https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4844
Reflections on My Debate with Bart Ehrman
On
April 4, 2014 I debated Dr. Bart Ehrman on the campus of the University
of North Alabama in Florence, Alabama. Approximately 1,500 people
attended the event live, and an estimated 70-80 thousand people viewed
the debate on-line or via television on the Gospel Broadcasting Network.
Since the recording of the debate was uploaded onto Youtube, it has
been viewed almost 7,000 times. All told, the best estimates we have
indicate that between 90-100 thousand people have viewed the debate.
Dr. Ehrman, a self-proclaimed agnostic, was there to affirm the
proposition: “The pain and suffering in the world indicate that the
Christian God does not exist.” I was there to deny that proposition and
show that the pain and suffering in this world do not show that God does
not exist. In this article, I would like to highlight some things that I
learned from this debate.
unbelief likes to hide its real agenda
Almost a year prior to the event, Dr. Ehrman agreed to the proposition
of the debate. He contracted to shoulder the affirmative position and
show how the pain and suffering in the world indicate that the God of
the Bible does not exist. When he issued his opening statements,
however, he stated that he was not there to win a debate. In fact,
throughout the evening, he said that he was not even trying to convince
the audience of the accuracy of his position. He said that he did not
mind if the listeners agreed with him or not. If the listeners wanted to
believe something different from what he was saying, it was fine with
him, as long as they had seriously thought it through. He made it a
conspicuous point to insist that he was not trying to convert anyone, or
even convince anybody of anything. It is interesting to note that Blair
Scott, the atheist I debated in 2011, said almost the exact same thing.
There are two reasons why I find Dr. Ehrman’s approach perplexing.
First, it shows a complete failure to do what he agreed to do with the
proposition. If a debater agrees to affirm a certain proposition, then
the debate can only proceed if he attempts to do that. Dr. Ehrman, in
essence, said early on in his opening comments that he could not uphold
his end of the debate and show that the pain and suffering in the world
indicate that the Christian God does not exist.
Second, Dr. Ehrman’s statement that he was not trying to convince the
audience of his point of view is simply not true. In the very act of
saying he is not trying to convince you of anything, he is trying to
convince you that he is not trying to convince you. You see, if he can
convince you that he is not trying to convince you of anything, then
when he tries to convince you that the Christian God does not exist, you
may not even recognize what is happening. It is the classic “wolf in
sheep’s clothing” technique. The phrase comes from a dangerous predator
(a wolf) attempting to look innocent by donning the garb of a helpless
sheep. If Ehrman can sheepishly suggest that he is not a big, bad
unbeliever here to steal your faith, then you may not be on the
defensive when he tries to do that very thing.
There are at least two ways to lay bare Dr. Ehrman’s deception. First,
we could simply ask the common sense question: why is Dr. Ehrman writing
books and doing debates if he does not care if he convinces anyone of
his premises? If the situation is such that any point of view is equally
valid, then, pray tell, why has Dr. Ehrman poured thousands of man
hours into writing books that state that the biblical view of suffering
is contradictory, or that pain and suffering indicate that the Christian
God does not exist? What’s it all for? Is he simply spinning his wheels
to collect royalties and honorariums from the sale of his books and
from his speaking engagements, with no desire to see others adopt his
point of view? Such would seem absurd. The mere fact that he has engaged
in five debates on the topic of suffering (and numerous debates on
various other topics) brings to light his disingenuous claim that he is
not trying to convince people that the Christian God does not exist.
The second way to show the falsity of Dr. Ehrman’s claim that he is not
trying to convince people of the correctness of his position is to show
specific instances in our debate in which he tried to convince the
audience of his position. That can easily be done. For example,
throughout the debate, Dr. Ehrman insisted that the Bible writers made
statements about suffering that are contradictory to one another. He
stated that the books of Job and Ecclesiastes explicitly deny that there
is an afterlife. And he quoted several verses from Ecclesiastes that
supposedly “prove” that the book denies an afterlife. Was he trying to
convince the audience that Ecclesiastes was not inspired and
contradicted other books of the Bible? Absolutely. [NOTE: During the
debate it was brought out that he was using the verses out of context
and “conveniently” left out the other verses in the text that affirm an
afterlife.] At another point in the debate, Dr. Ehrman said there is no
afterlife and that this life is all there is. With such statements, he
most certainly was trying to convince the audience that there is no
afterlife.
