Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 | Reason : Interviews | print version Print | Comments

Audio Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

NPR

Thanks to Chuck Goecke for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131

Fresh Air from WHYY, February 19, 2008 · It's one of the oldest faith questions: If there's an all-powerful and loving God, why do human beings suffer?

In his latest book, religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman wrestles with that question — and with the implications of the often-contradictory answers he finds. In God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer, Ehrman meditates upon how the Bible explains human suffering, why he finds the explanations unconvincing, and why he gave up on being a Christian.

Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus and more than a dozen other books, chairs the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Click here to play audio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131



Excerpt: 'God's Problem'
by Bart Ehrman

Suffering and a Crisis of Faith

If there is an all-powerful and loving God in this world, why is there so much excruciating pain and unspeakable suffering? The problem of suffering has haunted me for a very long time. It was what made me begin to think about religion when I was young, and it was what led me to question my faith when I was older. Ultimately, it was the reason I lost my faith. This book tries to explore some aspects of the problem, especially as they are reflected in the Bible, whose authors too grappled with the pain and misery in the world.

To explain why the problem matters so much to me, I need to give a bit of personal background. For most of my life I was a devout and committed Christian. I was baptized in a Congregational church and reared as an Episcopalian, becoming an altar boy when I was twelve and continuing all the way through high school. Early in my high school days I started attending a Youth for Christ club and had a "born-again" experience—which, looking back, seems a bit strange: I had been involved in church, believing in Christ, praying to God, confessing my sins, and so on for years. What exactly did I need to convert from? I think I was converting from hell—I didn't want to experience eternal torment with the poor souls who had not been "saved"; I much preferred the option of heaven. In any event, when I became born again it was like ratcheting my religion up a notch. I became very serious about my faith and chose to go off to a fundamentalist Bible college—Moody Bible Institute in Chicago—where I began training for ministry.

I worked hard at learning the Bible—some of it by heart. I could quote entire books of the New Testament, verse by verse, from memory. When I graduated from Moody with a diploma in Bible and Theology (at the time Moody did not offer a B.A. degree), I went off to finish my college work at Wheaton, an evangelical Christian college in Illinois (also Billy Graham's alma mater). There I learned Greek so that I could read the New Testament in its original language. From there I decided that I wanted to commit my life to studying the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and chose to go to Princeton Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian school whose brilliant faculty included Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual scholar in the country. At Princeton I did both a master of divinity degree—training to be a minister—and, eventually, a Ph.D. in New Testament studies.

I'm giving this brief synopsis to show that I had solid Christian credentials and knew about the Christian faith from the inside out—in the years before I lost my faith.

During my time in college and seminary I was actively involved in a number of churches. At home, in Kansas, I had left the Episcopal church because, strange as this might sound, I didn't think it was serious enough about religion (I was pretty hard-core in my evangelical phase); instead I went a couple of times a week to a Plymouth Brethren Bible Chapel (among those who really believed!). When I was away from home, living in Chicago, I served as the youth pastor of an Evangelical Covenant church. During my seminary years in New Jersey I attended a conservative Presbyterian church and then an American Baptist church. When I graduated from seminary I was asked to fill the pulpit in the Baptist church while they looked for a full-time minister. And so for a year I was pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church, preaching every Sunday morning, holding prayer groups and Bible studies, visiting the sick in the hospital, and performing the regular pastoral duties for the community.

But then, for a variety of reasons that I'll mention in a moment, I started to lose my faith. I now have lost it altogether. I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian. The subject of this book is the reason why.

In an earlier book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, I have indicated that my strong commitment to the Bible began to wane the more I studied it. I began to realize that rather than being an inerrant revelation from God, inspired in its very words (the view I had at Moody Bible Institute), the Bible was a very human book with all the marks of having come from human hands: discrepancies, contradictions, errors, and different perspectives of different authors living at different times in different countries and writing for different reasons to different audiences with different needs. But the problems of the Bible are not what led me to leave the faith. These problems simply showed me that my evangelical beliefs about the Bible could not hold up, in my opinion, to critical scrutiny. I continued to be a Christian—a completely committed Christian—for many years after I left the evangelical fold.

