I love a good debate. The exchange of ideas is exciting to
me. That is why I went to a local debate Friday evening at our local university.
Bart Ehrman and Kyle Butt faced off on the topic of whether or not the pain and
suffering that exists in our world denies the existence of the Christian God. I
personally didn’t expect much from the debaters since I believe the existence
of pain and suffering neither supports nor denies the existence of the Biblical
God. I believe the existence of Jehovah is best understood by determining the
consistency and reliability of the Bible and how it accords with the world as
we know it. This is the approach I take in my latest book, “
God
Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God”. Yet, to my surprise, there
was much of interest discussed.
Bart Ehrman, PhD, is an American New Testament scholar,
currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Kyle Butt, MA, currently serves in
the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine.
He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel
meetings, etc. Both Ehrman and Butt have written extensively in their areas of interests. Bart Ehrman is a former Christian, but now an agnostic. Kyle
Butt is a Christian affiliated with the Church of Christ. From that information
I’ll let you decide which position each took in the debate.
Although much was said during the debate, I want to focus my
comments on just a few topics. A fair amount of time was devoted to discussing
the various reasons that pain and suffering exist. Ehrman pointed out how the
Biblical writers did not always agree on the source of pain and suffering. Some
said it was due to God’s punishment, some said it was God’s testing us, some
said it was redemptive suffering, and so on. Butt countered that it was a fact
that suffering came about for many different reasons and the Biblical writers
in toto correctly point out all those reasons. Ehrman countered that while that
was true to some extent, it was also true that some of the Biblical writers had
disagreements that could not be reconciled. For example, some writers believed
that no pain and suffering comes directly from God. Rather he simply allows it via Satan and the evil forces
of the world. Other writers clearly state that God directly caused suffering
for those that he felt needed it.
Kyle Butt began to get the upper hand when the topic of
moral absolutes was discussed. Butt kept quoting from Ehrman’s books and
debates where Ehrman seemed to be making a definitive moral statement as proof
that Ehrman really didn’t believe in moral relativism. It was obvious that
Ehrman was becoming defensive and slipped a bit with his responses.
Butt kept pushing to get Ehrman to answer the question, “If
someone says that they are just going to live for themselves, not caring how
they harm others in the process, how can you say they are wrong if there is no
objective morality?” Ehrman tried to turn the question back on Butt by asking
him what the source of objective morality was. Butt said it comes from God.
When asked how he knew the mind of God, Butt said by the only way one can know
the mind of anyone: the person tells you what they are thinking. Of course, the
Bible would be God’s way of doing this. Ehrman then asked if the source of
objective morality was God, then was it okay for man to do all the things God
did when dealing with people. When Ehrman didn’t get a straight answer to this
question, he became visibly frustrated and failed to respond well to Butt’s
counter questions.
Later in the debate Ehrman recuperated and made the most
cogent statement about objective morality of the evening. I paraphrase: “The
reason morality is subjective is because we are all subjects. If there is such
a thing as objective morality that stems from God, then why is it that
Christians don’t seem to know what it is? Christians do not agree on what
objective morality entails. So, of what good is objective morality if we humans
cannot agree on what it is? It still ends up being subjective.”
That was the statement that I was hoping Ehrman would get
around to making. Indeed, if we humans are incapable of agreeing on what
constitutes objective morality, then it is of no use to us. We still end up
viewing morality subjectively. Fortunately, we humans think enough alike such
that for many areas of morality we can get a super majority consensus, at least
within the confines of nations or communities. Things like murder, rape, theft,
and so forth, are considered wrong my large numbers of people. However, there
remain many areas that are stark gray. Things like polygamy, alcohol consumption,
gambling, etc.
So, does this mean that nothing is objective? No. Reality is
objective. Nature behaves a certain way that can be discovered. Events occur
that can be recorded. Everything that has happened in the past is objectively
true. It cannot change. We may never know everything that has occurred, but
what actually happened is objectively true whether we know it or not.
Morality is somewhat similar. To achieve a particular
outcome, there will always be a best action to take to achieve it. When attempting
to achieve a laudable goal, actions taken to reach that goal can be defined as
moral. However, things can get complicated rather quickly. One person might
point out that the goal itself is immoral. Others may point out that not all
actions to achieve a moral goal are themselves moral. In other words, the ends
do not justify the means. We also face the problem of not having all the
information or the time we need to make the absolute best moral decision, so we
may have to settle for something less than the best. Relational complexity
plays into this also. So, it seems to me that moral decision making is very
much a situational issue. Many factors come into play. I always enjoyed the TV
show “The Practice” because the writers did an excellent job pointing out the
differing perspectives of right and wrong in many different situations.
While I mostly agreed with Ehrman’s positions in the debate,
Butt did a great job defending his position, failing only occasionally. There
was one topic discussed, however, where I disagreed with both debaters. While
Ehrman believes there is no moral imperative to help those who are suffering
and in need, he truly believes we should lend our support. In fact, he said we should
help as much as we can as often as we can. Butt agrees with this, but believes
it is in fact a moral imperative. I disagree with both.
Moral imperatives aside, I do not believe we need to help
those in need “as much as we can as often as we can.” This makes no sense, and
in reality, very very few, if any, people actually do this since we still buy
our luxury items rather than help someone. First, on what rational basis can we
say that we owe anything to anyone if we were not responsible for their
existence or the problems they are facing? Parents are responsible for rearing
their children because they were responsible for their existence. If a person
accidentally harms another person, they are still responsible for aiding them
to the extent of the injuries caused by the accident. That is why we have
insurance; to avoid bankruptcy should that unfortunate event occur. If a child
is born destitute in another country, I am not responsible. If a tornado
injures a family in Kansas, I am not responsible. In other words, neither the
free will decisions of others nor the actions of nature place a burden of
responsibility on those that have nothing to do with the situation.
That said, I still like to help people. Why? Because I want
to live in a society where people help each other when facing unfortunate
circumstances. I cannot rationally expect others to help if I am not willing to
help. Of course, there are so many needs, everyone cannot help every cause. But
we can choose some individually. But the way we help and the amount we help is
totally our decision. Not that of others. No one should call me out because they
personally disagree with how I help, whether it’s the person that believes
there is a moral imperative to give 10% or the person that does not believe in
moral imperatives but still insists I should help as much as possible as often
as possible.
That’s my two cents. And that’s all I am willing to give to
this topic.