From what I can tell, Dr. Ehrman has done as much or more than any
single individual in modern times to destroy the Christian faith of
literally thousands of people, young and old alike, across the globe. He
has written four New York Times bestsellers, in each of which
he boldly proclaims that the Bible is not God’s Word, Jesus was not, and
never claimed to be, God, the Christian God does not exist, and the
resurrection of Jesus never occurred. And then he stood before a live
audience of 1,500 people and tried to convince them that he was not
there to convince them of anything. Such a ploy is nothing short of
dishonest. It would be my plea and prayer that every person who views
the debate could see past such subtle and devious devices.
The Logical and Emotional Aspects of Suffering
The “problem of suffering,” as it is often called, is used by
unbelievers to cast doubt on the existence of the God of the Bible. The
tactic normally employed, and the one utilized by Dr. Ehrman, is to
rattle off a series of statistics about death, disease, murder, war,
genocide, natural disasters, and a host of other calamities and then
finish the list with a question such as, “Are you telling me that a
loving God allows that?” This is a well-known rhetorical device designed
to appeal to your emotions. There is no logical argument made. There is
nothing in the statement that would lead a person to correctly
conclude, “Thus the Christian God does not exist.” It is simply an
emotional appeal designed to leave the listener with the sense that
something is wrong, when in reality, there has been no real evidence
presented that verifies the conclusion.
The emotional appeal presented by unbelievers such as Dr. Ehrman has
long been known to be a logical fallacy—an incorrect way to arrive at
any conclusion. You can find this logical fallacy in virtually every
list of logical fallacies. One sample that represents the standard
discussion of the appeal to emotion states that an appeal to emotion is
when a person attempts
to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling
argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred,
pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically
coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but
the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position.
Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to
emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re
ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents
justifiably emotional (“Appeal to Emotion,” 2014).
Throughout the debate, it was clear that Dr. Ehrman was not providing
logical arguments for his belief that pain and suffering supposedly show
that the God of the Bible does not exist. Instead, he was simply
offering an emotional appeal. He never once offered rational or logical
evidence to affirm his position. Instead, he kept insisting that humans
are emotional beings, and suffering is emotional. In fact, he attempted
to belittle the idea that we should even approach suffering from a
logical standpoint. He stated that the concepts of suffering “couldn’t
be solved like a mathematical formula.” And he said that it is not
“whether 2+2=4 or not, it’s a matter of how to make sense of it all.”
The irony of such a statement is that “to make sense of it all” demands
that there be something more than emotion to our answer. “Making sense”
means thinking correctly, logically, or rationally about something. It
is impossible “to make sense” of anything without providing logical
answers to the questions presented.
Dr. Ehrman’s raw appeal to emotion is misguided and inadequate. Any legitimate answer to suffering should have both a proper emotional and a logical aspect.
Dr. Ehrman as much as admitted that he cannot provide a rational reason
to accept his conclusion that the Christian God does not exist. In the
course of the debate he conceded over and over that there is no logical
reason to be an unbeliever. He rested his case on his emotional appeal.
In contrast, however, Christianity and the Bible can offer both logical
and emotional ways to validate the claims that an all-loving,
all-powerful God exists. The Bible certainly offers logical reasons that
explain suffering, such as—God giving people free will and them
misusing it; some suffering resulting as a punishment for wicked deeds;
some suffering being redemptive and bringing about a greater good; and
the opportunity of an afterlife where all can be made right. The Bible
also offers the only satisfactory emotional answer to suffering: that
God, in the human form of Jesus Christ, came to Earth to share in our
suffering. The battered body of the Lord Jesus Christ hanging on the
cross for the sins of man provides the final emotional exclamation point
to the logical answers to suffering provided in the Bible.