Eventually, though, I felt compelled to leave Christianity altogether. I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe. It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.

The problem of suffering became for me the problem of faith. After many years of grappling with the problem, trying to explain it, thinking through the explanations that others have offered—some of them pat answers charming for their simplicity, others highly sophisticated and nuanced reflections of serious philosophers and theologians—after thinking about the alleged answers and continuing to wrestle with the problem, about nine or ten years ago I finally admitted defeat, came to realize that I could no longer believe in the God of my tradition, and acknowledged that I was an agnostic: I don't "know" if there is a God; but I think that if there is one, he certainly isn't the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in this world. And so I stopped going to church.

Comments 1 - 50 of 68 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #129882 by chuckgoecke on February 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm

 avatarHaving now heard almost all of the show, it seems like Bart must have read Richard, Chistopher, et al reciently.
Chuck

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

2. Comment #129884 by Grantaire of JC on February 19, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Mr Erhman can at least take comfort that his educated sense of logic has brought him to this conclusion and if he is still concerned about the suffering of this world, he can actively participate to make a difference without god being a reason. I hope he encourages people to be active in eliminating suffering instead of being passive through prayer. If such an issue is important god's existence (or not) would be irrelevant and everyone involved would be better for it. I welcome him to our side of the argument and hope he understands that god has nothing to do with who he is. He can find comfort in that.

Other Comments by Grantaire of JC

3. Comment #129887 by Double Bass Atheist on February 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm

 avatarThis reminds me of many postings in the Converters Corner on this website, but this guy's written a whole book on losing his faith.
He also wrote "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"

Interesting article... the author went all the way from achieving Ph.D. in New Testament studies (why is this even a degree?) to no longer believing in god.
People like Bart Ehrman give me hope that rationality and reason will always win out, if the believer would only spend some critical thinking time with his/her religion.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

4. Comment #129899 by Zakie Chan on February 19, 2008 at 6:18 pm

 avatarSweet! I loved Misquoting Jesus, and I just got his new book in the mail.

Double Bass- Are you serious that you dont think NT studies should be a subject? Its not theology, its just like any other historically based subject. Check out Misquoting Jesus to see how much rich and interesting history there is to it.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

5. Comment #129915 by HappyPrimate on February 19, 2008 at 6:38 pm

 avatarInteresting interview. I think I will buy his book and after I read it, I will pass it along to my family.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

6. Comment #129921 by Double Bass Atheist on February 19, 2008 at 6:48 pm

 avatarZakie Chan -
I would agree that, technically, you are correct. However, I don't think that most people who get these various "degrees" are historians. They are theologians who use their so-called education to legitimize their beliefs.
One can get a degree in 'Ancient Greek Mythology', but why is this called 'NT Studies'? Why not 'Ancient Christian Mythology' or 'NT Mythology'?
Obviously, because that would offend the vast majority of theists who would otherwise be taking these courses.
Besides what is someone supposed to do with various degrees in biblical BS? People like Mr Ehrman who use that education to argue against god are very rare indeed.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

7. Comment #129922 by Teratornis on February 19, 2008 at 6:51 pm

 avatarI think there's another point to make, in addition to the problem of pain in general. Some forms of pain seem inherent to the natural order, such as when a limb falls off a tree and land on an unlucky human standing below. Hey, stuff happens.

The part that's really hard to square is the easily avoidable pain. For example, if God is omniscient, he knows when the tree limb is going to fall. He knows who committed all the unsolved crimes.

If an ordinary person knows that a criminal plans to kill you, and deliberately chooses not to warn you, could any sane person consider the uninformative lout to be a friend? Holding back vital information is not friendly. It is hostile. Therefore God is hostile to humans.

