Answers to Job

In which, among other things, God explains to Job why skeptical theism is improbable

Inspired by this piece by Scott Alexander, particularly wonderful on account of the wonderful Tweets at the end:

Job cried out “God, why do you create a world with such evil. With babies burned by napalm, with tortures, murders, rapes, with fires that burn little old ladies, with horrifying mass murderers, with animals suffering and languishing for millions of years.”

And the lord spoke to Job from the whirlwind saying “WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I LAID THE EARTH’S FOUNDATIONS? WHEN I MADE THE WORLD, FULLY FROM MY INTELLECT ALONE, WHEN I FINELY TUNED THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT, PROVIDED THE VARIOUS FACULTIES THAT ENABLE ONE TO HAVE MORAL KNOWLEDGE, MADE EVERY POSSIBLE BEING EXIST, AS THE ANTHROPIC DATA SUPPORTS, AND MADE PSYCHOPHYSICALLY HARMONIOUS LAWS, WHERE WERE YOU?”

And Job fell to his knees, and declared “well, that will depend on one’s metaphysics. I’m pretty sympathetic to a preexistence theodicy according to which I was around at that time. But it’s true that I wasn’t actively involved in the process, nor do I have the wisdom to bring about such things.”

And the lord, in a booming voice that roused even the heavens declared “YOU CONSIDER THE HORRIFYING EVILS THAT HAVE AFFLICTED YOU AND YOU CANNOT SEE A REASON FOR THEM. YOU SEE THE SAME IN THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS. YET THIS RELIES ON A NOSEUM INFERENCE, THE IDEA THAT IF YOU CAN’T SEE A REASON FOR ME TO CREATE HORRIBLE EVIL THEN THERE CAN’T BE A REASON. YET I SEE NO REASON TO ACCEPT THIS. IF, INDEED, YOUR EPISTEMIC PURVIEW IS SO LIMITED, (WHICH IT IS—YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT 5843^2 EQUALS) YOUR GRASP OF MY GRAND PLAN IS SO THOROUGHLY CONSTRICTED BASED ON BOTH YOUR ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE INFINITE YEARS AND YOUR IGNORANCE OF MANY OF THE GREAT GOODS RESIDING IN THE AFTERLIFE, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU CLAIM THAT EVIL IS STRONG DISCONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE OF MY GOODNESS?”

“But do I not have general moral knowledge?”

"OF COURSE YOU DO. FOR FROM THE FIRST MOMENT OF MY CREATION, AS I MADE THE PSYCHOPHYSICAL LAWS, FROM SCRATCH I ORDAINED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ROBUST MORAL KNOWLEDGE, JUST AS I ORDAINED ROBUST MODAL, METAPHYSICAL, AND MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE. WHY DO YOU POSE SUCH QUERRIES?”

“Well, it seems that if I have robust moral knowledge, then I can be confident both that earthquakes and tsunamis are bad, and that a good being wouldn’t cause bad things if they could instead bring about the same goods without needing such bad. So therefore I could be confident that you wouldn’t bring about earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.”

“WE CAN HAVE ROBUST SUBJECTIVE MORAL KNOWLEDGE—THAT ONE GIVEN OUR KNOWLEDGE WOULD RATIONALLY REGARD SOME EVENT AS VERY BAD. BUT WE CAN’T HAVE ROBUST OBJECTIVE MORAL KNOWLEGE OF THE FORM ‘THE TOTAL EFFECTS THROUGHOUT ALL TIME OF SOME EVENT WILL BE NEGATIVE.’”

“But isn’t that too skeptical? I feel psychologically pretty confident that if some particular child hadn’t gotten cancer, the world would be a better place. If that’s unjustified, then it seems a pernicious skepticism is on our hands.”

