good. The good is the object of our desires. It is self-evidently true that all persons desire the good. At the moment of choice, all persons choose what appears good to them, whether or not it actually is really good for them. No person chooses what appears harmful or injurious to them. This remains the case even in the most apparently destructive of all acts, suicide. To a suicidal person, death appears good, even though it may not really be good. All action is intentional and purposeful. The purpose is the achievement of a particular good, real or apparent.

God is a person, by definition. If God chooses to create a particular world, then he does so with a reason in mind. That reason is purposeful and designed to achieve a particular good.

4. Does man have a need to know the reason for evil?

Does man have a need to know the reason for evil in the world? Yes.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. Man has a need to know the reason why God has created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. And a religious man such as Job desires to know why God has apparently contradicted himself by sending evil into the world. This fourth truth claim is advanced through all Job’s speeches in the first (Job 3:1-3:26; 6:1-7:21; 9:1-9:35), second (Job 12:1-14:22; 16:1-17:14; 19:1-19:29) and third (Job 21:1-21:34; 23:1-24:25; 26:1-31:4) cycles of speeches and through God’s judgment on Job’s three friends (Job 42:7).

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

The need to know the truth of why there is evil in the world is an expression of man’s basic desire to know. The desire to know the truth is a natural desire rooted in human nature. It is universal in the sense all human beings have it. It is eradicable in the sense that all persons have it at all points in their lives. It is irresistible in the sense that this desire is constantly seeking fulfillment. This particular need is very important, because the answer to that question is central to the meaning of life itself.

5. Does man have a right to know?

Does man have right to know that reason for evil in the world? Yes.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. Man has a moral right to know the reason why God has created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. That fifth truth claim is advanced through Job’s raising of legal Oath of Innocence. (Job 27:1-31:4) That moral claim is dramatized as a legal claim.

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

Moral rights are a reflection of natural needs. Natural needs are always good. There is no such thing as a wrong need. The very concept of a wrong natural need is incoherent. A right is a justified moral claim. The justification is supplied by the natural needs themselves. The justification is self-evidence. It is self-evidently true that there are no wrong natural needs. [8] Once it is established that there is a natural need to know the reason why there is evil in the world, there is a natural moral right to that knowledge.

6. Does God have a duty to give the answer?

Does God have a duty to give man the answer to why there is evil in the world? Yes and no. Yes, God must provide an explanation for evil in the world. No, God need not provide that answer here and now.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. God has a moral duty to provide a necessary and sufficient reason why he has created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. That sixth truth claim is advanced through God being the defendant in Job’s legal Oath of Innocence. (Job 27:2-6; 31:35-37) That moral duty is dramatized as a legal duty to respond or suffer the condemnation that can follow summary default judgment.

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

Yes, God has a duty to give the answer. That duty is rooted in the goodness of God. God has created human beings with certain natural needs, including the need for truth. God has to provide a reasonable possibility that those needs can be fulfilled. Otherwise, God is contradicting himself. God may not have any obligations to man prior to creation. But once God creates man with certain needs, God acquires certain duties of care. They are duties he owes to himself and to man.

No, God does not have the duty to give the answer right now. That is because the right to know is not an inalienable and indefeasible right. A right is inalienable or indefeasible if it cannot be “given up”, “taken away”, “deferred” or “overridden”, without a moral wrong being committed. Very few rights are inalienable and indefeasible in that sense. There are perhaps only three such rights: the rights to “life, liberty [9] and the pursuit of happiness.” Those three rights can never be given up, taken away, deferred or overridden, without human nature itself being destroyed.

The right to know the truth can be overridden or deferred in certain circumstances. Such circumstances exist where the disclosure of the truth would interfere with the pursuit or possession of a more important good. Selfless love is posited as such a real good. Time is required for the development of that good. Any premature disclosure of that truth is overridden by that higher good. The ultimate disclosure of that truth is deferred to the time at which that good is complete. Truth is never denied as being a real good. If truth were not regarded as a good, then that denial would constitute a moral wrong. It is just that the timing of the disclosure of the truth has some flexibility to it. Since selfless love is posited as a real good justifying the deferral of the truth behind evil in the world for an entire human life, the appropriate time for that disclosure is the moment of death, or a short time thereafter in a resurrection and a Final Judgment on the life one has lived.

7. Is selfless love a real good?

Is selfless love a real good? Yes.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. It is God’s reason for creating this type of world. This seventh truth is advanced through Satan’s challenge and God’s acceptance of the challenge. (Job 1:9-12; 2:6)

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

Human beings have a natural desire to love and be loved. That desire is rooted in human nature. It is universal in the sense all human beings have it. It is eradicable in the sense that all persons have it at all points in their lives. It is irresistible in the sense that this desire is constantly seeking fulfillment. This particular need is very important, because love is perhaps the highest good and central to the meaning of life itself. Selfless love is the highest expression of love.

