Bart Ehrman's been on Unbelievable
again, this time talking about the Problem of Evil: if God is good and all-powerful, why is there so much suffering in the world? His opposite number this time was Richard Swinburne
, a Christian philosopher. Both of them have written books on the subject. I've read Ehrman's God's Problem
but not Swinburne's Providence and the Problem of Evil
The programme consisted of them both trying to get the arguments from their books into an hour long discussion. There's an MP3 of the programme
available on Premier's site. If you get annoyed with people posting links to audio and video without summaries, you could read my notes, below the cut, or skip to the conclusion
Ehrman mentions Rabbi Harold Kushner's book When bad things happen to good people
), in which Kushner says God is not all-powerful. Swinburne points out that being all-powerful doesn't include being able to do something logically contradictory. His argument is that there are good states which can't occur without allowing for the possibility of suffering. For example, you can't give people free choice (a good thing) to people without allowing them to chose evil. Responsibility for others is a good, but we can't really be responsible for them unless their well-being depends on our actions. God, as our creator, has the right to allow us to experience suffering if it's ultimately for our own good.
Ehrman responds that free will doesn't explain why many people suffer and don't receive benefit from it. A child dies of starvation every 5 seconds, and it's hard to argue that the child benefits from it. Christians think there will be no suffering in heaven, and yet there will, presumably, be free will in heaven. Hence there is no logical inconsistency between free will and the absence of suffering.Natural evil
Justin Brierley (the presenter) mentions natural disasters. Swinburne says that if the only suffering we experienced was from other people, some of us would barely suffer at all. He thinks this would in some ways be a bad thing. Natural evils (earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts) allow us opportunities to practice being cheerful in the face of suffering, to make significant decisions, and to help others. Making good choices improves our character. Deciding the kind of person we're to be is a good, but only serious situations allow those choices.
Ehrman is unconvinced by this. The 700 children who starved to death in the course of the programme did not have the choice to be cheerful about it, nor does it seem right to excuse the suffering of others (the starving) by saying it gives us an opportunity to make moral choices.The Holocaust
Swinburne talks of soldiers who die in just wars. We regard it as a good thing for them that they give up their lives for the good of others (to save their country from tyranny, say). The starving children are starving because our governments aren't doing enough about it, and neither are we as individuals, but Swinburne seems to be arguing that the starving children or murdered Jews (he explicitly mentions the Holocaust at this point) give something good to others, just as the soldiers who die defending their country do. The good here is the opportunity for people to make decisions that matter. Swinburne realises this sounds callous, but thinks we have to step back from our emotional response to the problem.
Ehrman thinks the Swinburne's cool detached approach to the Holocaust isn't good enough. What The Bible Says
The programme moves on to the Bible's attitude to suffering. As he does in God's problem
, Ehrman says that the Bible doesn't tend to give modern philosophically based answers, but its authors have a range of answers of their own. The prophets in the Hebrew Bible often say that suffering is punishment for Israel's sins. In some places, suffering is caused by the actions of other people (the closest the Bible gets to the free will argument, though it doesn't ever mention the argument explicitly). In other places, suffering is redemptive, so that people suffer to bring salvation (Jesus in the NT). Some Biblical authors attribute suffering to supernatural powers who work against God, and believe God will sort the baddies out at the end of time. Others (one of the authors of Job
) think that it's wrong to even question God about this. Finally, Ecclesiastes (summarised by scribb1e here
) says that life, including suffering, just doesn't make sense sometimes, so we may as well be happy as best we can.
Justin Brierley quotes Ehrman's God's Problem
, where Ehrman describes sitting in a church near Cambridge (he has family locally) in a Christmas service, being moved by the intecessory prayers for God to come into the darkness. Ehrman says that the story of Jesus is that God does intervene, but looking around the world, this doesn't seem to make a difference now.
Swinburne agrees that the Bible has a number of different answers to why people suffer, because there are number of reasons that God might allow suffering. He adds some that Ehrman hasn't mentioned: Hebrews 12
talks suffering as character formation, John 9
talks of a man born blind so that Jesus could show something by healing him.
Ehrman thinks that some of the understandings in the Bible contradict each other, for example, the apocalyptic understanding where suffering is caused by the powers of darkness disagrees with the prophetic understanding where suffering is caused by God. Swinburne says that apocalyptic teaching says that the powers of evil are ultimately allowed by God. He talks about how God suffered himself in the person of Jesus.
Ehrman says that Swinburne's views are not the views of the Biblical authors, but rather theological views derived from the Bible (Ehrman sounds a bit evangelical here, arguing with Swinburne's view that the church has authority over the Bible). The earliest Christians believed that God would soon bring an end to suffering, with the return of Jesus. Jesus didn't arrive, what arrived was the church. These days, God is inert
. Swinburne doesn't quite disagree with Ehrman's assertion on when early Christians expected the world to end (because he's presumably not an inerrantist
), but starts to go into the standard rationalisations on this point when Brierley asks for a summing up from each of them.Summing up
Ehrman agrees with Brierley that the Bible isn't trying to come up with a philosophical explanation of suffering, but that the authors have various answers to what God's doing about it. Ehrman thinks the most important thing is that we should do something about it.
Swinburne says we are privileged to be allowed to do something about suffering. He says a world without suffering would be a world without resonsibility for each other. There's a hurried digression about free will in heaven, and parable about how it's better to suffer for the greater good than to live a live of bliss.Stiff upper lips
Swinburne's theodicy is that of the public school games master, telling the boys that cross-country runs, cold showers and being made to play rugby against the masters
will build character, however unpleasant these things are at the time. By contrast, in God's problem
, Ehrman tells us he has his students read Elie Wiesel's Night
. Ehrman's book quotes Primo Levi's Auschwitz Report
, as well as the memoirs of Rudolf Hoss
, written shortly before he was hanged by the Poles near the crematorium of the death camp over which he presided. In the face of sort of thing, Swinburne sounds like Pangloss
(5 points to anyone who can write an "Objection: What about Nazis?" verse expounding Swinburnism: the lyrics to the existing ones about snakes and war are here
, so you can get the metre).
Still, we ought to be careful of using the Holocaust as a sort of trump card in these debates, because it seems disrespectful of the dead, and also because it can be used as a tactic to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a bad person
, which is the sort of thing that Christians
might do, dammit (holding to a doctrine of total depravity
is a big help with that sort of thing). So, what of Swinburne's argument?Why is this blog called "GCU Dancer on the Midway", anyway?
I've mostly been ignoring Saunt Eliezer's recent stuff on Fun Theory
over at Overcoming Bias
because it triggers my (badly evidenced and probably irrational) "transhumanism
: phooey" reaction, but as he says
, "if you can't say how God could have better created the world without sliding into an antiseptic Wellsian Utopia
, you can't carry Epicurus's argument
Luckily, I've had this argument before
, and chose the Culture
over my present existence. I think Swinburne is partly right, in that eliminating all possible causes of suffering actually does more harm than good. After all, one of those causes is other people making their choices, and other people who can make their own choices are interesting, even if the choices can lead to us ending up wearing the diaper
(scroll down) from time to time. But why allow those choices to actually kill and maim people? Why aren't there angels acting as slap drones
? (Saunt Eliezer thinks there are problems with the Culture
, but they also apply to Christianity. I'm sure he'll tell us the right answer soon :-)
There's not much point getting angry with a fictional character, but on the off-chance we encounter God on judgement day, we ought to say that he could have done better