Ehrman Denies objective moral values
I continue to be astonished at the admissions that unbelievers such as
Dr. Ehrman and others I have debated make during our debates. For
instance, when I debated Dan Barker in 2009, he admitted that, according
to his view of atheism, it would be permissible to rape two million
girls to save humanity. After such admissions, I am awestruck that other
unbelievers continue to align themselves with such debased and immoral
thinking. In my debate with Dr. Ehrman, he made some of the most serious
and baffling admissions of any unbeliever that I have heard in any
debate.
In my opening statements, I presented two problems for unbelief as it
relates to suffering and God’s existence. First, I presented the moral
argument for God’s existence, which states that if objective moral
values exist, then God exists. Objective moral values do exist,
therefore God exists. From what I had read from the pen of Dr. Ehrman
and from what I had heard in his other debates, I assumed he would argue
that there can be objective moral values without a Creator. After all,
he is very fond of saying that this world is unfair, unjust, and that
there is something wrong with it. If there really are objective concepts
of fairness and justice, then those objective values must be explained.
It was rather surprising when he abandoned the idea of objective moral
values and stated that there are none. He argued that cultural
anthropologists have “shown” that some cultures have differing sets of
values, and therefore there cannot be any objective values. He insisted
that there are “no moral absolutes,” and we do not need to provide any
logical or philosophical reasons why we think something is wrong; we
should simply be able to say that we think something is right or wrong, and that should suffice.
It was clear in the debate that Dr. Ehrman’s position (that there are
no absolutes) is indefensible. During the discussion, it was brought up
that the Nazis were doing what they thought was right by killing
millions of Jews. Can we, as a different society and culture, tell the
Nazis that they were violating some law that is higher than a cultural
law? According to Dr. Ehrman’s position, we cannot. In fact, he insisted
that there are no “moral imperatives.” A moral imperative is something
that a person is bound by objective moral law to follow. When we begin a
statement with, “you should…,” the “should” implies that there is
something that you are obliged to do. Dr. Ehrman’s position is that
there is nothing that one person can legitimately say another person
“should” do. And yet, Dr. Ehrman often says (even though it contradicts
his position) we “should” do this or that.
I have rarely heard an unbeliever in public in modern times so openly
embrace moral relativism and deny moral absolutes. This denial of moral
absolutes is not even embraced by some of the most hardnosed atheists,
such as Sam Harris or Michael Ruse. In fact, Michael Ruse stated: “The
man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is
just as mistaken as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275).
What Dr. Ehrman tried to do is say that there are no moral absolutes—no
moral imperatives—but at the same time say we should still be able to
say that some things are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. When he
abandoned absolute moral values, he destroyed the foundation that would
permit any person to say something is wrong, unfair, or unjust. In
essence, he was saying that he might not like certain things, like
someone beating a child for fun, but since there are no moral absolutes
or imperatives, one culture cannot tell another culture that it is wrong
for them to do it. [For a discussion of the moral argument, see Lyons, 2011).]
Easy Answers
Throughout the debate, and often in his writings, Dr. Ehrman claims
that Christian apologists are providing easy answers and are not really
wrestling with the reality of suffering. Ehrman is fond of saying, and
said at least twice in the debate, that if there is an answer that can
be given in 20 seconds that supposedly solves “the problem of
suffering,” then it is almost certainly wrong. The implication of his
statement is that his brand of unbelief does not provide these types of
“easy” answers. In fact, during the debate, he claimed that he did not
even have any answers, just questions. And he disparaged me for claiming
to have answers, as though somehow, if a person claims to have any
definite answers, he is doing something wrong.
This “easy answers” idea turns out to be inconsistent. Dr. Ehrman
claims not to be giving answers to the problem of suffering, but that is
not true. He is offering answers. On his blog he
stated: “There is suffering because people are able to do nasty things
when they want, and they often do them, usually because it advances
their own purposes; and there is suffering because the universe we live
in is a hard and cruel place that doesn’t give a rip about us or our
needs and sometimes we get in the way of its workings” (Ehrman, 2013).
His answer is that there is suffering because there is no loving God. As
I stated in the debate, that answer takes far less than 20 seconds to
state. And it is an answer, ironically, that is very “easy.” That is,
without a God, we do not have to wrestle with things that seem unjust or
unfair. Without a God, we do not have to demand that other people
adhere to absolute moral values. Without a God, there is no “problem of
suffering” because humans are just another living organism that happen
to get in the way of the naturalistic workings of the Universe. Dr.