8. Is evil necessary to achieve that good?

Is evil necessary to achieve that good? Yes, at least some evil is necessary.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. God’s decision to create a world of undeserved and unremitted sufficient is rooted in the need to separate righteousness from reward. This eighth truth claim is advanced through Satan’s challenge to Job and God’s acceptance of the challenge. (Job 1:9-12; 2:6)

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

Selfishness can corrupt selfless love. Any necessary connection between reward and righteousness can seriously corrupt selfless love. Evil is necessary to break any necessary connection between righteousness and reward. The real question is how much and what type of evil is necessary to sever the bond so completely that human beings act as the connection never existed.

9. Is the evil in the world sufficient to achieve that good?

Is the quantity and quality of evil in this world sufficient to achieve that good? Yes, at least probably so.

The Book of Job takes that nuanced approach. Only God has the omniscience to give a definitive answer. Job adjourns his Oath of Innocence to the Day of the Final Judgment and awaits that final answer. This ninth truth claim is advanced through Job’s allusion to a Redeemer who stands up in court at the Final Judgment to plead his cause (Job 19:25-27), through the allusion to the apocalyptic destruction of Leviathan at the Messianic banquet with its explanation of all things (Job 41:6; Isaiah 25:6-9; 27:1; 29:18-21) and through Job’s allusion to Abraham in his adjournment of his Oath of Innocence. (Job 42:6)

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

Those reasons involve a consideration of the “evidential argument from evil”. The mere existence of evil is not the issue. All scholars agree that the “logical argument from evil” fails to disprove the existence of God as a God of goodness. The two propositions (a)

“God exists and is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good” and (b) “evil exists” are not logically incompatible. [10]

The moral skeptic is the one who would prematurely blame and condemn God for sending gratuitous evil into the world. The moral skeptic would format the evidential argument from evil in the following way:

(1) Major premise (p): “There exists instances of intense suffering which an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being could have prevented without thereby preventing the occurrence of any greater good.”

(2) Minor premise (q): “An all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being prevents the occurrence of any evil that is not logically necessary and sufficient for the occurrence of a good which outweighs it.”

(3) Conclusion (r): “Therefore, an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being does not exist.” [11]

The moral skeptic has two difficulties here.

The first difficulty is establishing the truth of the first premise. It almost requires omniscience to do it. In the case at hand in The Book of Job, the truth of that first premise is known by God and God alone. It is only an omniscient God that can give that answer. It is the message of The Book of Job that God is under a moral duty, dramatized as a legal duty, to give that answer and he will give it at the Final Judgment. It would be then that God would present a rigorous philosophical demonstration of his purpose in the creation and use of evil. Traditional religious thinking asserts that God will give all human beings at that time a supernatural grace that expands their minds to understand the intricacies of things that would have otherwise eluded them. This supernatural grace is part and parcel of “Beatific Vision”. Human beings will be elevated beyond their created status to understand all things through the divine mind, which is identical with the divine essence. They will remain human beings, but possess certain supernatural graces such as an expanded mind. It is at such a time that God would be able to present a philosophical demonstration of the truth or falsity of the skeptics’ first premise and man would be able to understand it. In our world, it is only possible to say that such an answer could be forthcoming, because it could exist. But omniscience would be required to present that answer and to understand it. In the meantime, it would be a sin of presumption to presume no such answer could be forthcoming.

The second difficulty is the logic or validity of the argument itself. The evidential argument from evil can be turned on its head.

The moral skeptic’s form of the evidential argument from evil is “If (p) and (q), then (r)”. But the logic of the argument is reversible, as the great 20th century philosopher G.E. Moore noted. The evidential argument from evil is equally valid if presented in a different form: “If (not r) and (q), then (not p)”. This is the so-called “G.E. Moore shift.” [12] Again we are talking about the validity of the argument, not the truth of the argument. The moral skeptic now has a Trojan horse on his hands.

A theist such as Job could reformat the argument in a way that strongly suggests the existence of an answer.

(1) Major premise (not r): “An all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being does exist.”

(2) Minor premise (q): “An all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being prevents the occurrence of any evil that is not logically necessary and sufficient for the occurrence of a good which outweighs it.”

(3) Conclusion (not p): “There do not exist instances of intense suffering which an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being could have prevented without thereby preventing the occurrence of any greater good.” [13]

The $64,000 question is a simple one. Is the evidence stronger for the moral skeptic’s first premise: “there exists instances of intense suffering which an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being could have prevented without thereby preventing the occurrence of any greater good”? Or is the evidence stronger for the theist’s first premise “an all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing and all-good being does exist”?