If God exists and has all the properties ascribed to him, he knows where all the criminals are hiding and who they are going to hit next. He knows where the next tsunami is going to hit. And the next hurricane, volcano, avalanche, flood, etc.

Like many people, I was appalled at the needless slaughter of so many people from the Indian Ocean tsunami when all they had to do was walk inland for five or ten minutes to reach higher ground. Almost all the victims could have survived with a few minutes of warning. They would have lost their houses (foolishly built so close to shore) but at least saved their lives. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people died for lack of a simple warning.

In spite of this, most of the survivors clung to their religions, praying to their various gods. The same gods who couldn't have been bothered to send a timely warning about the tsunami.

Even if there is a God who gives people divine revelations, how could we trust anything from a God who won't tell us the tsunami is coming? Obviously this God does not have our best interests at heart.

We would never trust a human who had that kind of information and refused to share it!

I admit to being impressed, however, by the skill with which religious people concoct excuses for divine failure. They practically have a whole industry for excusing God.

Other Comments by Teratornis

8. Comment #129924 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm

 avatarI think this is correct, Teratornis, especially the last statement. Have you ever read the sophisticated philosophical attempts by theists to show that there is no 'problem of evil', that the amount of suffering in the world is entirely compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity?... and I don't mean just the 'free will defence'.

It's nauseating. A semantic breakdance complete with some baffling 'excuses' for god.

Other Comments by MPhil

9. Comment #129927 by Radesq on February 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm

 avatarTeratornis...I like the avatar is it new? Have you seen the postage stamp (Laotian I think). Regarding your post, two things come to mind...1)the most common explanation for suffering is that God has a greater purpose that we simply are incapable of understanding. Easy but unsatisfying...if God is trying to teach us something why not just come straight out with it rather than all this beating around the burning bush, which has to be interpreted and devised? 2)You did not find anyway to work bicycling or Wikipedia in there (are you not feeling well?)

~edit I just read your next post on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, nevermind. :)

Other Comments by Radesq

10. Comment #129939 by rod-the-farmer on February 19, 2008 at 7:33 pm

 avatarWhat came to my mind on reading his story was "Who PAID for all this time at school ?" Next, how do they feel now that he has rejected all that he learned ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

11. Comment #129941 by twilleyj on February 19, 2008 at 7:39 pm

 avatarAnyone have this in a .MP3 format? I could not "get it" out of that streaming NBR player. Boo to streaming players.

Other Comments by twilleyj

12. Comment #129953 by sarah95 on February 19, 2008 at 8:08 pm

 avatarI really do find it annoying when self-declared agnostics say
"Oh, I don't currently believe in god, for many good reasons, but I'm not absolutely sure about it, so on so forth... but don't confuse me with those nasty atheists like Dawkins who actually have the balls to come out and say the dreaded word 'atheist'!!"
...As though the terms atheist and agnostic were mutually exclusive, and as though Dawkins and Hitchens et al were promoting the "spread of atheism". We know that neither of these things are true.

Bart Ehrman whinily accused "recent atheist authors" of "telling everyone that they should be atheist".

Whenever asked about "making religion go away", Hitchens says "of course not, who would I have to argue with?" and Dawkins says "what I care about is rational thinking." Really, we all know that religion shouldn't be eradicated. It's silly stories are good for a laugh, and there's no reason to rewrite history, but the new atheists have made the point that the issue is about rational naturalism vs. supernatural irrational poofism.

Other Comments by sarah95

13. Comment #129954 by evaporated on February 19, 2008 at 8:08 pm

'New Testement Studies' doesn't imply anything about belief. The canonization of the NT is an important and valid area of research and, as Ehrman proves, doesn't necessitate Christian apologetics. Ehrman is a first-rate historian and scholar. His work and life confirm the validity of intellectually honest scholarship.