Ehrman’s idea of an “easy answer” cannot be defined in any real sense.
He means that any answer that includes God or an afterlife is “easy,”
and his answers (that he does not call answers, because
remember he is not trying to convince anyone of anything) that do not
include God or an afterlife are not easy. I find it fitting that when
C.S. Lewis was struggling through his unbelief, and he ran into the
problem of trying to arrive at absolute moral values without God, he
rejected unbelief and stated, “Consequently, atheism turns out to be too
simple” (1952, pp. 45-46). “There is no God.” “This
Universe is chaotic and cares nothing for us.” Those are some of the
“easiest” and most unsatisfactory answers ever given to suffering.
The Bible Taken Out of Context
One issue on which Dr. Ehrman spent a considerable amount of time in
his opening statements was his assertion that the Bible writers have
different, and often contradictory, views of how to deal with suffering.
Dr. Ehrman delights in saying that the book of Job claims that Job is
such a “peon” (Ehrman’s word) that he shouldn’t even ask why he is
suffering. Dr. Ehrman insists that the prophets viewed suffering as
punishment: God bringing suffering into the lives of those who disobey.
He contends that the apocalyptic writers had an altogether different
view of suffering that contradicted that of the prophets. He claims that
the apocalyptic view is that evil forces in this world are causing
suffering, and those who are righteous are suffering because of these
evil forces.
The contention that the Bible writers’ views on suffering are contradictory can only be made if you leave out large portions of what the books actually say.
This point became clear in the debate when Dr. Ehrman claimed to hold
to the view of Ecclesiastes—“that we should eat and drink for tomorrow
we die.” When the entirety of the book is read, however, it is clear
that the writer summed up the whole of man by saying that humans should
fear God and keep His commandments (12:13-14). Dr. Ehrman claimed that
the conclusion had been added on by a later writer. But there is no
textual evidence that would lead to this conclusion. In fact, other
verses in the book, such as 11:9, which says that God will bring each
person into judgment for his deeds, or 7:29 that says that God made man
upright but he has chosen to do evil, do not correspond with Dr.
Ehrman’s unbelief. It is only when those verses are intentionally
ignored that the teaching of the book could be construed to be
contradictory to other teachings about suffering found in the Bible.
Futhermore, Dr. Ehrman misses the point that Ecclesiastes was written to
show that only when life is viewed from an earthly, materialistic
perspective, is all life meaningless. When viewed in light of eternity,
there is a purpose to this life (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).
We can further see the flaws of Dr. Ehrman’s assessment in his dealing
with apocalyptic literature. He insists that according to such
literature, it is only the wicked who prosper, and it is the righteous
who suffer at the hands of the evil spiritual forces. Yet a quick look
at the book of Daniel shows this to be an oversimplified statement of
what the writers actually said. Why are the Israelites in captivity?
Because of their own sins. God is punishing them. Why are Daniel and his
friends suffering? Because the righteous sometimes suffer. Does Daniel
ever prosper? Yes, and he is elevated to one of the most honorable
positions in the kingdom. Is there an afterlife in this book? Certainly
since “those who sleep in the dust will arise, and some will go to
everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (12:2). Are
some aspects of suffering redemptive? Yes, that is why Nebuchadnezzar
in chapter four is humbled by God and then given his kingdom back after
he repented. There is nothing in apocalyptic literature that cannot be
reconciled with every other answer given in the Bible. In reality, the
books of the Bible supplement one another in their dealing with
suffering in order to give a broad answer to the many different aspects
of the topic. Dr. Ehrman’s accusation that the Bible is contradictory on
the theme of suffering is inaccurate and cannot be sustained.
The Tragedy of unbelief
Dr. Ehrman is one of the most well-known and highly credentialed
unbelievers in the world. The flaws and inconsistencies in his positions
are not due to a lack of intelligence. The flaws are inherent to
unbelief. Since disbelief in God and the Bible as His Word is
irrational, there will always be aspects of every unbeliever’s case that
cannot be defended. Ultimately, the most heartbreaking failure of
unbelief is the void it causes in the spiritual lives of its adherents.
