God's Problem - the second show with Ehrman... Prof Richard Swinburne tackles him on the problem of suffering. (Show of 10 Jan 09)

[justinbrierley]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51I2a3hzHLL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

In this the second show featuring Bart Ehrman we talked about his most recent book "God's problem - why the Bible fails to answer our most important question why we suffer"

www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

The problem of suffering is the reason Bart Ehrman left the Christian faith altogether. As he admits in the book and on the programme, there are plenty of intelligent people (Such as his wife) who can hold together a loving Christian God, with the fact of suffering. he couldn't however, and explains why.

Swinburne tackles Ehrman on the fact that there is a justifiable basis for God to allow suffering. In fact, a world without suffering would not allow humans to be fully "human" as there would be no responsibility by which the "good" of worthwhile human character is developed.

I winced sometimes at Swinburne's approach which can, at first, seem rather clinical. Ehrman majors on the emotional problem of suffering, and baulked at the idea that a life of misery for one person can be justified by a greater good that it allows by the fact of a world where making morally correct choices counts for something.

I was surprised to some extent by Bart's willingness in the book and on the programme to admit that he thinks the Christian story of a God coming to share in our suffering is a beautiful one that he wishes were true. While I know the decision Ehrman made to abandon his faith was not made lightly, I ended up feeling like he ditched his faith without being compelled to by any logical argument.

The problem of suffering is resolvable, even if we struggle with the fact of it on a daily basis.

Let me know what you think...

[Echelon]

Swinburne was clinical, but so is a doctor cutting your arm off for your good, so is a dentist, so is a gov that is headed toward a just war. It is not always what we want, but it is what we need. Swinburne's ideas I think are so vast, deep and thought out that a show that short does not justice. But it was good and he made a good case for that. I even thought that Swinburne was very correct about his interpetation of the book of Hebrews and this issue. Good show, but short:)

[Echelon]

Justin,

One other quick point, what Swinburne argued about really made sense to me in the light of a person named Jean Vanier. If you can look up Jean Vanier, and if you ever can do a show on his life. It demonstrates clearly what Swinburne was talking about. A life of value. Jean Vanier and the organization L'Arche.

[justinbrierley]

Swinburne was clinical, but so is a doctor cutting your arm off for your good, so is a dentist, so is a gov that is headed toward a just war. It is not always what we want, but it is what we need. Swinburne's ideas I think are so vast, deep and thought out that a show that short does not justice. But it was good and he made a good case for that. I even thought that Swinburne was very correct about his interpetation of the book of Hebrews and this issue. Good show, but short:)

Over an hour is a generous amount of time in radio land Echelon! THe problem , of course is that with all the issues we do, there can be argument and counterargument. But at least (I feel) the show gives mre than the "soundbite" apologetics that most Christian radio spots afford.

I agree Swinburne did a great job, which is why he is the philosopher he is. Even so, the rationalising of the probelm of evil always has this uncomfortable edge, which is what Bart is keen to point out in the book. He barely actually engages with the philosphical arguments on the problem of evil in the book, but consigns them to the bin as disconnected and unrealistic views that don't take account of the reality of suffering for individuals.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I would like to read the book sometime, but you already know my thoughts on the matter Justin as I personally emailed them. The problem with so many who argue that there's too much evil, etc. is that it is entirely emotional and they approach it that way.

[TolkienFan]

For what it's worth, here's a short thread on Ehrman's book:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=119281

As for the debate itself, I think Swinburne did great despite the fact that he couldn't develop his arguments as much as he wanted. I like how he highlighted an error in Ehrman's approach when Ehrman asked him if he would present these explanations to a suffering individual and Swinburne responded with saying that you would naturally say something different in the emotional heat of the moment than you would looking at it in a cool-headed, logical manner. That serves to highlight how they each approached the Problem of Evil. Swinburne looked at it logically (as it is presented to him as a logical problem) and was not troubled. Ehrman looked at it emotionally and was naturally troubled (he is after all, human). But I think the former approach is better when it comes to deciding what to base your belief system on.

[Pumbelo]

I think there was sufficient time for Swinburne to show the errors in Ehrman's approach.

[seanD]

I would like to read the book sometime, but you already know my thoughts on the matter Justin as I personally emailed them. The problem with so many who argue that there's too much evil, etc. is that it is entirely emotional and they approach it that way.

It's clearly sentimental and subjective, and I cringe every time an agnostic uses that as an argument against God.