“ONE’S IDENTITY IS VERY FRAGILE. IF YOUR PARENTS HAD HAD SEX ONE SECOND LATER, A VERY DIFFERENT PERSON WOULD EXIST INSTEAD OF YOU. THUS, ANY EVENT THAT AFFECTS THE WORLD AT ALL WILL CHANGE THE IDENTITY OF MANY PEOPLE. THESE PEOPLE WITH THEIR NEW IDENTITIES WILL TAKE DIFFERENT ACTIONS, WHICH WILL CHANGE MORE IDENTITIES. THUS, A FEW HUNDRED YEARS IN THE FUTURE, EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD WILL BE A DIFFERENT PERSON FROM WHO THEY’D HAVE BEEN IF SOME TRAGEDY HADN’T OCCURRED. WITH THIS IN MIND, THE TOTAL EFFECT, EVEN IF THERE IS NO GOD, OF ORDINARY TRAGEDIES IS QUITE INSCRUTABLE. NOW, THIS DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU SHOULDN’T PREVENT TRAGEDIES, FOR THE IDENTITY AFFECTING NATURE OF THE ACTS CANCEL OUT IN EXPECTATION. BUT NONETHELESS, IT MAKES TO GUESS WHETHER SOME PERFECT BEING WOULD PREVENT ANY PARTICULAR TRAGEDY.”

“But surely,” cried Job, “this can’t be a complete theodicy. You can bring about people without needing reproduction. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that the procreative choices that bring about the optimal crop of people would involve non-interference with the natural laws, when there are so many ways to bring about many people consistent with the natural laws.”

And the lord spoke from the whirlwind, its voice like a trumpet calling to all the nations, saying “YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE DIALECTICAL CONTEXT. I WASN’T PRESENTING A THEODICY. RATHER, I WAS OBJECTING TO THE CHARGE THAT CLAIMING THAT THE NET EFFECTS OF VARIOUS APPARENT EVILS ARE MOSTLY UNPREDICTABLE TO A BEING AS LIMITED AS YOU IS OVERLY SKEPTICAL. I POINTED OUT THAT EVERYONE HAS REASON TO THINK THAT—THEIST OR ATHEIST—BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF IDENTITY-AFFECTING ACTS.”

“Okay, maybe any particular evil isn’t strong disconfirmatory evidence. But there are so many evils, and they’re just the evils that we’d expect in an indifferent universe. To consider an analogy, suppose that you’re playing the game Go. I don’t really know how to play. However, I know that it involves placing stones on a board. So suppose you saw someone placing stones on a board in a very particular pattern—starting at the rightmost top row and just placing a stone to the left of their previous stone. Even if you don’t know what good Go play looks like, you should assume this player is bad, because the hypothesis that he’s not sensitive to good Go move reasons best explains why he’d follow that pattern. The hypothesis that he’s not making good moves perfectly explains each move. In contrast, the hypothesis that he’s making good moves makes that bizarre. Thus, even if you don’t know what good Go moves look like, you can still be pretty confident that your opponent isn’t good, because each move is explained well by the hypothesis that they don’t know how to play. But the same is true of the world. Each of the evils of the world is explained by the hypothesis that we’re an insignificant dot in a broadly indifferent universe. This explains why natural forces kill us with impunity, why even moral patients suffer, why pleasure and pain follow their biological role, and much more. What are the odds that the ideal set of experiences for the afterlife would be the very specific set produced by evolutionary forces?”

“YOU ERR IN ASSUMING THAT EACH EVIL HAS AN OUTWEIGHING GOOD. FOR THE REASONS YOU DESCRIBE, IT DOES NOT. INSTEAD, PLACING YOU IN A BROADLY INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE, WHERE I DON’T INTERVENE, IS VALUABLE AND MORE THAN MAKES UP FOR ALL THE EVILS. FOR EACH EVIL, I WILL INFINITELY COMPENSATE YOU IN THE AFTERLIFE. WHY DO I PUT YOU IN A BROADLY INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE? THERE ARE MANY REASONS THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, GIVEN YOUR EPISTEMIC LIMITATIONS. IN THE AFTERLIFE, THERE IS THE GREAT GOOD OF ZORUFLAB, YET THAT REQUIRES…I UNFORTUNATELY CAN’T TELL YOU THE DETAILS, BUT JUST KNOW, SOME GREAT GOOD WILL COME FROM THIS. BUT BEING IN AN INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE MIGHT PERMANENTLY STRENGTHEN YOUR CHARACTER, FORCING YOU TO LEARN TO DEAL WITH GREAT HARDSHIPS. IT MIGHT STRENGTHEN YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ME, BY SEEING HOW WRETCHED THINGS WOULD BE IN MY ABSENCE. IT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO GET YOU TO FREELY CHOOSE ME IN MY INFINITE GLORY. ULTIMATELY, YOU’RE NOT IN A POSITION TO GUESS IF THERE’S SOME GOOD REASON FOR DOING THIS. BUT PUTTING YOU IN A WORLD THAT IS BROADLY INDIFFERENT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME—0% OF YOUR INFINITE EXISTENCE—APTLY EXPLAINS ALL THE DATA.”

