Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 4:53:23 GMT
Chapter 18 - Cursed
Job's friends continue to insist that those who are cursed must be evil.
*Affirming the Consequent Fallacy*
An affirming the consequent fallacy occurs when one takes a principle, for example - A causes B, and then flipping the logic, and assuming that - if B, then A. This fallacy fails to understand that B could have a multiplicity of causes, and is not only caused by A. For example, it is possible that A causes B, and Z also causes B. If B, then A or Z. It would be a fallacy to assume that only A is the possible explanation.
*Affirming the Consequent of Wickedness*
In the Judaeo-Christian logic put forward by Job's friends, righteousness brings blessings (R -> B) nd conversely, wickedness brings cursings (W -> C). Job's friends observe his cursings and therefore affirm the consequent by concluding that Job is wicked (C -> W).
*Eastern Karma Vs Monotheistic Justice*
Both eastern religious concepts of karma and the primitive Judeo-Christian concepts of justice infer the idea of affirming the consequent of desert - the idea that we deserve our current situations. Yet, the eastern concept of karma is harder to refute than the western one. Job can refute the idea that he deserves his cursings since he has a knowledge of his innocence during his current lifetime. The eastern concept of karma allows you to be punished for sins in a former life in the cycle of reincarnation. So even an innocent Job might be cursed for sins he can't remember from former lives.
*Karmic Theodicy*
Theodicy is the attempt to provide a solution to the problem of evil - the conflict between the existence of God and the existence of evil. The Ramanuja school of Hinduism separates God from the nature of the universe - creation is a natural and eternal cycle that happens independently of God's existence. God is therefore not a fully omnipotent being in the face of this flow of nature. Karmic justice is just a natural law of the universe - the evils that exist are necessary in the face of these natural laws that not even God can override.
*Karmic Anti-Theodicy*
An anti-theodicy is a counterargument to theodicy. Under a karmic framework for viewing the world, every evil must have a prior justification. Every stubbed toe must be in relation to some former sin. Every miscarried child, every sickness, every accident, every offense, every abuse, every crime - all must be natural responses to certain bad deeds. But when we look more closely at reality, suffering is built into the very fabric of existence. Suffering could fall under a spectrum of micro-sufferings to macro-sufferings. Every cold puff of air, every itch, every bruise, every discomfort - all of these are micro-sufferings that must be build into the metaphysics of the universe. In order for all of these micro-sufferings to be justified, individuals must have committed a myriad of micro-sins, equal in magnitude to the sufferings. But I think that in the average persons life, upon reflection they would find that they aren't performing micro-sins at the same rate as their micro-sufferings. Most micro-sins would be in the social sphere and usually people get micro-revenge on social offenses by returning insult for insult, so the karmic justice is mostly satisfied. So if micro-sins at the social level can't be used to justify micro-sufferings, what can? The next most common type of harm committed by people is eating meat. Would it be logical to say that micro-sufferings are a response to the eating of meat? This line of thinking presents two problems - 1) the people who don't eat meat still have micro-sufferings, 2) are micro-sufferings an appropriate response to the harm caused by eating meat? We know that certain groups of people have practiced the ethic of not eating meat over the ages. If micro-sufferings were a response to eating meat, we would expect to find certain groups of people who don't experience micro-sufferings because they didn't eat meat in a prior life. Yet, we know that these types of people don't exist. Everyone experiences micro-sufferings, so their attribution to eating meat must be in error. The same argument can be applied to refuting the idea that micro-sufferings can be attributed to sexual sins as well, since over time there have also been subgroups committed to celibacy. To the second point - is experiencing a cold breeze or itchiness a proper punishment for ripping apart the flesh of an animal and eating them? Wouldn't the more appropriate punishment be reincarnating into an animal and experiencing being eaten? In the macro scheme of this, it doesn't seem like the universe cares whether or not flesh is being ripped apart in a painful manner because entire classes of animals have developed singularly for this purpose. The teleology of suffering seems much less logically connected to prior sins and much more logically connected to that which is naturally harmful for a species' evolution.
*Evolution of Karmic Justice*
The idea of karma is probably an evolutionary useful idea that helps perpetuate cooperative reciprocal behaviors in society. When you believe that good deeds bring good results and vice versa, you will have more motivation for prosocial behavior, and conversely less motivation for anti-social behavior. Variants of this principle seem common across religions. "A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians 6:7). "Whatever deed he does, that he will reap" (Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad: Fourth Adhyya, Fourth Brahmana 5). "Whoever acts righteously — whether male or female — and is a true believer, We will surely give them a good life" (Quran 16:97).
*Karma can be Toxic*
In my opinion, any system of belief that is quick to jump to the conclusion that people are evil is toxic. The label of "evil" is one of the most harmful and damaging labels there is. That which is evil is a class of objects that deserve punishment, if not destruction. It is harmful to conclude that people who suffer are evil because it infers that they deserve their suffering and isolates them from assistance. Job's friends are observing his suffering and then concluding that he must be evil so as to reap such a reward in this lifetime. One of the harmful aspects of many religions is this toxic propensity to inaccurately attribute the label of evil to certain people. Yet, this propensity doesn't seem to be limited to the religious, but seems more like a tribal phenomenon of human nature, in that out-groups or heterodox groups are often demonized as evil.