Even though unbelievers attempt to deny the spiritual dimension of their
lives, this denial comes with tragic consequences. For instance, in his
book on suffering, Dr. Ehrman wrote:
The Problem is this: I have such a fantastic life that I feel an
overwhelming sense of gratitude for it; I am fortunate beyond words. But
I don’t have anyone to express my gratitude to. This is a void deep
inside me, a void of wanting someone to thank, and I don’t see any
plausible way of filling it (2008, p. 128).
Dr. Ehrman has a deep void inside that he cannot fill because he
attempts to deny that he is a spiritual being created in the image of
God. One of the most basic human emotions in the face of blessings is
the desire to thank the Giver of those blessings. By denying God’s
existence, Ehrman has denied himself the opportunity to be a completely
fulfilled human. It is for this reason that I come away from debates
such as this one with a heavy heart of pity and sorrow for those who
have chosen unbelief.
Another telling statement comes from Dr. Ehrman in his discussion of hell. He states:
As a result, when I fell away from my faith—not just in the Bible as
God’s inspired word, but in Christ as the only way of salvation, and
eventually from the view that Christ was himself divine, and beyond that
from the view that there is an all-powerful God in charge of this
world—I still wondered, deep down inside: could I have been right after
all? What if I was right then but wrong now? Will I burn in hell
forever? The fear of death gripped me for years, and there are still
moments when I wake up at night in a cold sweat (2008, p. 127.)
Ehrman’s haunting admission brings to mind the only solution to this
crippling fear. As the Hebrews writer stated, Jesus shared in humanity’s
flesh and blood that “through death He might destroy him who had the
power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear
of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14-15).
As much as Dr. Ehrman tries to deny that Jesus is the answer, many of
his statements belie his inability to do so. In one of his blog posts,
he stated:
When I was a Christian, acknowledging that the myth of the incarnation
was a myth, I accepted the myth as saying something very profound. In
that myth, the ultimate reality (call it God) did not come into the
world in a blaze of power worthy of, well, a Roman emperor. He came as
an impoverished child to an unwed mother in the midst of a world of pain
and suffering; and this child grew in poverty and urged his followers
to give of themselves for the sake of others, insisting that it was the
poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the hungry, the sick, the
demon-possessed, the sinners, the outcasts who were the concern of that
ultimate reality. That made a lot of sense to me. It still does (2012, emp. added).
After pouring over Dr. Ehrman’s materials, meeting him in a
head-to-head debate, and praying for him frequently, I pity him most
because he now lives a life with no hope and without God in this world.
The answer to his struggle with suffering, to his attempts to “make
sense of it all” is staring him in the face, in the person of Jesus
Christ. But Bart refuses to accept the answer, and instead, attempts to
satisfy himself with questions that leave him with a deep void in his
life and frightened about eternity.
After the lights are out, and the final scene on life’s curtain is
almost drawn, let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: “Fear God
and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man”
(Ecclesiastes 12:13). Would to God that Bart Ehrman and other
unbelievers truly accepted the book of Ecclesiastes.
References
“Appeal to Emotion” (2014), Your Logical Fallacy Is, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion.
Ehrman, Bart (2008), God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer (New York: Harper One).
Ehrman, Bart (2012), “Christmas Longings,” http://ehrmanblog.org/christmas-longings/.
Ehrman, Bart (2013), “Suffering and My Blog,” http://ehrmanblog.org/suffering-and-my-blog/.
Lewis, C.S. (1952), Mere Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95.
Ruse, Michael (1982), Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
The
A.M. Turing Award is one of, if not the, highest awards that can be
given to those in the computing field. It was named after British
mathematician Alan M. Turing, and awarded to those who are believed to
have made breakthrough advancements in computing technology (Robertson,
2011). The most recent recipient of the Turing award was Harvard
University professor Leslie Valiant. He received the award based on his
contributions to the field of “computer learning.” Jordan Robertson, AP
Technology Writer, noted that Valiant’s efforts “paved the way for
computers that more closely mimic how humans think” (2011). Robertson
quoted ACM President Alain Chesnais as saying that Valiant’s work, “has
produced modeling that offers computationally inspired answers on
fundamental questions like how the brain ‘computes’” (2011).