“But how can such terrible things be outweighed by greater goods? That’s just absurd. The extent of evil is breathtaking. How can a child being tortured to death be outweighed by afterlife goods?”

“I’LL LET YOU IN ON A LITTLE SECRET. DO YOU KNOW THE PHILOSOPHER ALEXANDER PRUSS?”

“Yes.”

“HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED HOW THAT GUY COMES UP WITH SO MANY GOOD ARGUMENTS?”

“Yes.”

“THE REASON IS BECAUSE HE IS OMNISCIENT. I GRANTED HIM OMNISCIENCE BECAUSE HE WAS SO GOOD AT MATH AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FITTING. WELL, MR. PRUSS HAS A FEW BLOG POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT. IN ONE OF THEM HE NOTES THAT AFTERLIFE GOODS THAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT CAN BE OF ANY ARBITRARILY GREAT VALUE. IF THERE ARE EVILS THAT OUTSTRIP TORTURE AS THOROUGHLY AS TRUE LOVE OUTSTRIPS A MOSQUITO BITE, THEN IT’S HARD TO SEE HOW ONE IS GOING TO BE IN A POSITION TO GUESS THAT VARIOUS EVILS OF THE WORLD CAN’T BE OUTWEIGHED. IN ADDITION, HE NOTES THAT THE BENEFITS OF SOUL-BUILDING AND SUCH LAST FOREVER, SO THEIR BENEFIT WILL NEVER END AND WILL OUTSTRIP EARTHLY SUFFERING. FINALLY, EVILS MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO EXPERIENCE THE BEATIFIC VISION MORE INTENSELY. THIS MEANS THAT EVILS WILL PRODUCE A LITERALLY INFINITE BENEFIT, FOR ONE’S DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF MY INFINITE GOODNESS IS VALUABLE ENOUGH TO OUTWEIGH THE BADNESS OF ALL THE WORLD’S PAINS.”

And Job sighed and admitted defeat. For while he could argue against God, he could not argue against Alexander Pruss.

And the lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind saying “WELL, THAT WILL DEPEND ON YOUR AXIOLOGY"

And the lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind saying “IF YOU’RE JUST A MOIST ROBOT, THEN ALL THE EVILS OF THE WORLD AREN’T REALLY BAD.”

And the lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind saying “WHILE THE PROBLEM OF EVIL MAY BE A DIFFICULT EMOTIONAL OR PASTORAL PROBLEM TO COPE WITH, AS A PURELY INTELLECTUAL PROBLEM, MODERN PHILOSOPHERS RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS NO STRICT LOGICAL INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN EVIL AND A PERFECT BEING.”

And the lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind shouting “EVIL DOESN’T DISPROVE GOD! WHY? FOR THERE TO BE EVIL THERE MUST BE GOOD AND FOR THERE TO BE GOOD THERE MUST BE GOD. THIS IS EXPOUNDED UPON IN MY BOOK, STEALING FROM GOD.”

And the lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind saying “THAT TIME THE LITTLE OLD LADY GOT HER FACE MELTED OFF WASN’T REALLY BAD, FOR EVIL IS JUST THE ABSENCE OF GOOD.”

And the lord spoke to Job out of the whirlwind saying “YOU ASSUME CONTROVERSIALLY THAT A PERFECT BEING WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO MORAL REASONS.”