Other Comments by evaporated

14. Comment #129957 by dragonfirematrix on February 19, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Oh, how enlightenment corrects the beliefs of a person and saves the person from the lies of once believed in god(s).

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

15. Comment #129972 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 8:36 pm

If there is a god, then why is this allowed?
Witches in Ghana!! You can hardly believe this video.

http://cbs5.com/seenon/Ghana.witch.villages.2.656996.html

Other Comments by MelM

16. Comment #129978 by salon_1928 on February 19, 2008 at 8:46 pm

I've read three a Bart's books: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus. All three are excellent in their analysis of the new testament (and old testament to some degree) as an ancient document. The first in particular is superb. It's long (compared to many of Bart's other books) but it's thorough, and after reading it, you can pretty much declare yourself more knowledgeable about the new testament than the majority of faith-heads.

I'm actually a bit bummed by the fact that Bart has publicly declared his loss of faith. I had always assumed that he had but didn't know for sure. Maybe he has spoken about it before but I was never aware of it. I think the unfortunate implications are that his readership will be even more firmly rooted in the non-believer's camp.

On that note, a sort of funny anecdote â€" I once tried to get an evangelical friend of mine to read Bart's The New Testament. No way he said - at least not before he cleared it with his pastor (or whatever). I told him it was scholarly book and not meant to convert people one way or another and would most likely give him a deeper understanding of the very book that he was devoting a significant part of his life to. He absolutely wouldn't budge - and this was his reasoning - Satan is apparently active in the world and out to tempt him. He now relies on his pastor to make decisions for him as to what is appropriate to read, watch, listen to, etc. That's why I call religion a "surgical-less lobotomy."

Buy and read Bart's new book!

Peace and Cheers!

Other Comments by salon_1928

17. Comment #129996 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Comment #129978 by salon_1928,

Good story about your evangelical friend. I think this is a big issue and moves us toward understanding why Popes are needed in religion.

When we look at our situation, we fundamentally have no one but ourselves to deal with what's true and false. We can hunt for experts but it's still we who have to decide somehow who the expert is. Really, we are cognitively alone. That doesn't mean we can't learn from others but it's still our own mind that has to study and judge. Religion seeks an absolutely reliable source of knowledge external to our own minds. Your friend seems to be looking for someone else to make up for the mind he's abandoned. The bible also is a way of trying to escape the responsibility of thought. Your friend appears literally afraid to think.

Other Comments by MelM

18. Comment #130011 by MikeV on February 19, 2008 at 10:33 pm

 avatarGood interview.

Bart said that it took him around 8 years to become agnostic... let's hope that it takes alot less than that for him to become an atheist :)

Other Comments by MikeV

19. Comment #130019 by vesihiisi on February 19, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Ehrman at Youtube about Misquoting Jesus (10 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo

Ehrman at Infidel Guy http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=284648

Other Comments by vesihiisi

20. Comment #130020 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm

 avatarchuckgoecke

I expect BE has read the books by the Four Horsemen but Misquoting Jesus was published before TGD and he mentions his agnosticism in that. He also said he was planning to write a book about how he lost his faith and that it was more to do with the suffering in the world than the fact that he believes The Bible to be the work of man, though that may only be mentioned in the paperback edition (2007).

Other Comments by PJG

21. Comment #130021 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm

I find what he said about the book of Ecclesiastes quite interesting. Based on his description it almost sounds like an atheist manifesto.Who would have thought that it is a book in the Bible.

Other Comments by Bonzai

22. Comment #130032 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:10 am

 avatarIn view of his feelings about what he was told about Hell, I wonder what Bart Ehrman thinks about the Baby Bible Bashers.

Other Comments by PJG

23. Comment #130034 by vesihiisi on February 20, 2008 at 12:16 am

If you remove all the god worship from the book of Ecclesiastes, thats pretty much something from buddhism. Intrestingly, at the same time BoE was written, greek philosophers were getting in touch with indian philosophers and starting new schools, as Alexander the Great invaded Asia.
--

Maybe an agnostic needs a better definition? One, that does not believe in god, but believes in Hell? Or one, that does not believe in god, but believes in religion (people are too stupid to think for themself)?