NEXT: Chapter 19 - Hope despite betrayal
Job's friends continue to insist that those who are cursed must be evil.
*Affirming the Consequent Fallacy*
An affirming the consequent fallacy occurs when one takes a principle, for example - A causes B, and then flipping the logic, and assuming that - if B, then A. This fallacy fails to understand that B could have a multiplicity of causes, and is not only caused by A. For example, it is possible that A causes B, and Z also causes B. If B, then A or Z. It would be a fallacy to assume that only A is the possible explanation.
*Affirming the Consequent of Wickedness*
In the Judaeo-Christian logic put forward by Job's friends, righteousness brings blessings (R -> B) nd conversely, wickedness brings cursings (W -> C). Job's friends observe his cursings and therefore affirm the consequent by concluding that Job is wicked (C -> W).
*Eastern Karma Vs Monotheistic Justice*
Both eastern religious concepts of karma and the primitive Judeo-Christian concepts of justice infer the idea of affirming the consequent of desert - the idea that we deserve our current situations. Yet, the eastern concept of karma is harder to refute than the western one. Job can refute the idea that he deserves his cursings since he has a knowledge of his innocence during his current lifetime. The eastern concept of karma allows you to be punished for sins in a former life in the cycle of reincarnation. So even an innocent Job might be cursed for sins he can't remember from former lives.
*Karmic Theodicy*
Theodicy is the attempt to provide a solution to the problem of evil - the conflict between the existence of God and the existence of evil. The Ramanuja school of Hinduism separates God from the nature of the universe - creation is a natural and eternal cycle that happens independently of God's existence. God is therefore not a fully omnipotent being in the face of this flow of nature. Karmic justice is just a natural law of the universe - the evils that exist are necessary in the face of these natural laws that not even God can override.
*Karmic Anti-Theodicy*
An anti-theodicy is a counterargument to theodicy. Under a karmic framework for viewing the world, every evil must have a prior justification. Every stubbed toe must be in relation to some former sin. Every miscarried child, every sickness, every accident, every offense, every abuse, every crime - all must be natural responses to certain bad deeds. But when we look more closely at reality, suffering is built into the very fabric of existence. Suffering could fall under a spectrum of micro-sufferings to macro-sufferings. Every cold puff of air, every itch, every bruise, every discomfort - all of these are micro-sufferings that must be build into the metaphysics of the universe. In order for all of these micro-sufferings to be justified, individuals must have committed a myriad of micro-sins, equal in magnitude to the sufferings. But I think that in the average persons life, upon reflection they would find that they aren't performing micro-sins at the same rate as their micro-sufferings. Most micro-sins would be in the social sphere and usually people get micro-revenge on social offenses by returning insult for insult, so the karmic justice is mostly satisfied. So if micro-sins at the social level can't be used to justify micro-sufferings, what can? The next most common type of harm committed by people is eating meat. Would it be logical to say that micro-sufferings are a response to the eating of meat? This line of thinking presents two problems - 1) the people who don't eat meat still have micro-sufferings, 2) are micro-sufferings an appropriate response to the harm caused by eating meat? We know that certain groups of people have practiced the ethic of not eating meat over the ages. If micro-sufferings were a response to eating meat, we would expect to find certain groups of people who don't experience micro-sufferings because they didn't eat meat in a prior life. Yet, we know that these types of people don't exist. Everyone experiences micro-sufferings, so their attribution to eating meat must be in error. The same argument can be applied to refuting the idea that micro-sufferings can be attributed to sexual sins as well, since over time there have also been subgroups committed to celibacy. To the second point - is experiencing a cold breeze or itchiness a proper punishment for ripping apart the flesh of an animal and eating them? Wouldn't the more appropriate punishment be reincarnating into an animal and experiencing being eaten? In the macro scheme of this, it doesn't seem like the universe cares whether or not flesh is being ripped apart in a painful manner because entire classes of animals have developed singularly for this purpose. The teleology of suffering seems much less logically connected to prior sins and much more logically connected to that which is naturally harmful for a species' evolution.
*Evolution of Karmic Justice*
The idea of karma is probably an evolutionary useful idea that helps perpetuate cooperative reciprocal behaviors in society. When you believe that good deeds bring good results and vice versa, you will have more motivation for prosocial behavior, and conversely less motivation for anti-social behavior. Variants of this principle seem common across religions. "A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians 6:7). "Whatever deed he does, that he will reap" (Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad: Fourth Adhyya, Fourth Brahmana 5). "Whoever acts righteously — whether male or female — and is a true believer, We will surely give them a good life" (Quran 16:97).
*Karma can be Toxic*
In my opinion, any system of belief that is quick to jump to the conclusion that people are evil is toxic. The label of "evil" is one of the most harmful and damaging labels there is. That which is evil is a class of objects that deserve punishment, if not destruction. It is harmful to conclude that people who suffer are evil because it infers that they deserve their suffering and isolates them from assistance. Job's friends are observing his suffering and then concluding that he must be evil so as to reap such a reward in this lifetime. One of the harmful aspects of many religions is this toxic propensity to inaccurately attribute the label of evil to certain people. Yet, this propensity doesn't seem to be limited to the religious, but seems more like a tribal phenomenon of human nature, in that out-groups or heterodox groups are often demonized as evil.
NEXT: Chapter 19 - Hope despite betrayal