At first glance, the scales tip in favor of the theist. The moral skeptic has a real difficulty establishing the truth of his first premise. He may have his suspicions but he requires something near omniscience to establish the truth of his first premise. His task is especially difficult with the real good selfless love presented in The Book of Job. That love requires a massive quantity of gratuitous evil that brings the very existence of God into serious question so that the bond between righteousness and reward can be completely severed. The theist has much less difficulty with his first premise. The cosmological argument from Aquinas presents very strong evidence for the existence of a necessary being with all the perfections of being, including intellect and goodness. [14] It does not require anything near omniscience to establish the theist’s first premise.

Thus, they appear to be good reasons to believe God had a special good in mind in creating the world and the evil in the world is necessary and sufficient to bring about that real good. The message of The Book of Job is that the one true god, Yahweh, a perfect being, has that answer, will ultimately present it and will ultimately demonstrate its truth.

10. Is there a Final Judgment?

Is there a Final Judgment? Yes.

The Book of Job asserts that is the case. The moral question that only God can answer can only be fully answered on the Day of the Final Judgment. This final truth claim is advanced through Job’s allusion to a Redeemer who stands up in court at the Final Judgment to plead his cause (Job 19:25-27), through the allusion to the apocalyptic destruction of Leviathan at the Messianic banquet with its explanation of all things (Job 41:6; Isaiah 25:6-9; 27:1; 29:18-21) and through Job’s allusion to Abraham in his adjournment of his Oath of Innocence. (Job 42:6)

And there appear to be good reasons why that might be so.

God created man to lead a good life and the nature of the good life suggests the possibility of an afterlife. The good life is a final end that is normative, not terminal. It cannot be said at any point in time that a person has lived a good life when life itself is not over. The good in life is the good life as a whole. That whole good is never achieved at any moment in time. It is always in the process of becoming. The only terminus is death. Thus any assessment as to whether a person has lived a good life is an assessment that can only be made at the end of life itself. Only then is a final judgment possible on the goodness of life. God created man to lead a good life and presumably God intends an examination of his work. The appropriate time for that assessment is the moment of death or shortly thereafter. This does not mean an afterlife is logically necessary. It merely means that an afterlife may be an appropriate time for God to pass judgment of the fruits of his labor.

God created man with certain unlimited desires, the fulfillment of which lies beyond this life. The desire for truth and the desire for God are by their very natures unlimited. The existence of such natural needs strongly suggests the existence of real goods that satisfy those needs. The God that created the one provides the other. The one implies the other. If that were not the case, then God would contradict himself for it is self-evidently true that “ought” implies “can”. The desire for truth and the desire for God can only be completely satisfied in an afterlife. Again, this does not mean an afterlife is logically necessary. It merely means that there exists in human nature a good reason to posit the existence of such an afterlife.

If such an afterlife exists, then that would be a highly appropriate time for God to give the answer to the question why is there evil in the world. It is contemporaneous with an assessment of human life and consistent with man’s unlimited natural desire to know the truth and to know God.

_____

[1] Fagothey, A., Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice (The C.V. Mosby Company, St.Louis, 1959) p. 55.

[2] Adler, M.J., The Time of Our Lives: The Ethics of Common Sense (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970) pp. 94-97.;

——–. Ten Philosophical Mistakes (Collier Books, New York, 1985)

pp.117-118,125-126;

——–, Six Great Ideas: Truth, Goodness and Beauty- Ideas We Judge By, Liberty, Equality, Justice- Ideas We Act On (Collier Books, New York, 1981) p.81.

[3] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles: Book One: God Trans. A.C.Pegis (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1975) Chapter 13, pp. 85-96;

——–, Summa Theologica:Volume 1 Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Christian Classics, Westminister, 1948) Part 1, Question 2, Article 3, pp. 13-14.

[4] Adams, R.M., “Must God Create the Best” in The Concept of God: Oxford Readings in Philosophy Edit. T.V. Morris, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987) p. 91.

[5] ibid., p. 93.

[6] ibid., p. 94-95.

[7] ibid., p. 97-106.

[8] Adler, M.J., The Time of Our Lives: The Ethics of Common Sense (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970) p. 137-154.

[9] In this context, what is meant by liberty is free will itself. Contemplated deprivations might include lobotomy. It should not be confused by the circumstantial freedom of doing as one pleases.

[10] Rowe, W.L., Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, 1978) p. 83.

[11]ibid., p. 87.

[12] ibid., p. 90-91.

[13] ibid., p. 91.

[14] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica:Volume 1 Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Christian Classics, Westminister, 1948) Part 1, Question 2, Article 3, pp. 13-14;

——–, Summa Contra Gentiles: Book One: God Trans. A.C.Pegis (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1975) Chapter 13, pp. 85-96.

Creative Commons License
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.

Discussion

No comments for “Job- A Philosophical Analysis”

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Translator

English flagItalian flagPortuguese flagGerman flagFrench flagSpanish flagDutch flagNorwegian flag

Follow me on Twitter

Shop at Amazon.com!