Other Comments by vesihiisi

24. Comment #130048 by fatcitymax on February 20, 2008 at 1:25 am

So, it took 20 years for Ehrman to discover logic and common sense.

Other Comments by fatcitymax

25. Comment #130089 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 3:52 am

 avatarIs he only 20? I thought he was older than that! :o)

20 years isn't too bad. The vast majority NEVER discover logic and common sense!

Other Comments by PJG

26. Comment #130090 by Newk on February 20, 2008 at 3:53 am

 avatarI diddnt read the text but after listning to that 47min interview I so want to read his book :o ...

Other Comments by Newk

27. Comment #130110 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 20, 2008 at 5:25 am

Yes the question whether or not there is a benevolent God is certainly settled. No need to be tooth-fairy agnostics about omni-benevolence.

  • Congential Birth Defects

  • Cancer, Parkinsons etc

  • Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanic Eruptions etc

  • Psychopath, Sociopaths

  • etc...

  • Free Will can explain Human on Human suffering, but nothing can explain these if you posit an omni-benevolent god.

    Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

    28. Comment #130113 by Steve Zara on February 20, 2008 at 5:36 am

     avatar
    I find what he said about the book of Ecclesiastes quite interesting. Based on his description it almost sounds like an atheist manifesto.Who would have thought that it is a book in the Bible.


    Well that is an interesting idea. If Christians can selectively quote to support whatever they want, why can't we do this and see if we can support atheism? We could found "The Church of Christ Absent"

    Other Comments by Steve Zara

    29. Comment #130115 by the great teapot on February 20, 2008 at 5:40 am

    Chuckgoeke,

    If that is your T-shirt, please burn it. Now.
    And even if it isn't change the pic. Just not funny, at all.

    Other Comments by the great teapot

    30. Comment #130139 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 6:14 am

     avatarAgreeing with Zakie Chan and evaporated; NT studies is a perfectly legit academic pursuit. Having taken some courses on the new and old testament as text, it's a non-religious study of the bible as the product of human authors. Of course, there are many religious scholars in the field, but at its roots it's about looking at the book, not at religion.

    Other Comments by Epinephrine

    31. Comment #130142 by chuckgoecke on February 20, 2008 at 6:19 am

     avatarDear Mr., Ms., or Mrs. Teapot of Greatness,
    Sorry you disapprove of my tee shirt pic. It's not me, although I sort of look like the guy. If I owned a tee shirt like that, I wouldn't burn it, but I also wouldn't wear it, except around certain friends. I like the pic, not because I advocate beating women, nor cannibalism, its the double-double entrandre, that I like. If you don't see that, sorry, but maybe you also might lighten up a bit. If lots of people are offended, all take the pic down.

    Other Comments by chuckgoecke

    32. Comment #130155 by the great teapot on February 20, 2008 at 6:34 am

    I see the entendres and I like a joke like the next man, but I dunno, sometimes humour crosses a thin line.

    Other Comments by the great teapot

    33. Comment #130173 by ft77 on February 20, 2008 at 6:46 am

    MP3 of the interview is at http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/13/19186602/npr_19186602.mp3

    Other Comments by ft77

    34. Comment #130212 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 7:14 am

     avatar.

    Isn't it interesting how people have different takes on things? I had seen the T-shirt more as a feminist thing, highlighting domestic violence - in a mildly humorous way (which could be seen as a bit inappropriate, true) - but highlighting it nonetheless.

    I do think it is a shame if on this site, of all sites, people start claiming to be "offended" by other people's jokes, attitudes and statements. Isn't this where we want to discuss things openly and have no censorship (unless someone is gratuitously rude of course)? Intent is everything and I doubt chuckgoecke intended to offend.

    EDIT: I am a woman, btw.

