Some thoughts on "The Great Debate"

Last night I had the privilege of watching a debate between Dr. Michael Brown, a Messianic Jewish apologist for the faith of the Bible and Dr. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and Atheist. I thought both men made quite good presentations for their positions, however, my personal position remains unchanged.

Understand, I grew up an Atheist, and came to faith as a young adult, in a Messianic Jewish context, so I am pretty familiar with each position. That being said, I thought it would be worthwhile to present my thoughts on Dr. Ehrman's position, as outlined in his comments last night.

One of Dr. Ehrman’s complaints is that the Bible is inconsistent. Dr. Ehrman is a fine man, but his argument suffers from the same lack of consistency he claims to see in the Bible. For example, on one hand he argues that Job must be interpreted as two different writings because it contains two different textual forms. He then compares Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, ignoring that those two works are two different textual forms, and must, by his own position on Job, be interpreted differently. I personally find it difficult to take seriously inconsistent arguments about consistency.

Dr. Ehrman also frequently removed the text of the Bible from its context. Dr. Brown touched on this, but lacked the time to explore it fully. Throughout the Prophets, the Bible states that Israel’s suffering is caused by God. That’s Israel’s suffering, mind you. Israel has (according to the Bible) a unique relationship with God, as His chosen people. That unique relationship means that He uniquely disciplines Israel, because they were to be His representatives. This wasn’t pleasant. As Shalom Aleichem said (in the words of his character Tevye) “I know that we’re your Chosen People, but could you, once in a while, choose someone else?” When Amos says that God caused Israel to lose her crops, face drought, and suffer military defeat (lose her children to the sword) it was because Israel had turned to other gods to provide crops, rain and victory. Those other gods weren’t effective, and God needed to remind Israel of that fact. The most effective way to do so was to remove those things that Israel was depending on those other gods for. Conversely, to continue to provide food, water and military victory in that circumstance would reinforce their belief in those other gods.

While Dr. Ehrman characterizes this as “punishment”, in context it is either “discipline” or “consequence”. The Prophets’ explanation of Israel’s suffering doesn’t make sense outside of that context because it was never meant to.
While we are on the concept of “punishment” or “discipline,” I think Dr. Ehrman and I would agree that the Holocaust certainly caused a great deal of suffering. He indicated at length that the description of God’s judgment on evil depicted in Revelation (eternal torment) describes an unjust consequence. I wonder if he considers that Hitler getting off with a self-inflicted gunshot to the head was a just and sufficient consequence for Hitler for the suffering caused by his actions? (Thank you, Dr. Michael Schiffman for this thought. Well put, dear friend.)

Dr. Ehrman’s atheism offers no explanation of suffering beyond “stuff happens.” In a very real sense, it appears that the only “adequate” answer for Dr. Ehrman to the question of suffering is the elimination of suffering. While this appears a laudable outcome, it is logically inconsistent. If you will allow me:

1. The ability to make choices requires free will, and the exercise of free will requires choices.
2. The ability to question the way things are is inextricably intertwined with choice and free will.
3. If any suffering is caused by human choices, then some suffering is caused by human choices.
4. Ergo, some suffering is a result of free will.
5. All means all.
6. Ergo, the elimination of all suffering requires the elimination of free will.

In short, to eliminate all suffering would require the inability to ask the question as to whether suffering exists, or should be eliminated. I, among others, would argue that this outcome (the elimination of free will and the concomitant ability to question) would be evil.

Two of the struggles I have with atheism (having been an atheist myself, there have been quite a few) are its reliance on logic and reason as the key to all things, and that it seems to require that God’s actions be comprehensible to us at all times, in all ways. There is a logical inconsistency here, or, I should say, inaccurate assumptions that logically lead to an inaccurate conclusion.

Logic is the mathematics of assumption. Nothing more, nothing less. It tells you what the conclusions the assumptions you make lead to, and it can tell you what assumptions underlie a conclusion. Logic isn’t “true”, except in the sense that it can accurately derive the result of a series of assumptions, just as mathematics does. I will start with a single assumption, well supported by science and by common sense.

Information Theory teaches that no system can encompass a system larger or more complex than itself. (In a practical sense, you can’t put a gallon into a pint pot.) Given that a major part of the atheist argument against the reality of God of the Bible is that “God‘s actions in the Bible don’t make sense”, allow me to suggest that by definition, they won’t make complete sense to us in all cases, and it is error to expect them to. Going back to information theory, human intellect is large, but finite. Even the combined intellect of all of humanity, through all of time, while very large, is still finite. This large but finite system cannot, according to Information Theory, encompass an infinite system. If an omniscient God exists, His actions would be, at least sometimes, incomprehensible to us. Therefore, the statement that He is incomprehensible cannot be used logically as an argument against His existence, because if He existed he would by definition be incomprehensible at least some of the time.

In a very real sense, the Atheist's argument lies on a foundation that “suffering is evil.” I would argue that this is a demonstrably inaccurate assessment.

• The firemen who enters a burning building to save lives often suffers for it, both during and after, yet this is seen as good. 
• The athlete who competes in, for example, the Tour de France suffers. In fact, one of the highest compliments one can pay a competitive cyclist is to say that she or he “suffers well.” Yet we laud this suffering. 

However, some suffering is clearly evil. So, the question must be asked, what differentiates evil suffering from good suffering? I would posit that the dividing factor is purpose. Purposeless suffering is evil, as is suffering for an evil purpose. Purposeful suffering for the sake of a good goal, even if ineffective, is good. (The fireman doesn’t always successfully rescue all the victims, and the Tour de France cyclist doesn’t always win, yet we see the effort as good, and more admirable because of the suffering.) Therefore, a blanket assertion that suffering is evil is akin to a child saying that homework is evil, simply because they don’t like doing it.

Allow me to close with this thought, based on the above commentary. If it is true that:

• Our understanding is finite.
• The difference between “good” suffering and “evil” suffering is purpose.

Then we are unqualified to categorically state that any particular suffering is either “good” or “evil”, because we are unable to determine with certainty whether a purpose exists. If an omniscient God exists, He is the only one who can make that call, and we won’t necessarily be able, in this life, to understand it completely. The Bible, which is even more finite than the human mind, cannot resolve or explain suffering. It can, and does, provide solace and strength until understanding is available to us. For that we can, and should be grateful.