    Other Comments by PJG

    35. Comment #130251 by dawgdoc2000 on February 20, 2008 at 7:43 am

     avatarChuck

    The double double entendre is pretty clever, I'll admit (I chuckled at it), but then there's that feeling that the subject is not a joking matter. I don't think it's offensive, though. It's kind of strange the juxtaposed feelings it evokes.

    dd2k

    Other Comments by dawgdoc2000

    36. Comment #130254 by pkruger on February 20, 2008 at 7:45 am

    How wonderful to see someone seeing through all the obvious bullshit.
    I've had discussions with christians, challenging them as to why God allows so much suffering and misery, and the usual smug response is something like: "God is 'testing' us"-- or some other nonsensical ad hoc explanation.
    To which I would respond "Now that being the case, how would this differ if there were no God at all?"

    It's a knock-out blow.


    Another response could be:.."But exactly what would he be 'testing ' us for? For all the other times when he decides to, or cannot do anything to prevent us from experiencing misery?"

    ( And you will find with this question, you will always be interupted before finishing your question )

    Other Comments by pkruger

    37. Comment #130295 by PaulMauriceMartin on February 20, 2008 at 8:24 am

    The two ideas are simply logically contradictory: on the one hand, an all-good, all-powerful Entity; on the other, the existence of pain and suffering. Every theodicy I've read is either an obfuscation or, as in process theology, a reconceptualization of God in a way that makes God less than all-powerful in the sense of a Magician who can do anything (S)he wants at any time.

    Paul - originalfaith.com

    Other Comments by PaulMauriceMartin

    38. Comment #130318 by notsobad on February 20, 2008 at 9:43 am

     avatarGood interview.

    The most interesting part starts at 43:30 when he talks about how he talked to god and otherwise felt in connection with god, had personal experience with god when he was a Christian.
    This just shows that personal experience - the ONLY kind of evidence believers have - is subjective and unreliable.
    We knew it already but it's good when theists are reminded of that.

    Other Comments by notsobad

    39. Comment #130326 by quill on February 20, 2008 at 10:34 am

     avatarAh, Moody Bible Institute, where "Bible" is their middle name.

    Other Comments by quill

    40. Comment #130327 by Quine on February 20, 2008 at 10:37 am

     avatarIn line with the remarks by salon_1928 above, I also encourage people to read Ehrman's textbook on the NT. This was my first authoritative guide to where these writings came from, and with it I was able to come to a much clearer understanding of the origins of Christianity. Unfortunately, I am generally unable to get Christians to do the same.

    Other Comments by Quine

    41. Comment #130341 by RickM on February 20, 2008 at 11:09 am

     avatarIs there something I'm missing? I ask this seriously.

    Ehrman claims suffering as his basic problem, yet he has a PhD. and never once mentions the history of Yahweh as a second tier god (in the divine council of El). The Abrahamic god is a cut and paste mythology. Why is this so often ignored? Does he actually think Baal, El, Asherah, et al are real? How can he not understand they are all man made? How can he not understand faith is irrational?

    This all really befuddles me.

    (I won't buy his book; I'm currently working on "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts" by Mark S. Smith)

    Other Comments by RickM

    42. Comment #130347 by fatcitymax on February 20, 2008 at 11:38 am

    The only thing 'double' about the t-shirt is that it's both crude and stupid. Typical of too much of American culture.

    Other Comments by fatcitymax

    43. Comment #130350 by Incredulous on February 20, 2008 at 11:47 am

    It takes a proper bloke to admit he's wrong; and that is what he seems to be doing here. The misery and suffering angle is just one of many that the deluded need to be assisted in seeing through.

    I'm just reading Sam Harris's End of Faith - I love his writing, and I hope we can get more of people like this to help wean people, especially, it seems people of the muslim faith off destructive primitive beliefs.

    Thank goodness I'm only human.

    Other Comments by Incredulous

    44. Comment #130356 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Pain and suffering - "The Problem of Pain," as CS Lewis called it - is a major issue for religious believers, especially moderate, "social gospel" Christians. (As Ehrman says, some Christian apologists like Lewis try to "think around" this challenge, but it's hard to truly avoid for those who actually live it in their daily lives.)

    In fact, I think experiencing and witnessing deep suffering, whether their own or that of others, is more likely to turn many of those most devoted to their fellow humans away from their faith than reminders than what they believe is illogical or silly.

    On the other hand, others - notably Catholics - accept it as part of the "tragic" sense of life (and of "fallen mankind") that comes with their dogma, and deal with the conundrum by devoting their lives to helping relieve suffering. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    And, of course, giving up belief doesn't make the pain and suffering go away. They're part of the human condition.

    (And for record, I don't think the "battered woman" T-shirt is even mildly funny - to me it seems provocatively anti-PC. Well, the humour doesn't outweigh the offence. It was only slightly better as a Two Ronnies joke about a fish-and-chips shop owner charged with "battering" his wife -- but I heard that one 25 years ago.)

    EB

    Other Comments by Eric Blair

    45. Comment #130360 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:15 pm

     avatarI have often had the argument about suffering (and God "testing " us) turned around to "God gave us free will" as if it is only about people inflicting suffering and that they will be punished by God. I always ask if a child being used by a paedophile ring has free-will or if a baby whose eyeball is infested with a parasite that will make it blind has free-will. They never have an adequate answer and always move on to some other crap.

    Other Comments by PJG

    46. Comment #130379 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Actually the "tests" are more often like entrapments and the people who suffer the consequences of some people's "free will" are seldom the perpetrators but their victims. A PR firm which can only come up with such lame spins would have gone out of business long ago.

    Other Comments by Bonzai

    47. Comment #130437 by cowalker on February 20, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Good for Ehrman. He had a LOT invested in belief. He would have been better off materially I'm sure, if he'd pretended to continue believing.

    It took me a long time to realize that the usual arguments (most suffering is caused by humans misusing their free will or suffering makes us better people) didn't begin to scratch the surface of the problem. If we can expand our compassion one degree beyond our own species, it's obvious that suffering is built into "the circle of life" as the Disney cartoon would have it. Most creatures survive by devouring each other alive, or serve to feed other creatures by being devoured alive. Many of these creatures are sentient, experiencing fear, loneliness and physical pain. In addition, these creatures suffer disease, birth defects and old age, just like humans. You can't argue that any of this suffering is due to their free will or that it will purify their souls. Even if you buy the Garden of Eden story, it's obvious that carnivorous creatures were never herbivores. They didn't have the digestive organs or teeth for it.

    What kind of God designs such a "circle of life?" Not a kind one. In fact, the world looks far more likely to be the product of amoral cause and effect.

    Other Comments by cowalker

    48. Comment #130475 by notsobad on February 20, 2008 at 4:25 pm

     avatar
    Eric Blair:
    On the other hand, others - notably Catholics - accept it as part of the "tragic" sense of life (and of "fallen mankind") that comes with their dogma, and deal with the conundrum by devoting their lives to helping relieve suffering. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    If only ...

    Other Comments by notsobad

    49. Comment #130492 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Notsobad:

    I'm not saying all Catholics work to relieve suffering (ie, "earthly" suffering) but there are those that do and do a commendable job. As RD said in his debate with Bunting, you might wish they did it for different reasons but that doesn't take away from its value.

    EB

    Other Comments by Eric Blair

    50. Comment #130516 by robotaholic on February 20, 2008 at 6:45 pm

     avatarthis was interesting- only because of my hysterectomy of religiousness- the whole job thing NEVER happened- the problem of evil cannot be answered by religious people and that is that-

    Other Comments by robotaholic
    Reload Comments | Back to Top

    More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

    Comment Entry: Please Login

    Register a new account

    Username:

    Password: