In my previous posts I discussed a class I once taught at Rutgers University on how the various biblical authors deal with the problem of suffering – the problem of how there can be such horrible suffering in a world that is said to be controlled by an all-loving and all-powerful God (who therefore wants the best for people and is able to provide it). Many of my students, as I pointed out, think that there’s an easy answer: we suffer because of “free will.” If we weren’t free to love and hate, to do good and do harm, we would just be robots or computers, not humans. If God wanted to create humans, as opposed to machines, necessarily we have to be free to hurt others. And many people do so, often in horrendous ways.
Does that solve the problem? Naturally we dealt with that issue in my class. Here is how I discussed those conversations in my book on suffering, God’s Problem: How The Bible Fails to Answer our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer (Oxford University Press, 2008).
*******************************
It was, in fact, fairly easy to show my students some of the problems with this standard modern explanation that suffering comes from free will. Yes, you can explain the political machinations of the competing political forces in Ethiopia (or in Nazi Germany or in Stalin’s Soviet Union or in the ancient worlds of Israel and Mesopotamia) by claiming that humans had badly handled the freedom given to them. But how can you explain drought? When it hits, it is not because someone chose not to make it rain. Or how do you explain hurricanes that destroy New Orleans? Or tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands overnight? Or earthquakes, or mudslides, or malaria, or dysentery? And so on.
Moreover, the claim that free will stands behind all suffering has always been a bit problematic, at least from a thinking perspective. Most people who believe in God-given free will also believe in an afterlife. Presumably people in the afterlife will still have free will (they won’t be robots then either, will they?). And yet there won’t be suffering (allegedly) then. Why will people know how to exercise free will in heaven if they can’t know how to exercise it on earth?
In fact, if God gave people free will as a great gift, why didn’t he give them the intelligence they need to exercise it so that we could all live happily and peaceably together? You can’t argue that he wasn’t able to do so, if you want to argue he was all powerful. Moreover, if God sometimes intervenes in history in order to counteract the free will decisions of others — for example, when he destroyed the Egyptian armies at the Exodus (they freely had decided to oppress the Israelites) or when he fed the multitudes in the wilderness in the days of Jesus (people who had chosen to go off to hear him without packing a lunch), or when he counteracted the wicked decision of the Roman governor Pilate to destroy Jesus by raising the crucified Jesus from the dead — if he intervenes sometimes to counteract free will, why does he not do so more of the time? Or indeed, all of the time.
At the end of the day, one would have to say that the answer is a mystery. We don’t know why free will works so well in heaven but not on earth. We don’t know why God doesn’t provide the intelligence we need to exercise free will. We don’t know why he sometimes contravenes the free exercise of the will and sometimes not. But the problem is that if in the end the question is resolved by saying it is a mystery, then we no longer have an answer. We are admitting there is no answer. The solution of free will, in the end, ultimately leads to the conclusion that we can’t understand, even though we imagine we are giving an answer.
As it turns out, that is one of the common answers asserted by the Bible. We just don’t know why there is suffering. But other answers in the Bible are just as common — in fact, even more common. In my class at Rutgers I wanted to explore all these answers, to see what the Biblical authors thought about such matters, and to evaluate what they had to say.
Based on my experience with the class, I decided at the end of the term that I wanted to write a book about it, a study of suffering and biblical responses to it. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I wasn’t ready to write the book. I was just 30 years old at the time, and although I had seen a lot of the world, I recognized that I had not seen nearly enough of it. A book like this requires years of thought and reflection, and a broader sense of the world and fuller understanding of life.
I’m now twenty years older [OK, with this blog post thirty-five years older!], and I still may not be ready to write the book. It’s true, I’ve seen a lot more of the world over these years. I’ve experienced a lot more pain myself, and have seen the pain and misery of others, sometimes close up: broken marriages, failed health, cancer taking away loved ones in the prime of life, suicide, birth defects, children killed in car accidents, homelessness, mental disease — you can make your own list of your past twenty years. And I’ve read a lot: genocides and ethnic cleansings not only in Nazi Germany but also in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur; terrorist attacks, massive starvation, epidemics ancient and modern, mudslides that kill 30,000 Columbians in one fell swoop, droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis.
Still, even with twenty years of additional experience and reflection, I may not be ready to write the book. But I suppose in another twenty years, with the horrible suffering in store for this world, I may still feel the same way. So I’ve decided to write it now.
Great post. It’s still my favorite book of yours.
Bart, I think it would be a great idea to trace theodicy from the Hebrew Bible as one thread through Christian thought and another thread through Jewish thought (perhaps with a colleague). It would separate out the ideas of each group from the general Zeitgeist of the time (and/or cross fertilization with each other, and with indigenous traditions in each part of the world).
I was intrigued by this non-scholarly article https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/a-traditional-jewish-approach-to-the-problem-of-evil/
I realize that you are an NT scholar, but philosophically both religions have their roots in the HB, so I think that this would be a fascinating way of looking at the growth and change in these ideas over space and time.
Yes, that’s what I do in my book God’s Problem. It is largely about the Hebrew Bible.
Another issue: in Catholic school we were taught that when the angels were created, they exercised their free will to accept or reject God. That was supposed to be an instantaneous thing. There are so many problems with this idea, I would not know where to begin to list them. But how about this one– if God is so great, how is it that a super being like an angel, in the full and supposedly glorious presence of its creator, would reject him or her or it?? And where is the culpability? Were some angels created with an “evil nature”? Then they were victims and not free at all. And so on. Nonsense from the git go. In theology, it’s garbage in and garbage out.
If you take the view that we don’t even necessarily know the right questions to ask about things like God, consciousness, free will, the universe (s), the origin of life, and so forth, then suffering, like so many ultimate questions, becomes another of many mysteries. To say that we are smart enough to say suffering is an obstacle to belief in God seems arrogant and hubristic.
Well, I won’t try to claim I’m not arrogant and hubristic! But as a human being I have to decide what to think, and I personally don’t think it is any more arrogant not to believe in God than it is to believe in God, and that whichever way you go, a reasoned reflection on the state of the world is not hubristic. We don’t have any choice but to think and decide, unless we decide not to think….
“If you choose not to decide you still have made a choie”, from the song “Free Will,” by Rush
I think that is it MONUMENTALLY arrogant and hubristic to claim to “know” God. If fact, I don’t know how much more arrogant and hubristic one can get than to claim to know the creator of the universe. I big turning point in leaving the Roman Catholic Church came when I read the Catechism where it essentially admits that we cannot fully know God, and the proceeds to explain all the things they know about God. Really?
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm
“Good and Evil” are artifical and subjective categories with no possible objective definition. In the classical Problem of Evil, “Evil” is essentially defined as “unnecessary suffering “it’s purely a problem of logic. God cannot cause or allow any unnecessary suffering and still be defined as omnibenevolent. There is no possible logical reason for God to allow even a single instance of suffering. Anything God can accomplish by giving a toddler leukemia he can accomplish WITHOUT giving a toddler leukemia.
Epicurus formulated the POE very simply: Either God cannot stop suffering or does not want to stop suffering. If God is either not all powerful or not all good, Epicurus asks the question, “why call him God?”
By the way, how do you know God is good?
Rick-
You have to look at it and consider the implications. Christians claim that their is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent god (all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere, and completely good).
But suffering exists. So we have to ask why.
-If God doesn’t know about suffering, then he is not omnipresent and omniscient.
-If God knows about suffering but is indifferent, then he is not omnibenevolent.
-If God knows about suffering but can’t stop it, then he is not omnipotent
-If God is the cause of suffering, then he is evil.
-Or there is no God to consider the problem of suffering.
I see no other options. Every single option here eliminates the God of Christianity or greatly degrades him. If you can think of another option, feel free to propose it.
It’s not hubris to doubt God’s existence because of the consequences of our knowledge, and the above are things that we logically know. I don’t think anybody can say with certainty they know the answer to this problem, and I have never met anyone who effectively did.
You’re making assumptions when listing your options. First of all, a tension between the facts that:
-Gd is omnipotent
-Gd is omnibenevolent
-Suffering exists
…doesn’t automatically mean it’s contradictory (e.g. Gd must be evil or not omnipotent or nonexistent). The tension of theodicy is in fact the essence of religion–it’s not an elephant in the room. The short version is that there isn’t supposed to be an accessible answer to theodicy; evil and tragedy exists, and it should disgust and outrage us because it is definitely not good.. at the same time, we trust everything is **ultimately for** the good, precisely because Gd is responsible for all of creation (including evil and tragedy).
Questioning Gd in the face of evil and tragedy is not hubristic at all (it’s actually the appropriate response). However, to suggest that you know better than Gd, whether explicitly or implicitly, concerning what is necessary and unnecessary suffering **is** hubris. Part of trusting in Gd is trusting that he knows best (infinitely better than us!)
All of this assuming you believe in Gd of course. I don’t think it’s necessarily arrogant to not believe in Gd, but I do think it’s arrogant to presume you know better than Gd if you do!
These posts get my dander up every time! A believer, I can see how if God made us in His Image, then we have the capability to use our intelligence to figure out how to minimalize problems or overcome them. Joseph’s solution for the draught and storing what grain would be needed (Genesis 41:49) and Jimmy Carter practically ridding the world of guinea worms are two examples expanding over then and now. Each issue you bring up has solutions if only we want to apply our God-given ability to resolve them. God has made it very clear we would have no reason to suffer if we follow the laws set out in the Bible. But people are going to do what people do even when knowing better.
I want to believe each one of us is able to make the world better. Professor Ehrman, you and your blog have provided an almost effortless way to do that! Then just this week the fun Tar Fundraiser brought in $50,000 for earthquake victims in Turkey and Syria!
I couldn’t agree more. WE have to find solutions. ANd they are at hand — if we just had the political will. But alas, we don’t seem to.
Apart from that these problems existed for hundreds of thousands of years before humans had any ability to solve them, and I just don’t see where God was then. Many millions of people have followed the laws of the Bible and experienced excruciating and non-ending physical and mental pain for years until they died horribly. So I don’t think obedience is the answer either.
My view is that suffering is here and if we don’t solve it, no one will. But for me that constantly raises the problem of WHY. And I don’t think any of the answers if very satisfying.
Your kind patience makes me wish I hadn’t bothered you with all that.
I like to hear you express your views! I”m glad you did comment!
Suffering existed for millions of years before humans did. God is on the hook no matter where you try to hide him. It’s OK, no one else in history has ever solved the POE and they never will because the problem arises as a logical result of monotheism. The POE is not a problem for polytheism (for the record I am no type of theist).
Even the Bible has God say, “I created evil.”
It’s in the Hebrew Bible somewhere!
You should read the Joseph story again. Joseph is not a “problem solver” in the story, he uses inside information from God as a means of EXPLOITING a drought and making himself rich. Read the story again, Joseph is not a good guy. Fortunately he’s a fictional character, though.
Free will doesn’t always work out well in Heaven if you believe Paradise Lost. And poor Milton who unusually for a Puritan argued eloquently for free will, making God ask
Where onely what they needs must do, appeard,
Not what they would? what praise could they receive?
What pleasure I from such obedience paid? [III, 105]
still ended up, as usual, giving Satan the best lines: [IV, 515]
Aren’t we arrogant,always asking “why”,just because we’re endowed with the need to do so in order to perfect our world?As if the Universes owed us answers.
Moreover,our premises are delusional.
My younger sister,the best person on this Earth,lost her first child most cruely.A brain tumor at 2 and 1/2, years of horrible therapies,finally conquered the cancer and in a short time succumbed to bacterial meningitis that wiped out his brain in 2 hours.He was 8.Lived in a vegetative state,institutionalized,to the age of 13.My sister spent half of each day with him.A helper spent the rest of the day.The child would not be abandoned no matter what.
Only once did I ask her how she explained the random tragedy.She said ” destiny”,the same as accepting “what one cannot change”,I guess.
My Orthodox grandfather would say,with complete faith,”it was God’s will”.Like Christians say “your will be done”.
But then,his God is beyond good and evil.No one has promised him a convenient,non-absolute,”ever loving God”.
One may ask”who needs such a God,so vague,remote,inscrutable?”.The idea of such a God is almost a definition of atheism,or,at best,a God between the cruelty of Job’s God and Rabbi Kushner’s non-omnipotent God.
We’re left with Einstein’s God,celebrating the perfection of the Universe without asking impossible “why”s.But also acknowleding that God does play dice.
I”m not so sure. If God gave us a brain, surely he expected us to use it, and if an answer isn’t obvious, we *have* to ask why, no?
Einstein, of course, was speaking metaphorically.
I would think that in order to “do God’s will” you would have to use your brain to try to figure out which if any if the God’s are valid and what his/her/it’s will actually is!
Even the Hebrew Bible and the new testament warn against following false prophets. Well how are you supposed to try to figure out that with all the many branches of Christianity and interpretations of scripture if not by using your brain and challenging things to try to determine truth?
Yup, in the end your brain’s all you got…
Hi Dr Ehrman, actually it was also said that those natural calamities you mentioned are also brought about by free will. Due to humans negligence and abuse of nature.
Your thoughts?
I don’t see how that ywould work since natural calamities happened to all sorts of hominids before homo sapiens appeared, and it is only within the past couple of hundred years that humans have seriously started to damage the planet, but the disasters were often *worse* before. I also wouldn’t say human negligence cause the shifting tectonic plates that create earthquakes, e.g….
Based on the premise that we are co-creators of the world, where our consciousness, here our mind is fundamentally creative mechanisms in relation to the pattern and matrix of our world (which may correspond to modern natural science). I also think that the mind is the spark of God and the active factor that separates, correlates or divides impressions to develop all aspects of the human self, including the mind of the spirit consciousness, the physical non-consciousness or soul, and the mind of the physical.
Our mind can be used according to (relatively speaking: “free”) will, but free will can also work against the mind. In this sense, we are minds that develop souls, as we develop our world. This factor is also prominent between the physical versus our soul and the soul versus the spirit.
Free will is a ruling factor that determines wealth or woe in our spiritual experience. The application of “will” can enable an individual to coordinate body, mind, and soul to bring about positive change, even with a direct effect on suffering.
So based on these premises, where will is a ruling factor of our basic creative mechanism (our mind within our multiple conscious levels of our “Self”), the “free” will is a factor in the understanding suffering or at least some of it.
It will be interesting to follow your ideas /thoughts as you work on your new book
Professor Ehrman. I recently watched a video on Mark 10:25,” It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The host said that the Greek word for camel and the Greek word for cable or rope were very similar, I believe he said only one letter difference. Some folks hypothesize that an earlier scribe incorrectly transcribed the word camel instead of rope. Either one would be impossible of course but for me threading a rope through the eye of a needle makes more since than a camel. As a historian who reads Greek what do you think?
Yeah, that’s not right. The *Aramaic* words are similar — and possibly the host said that. The problem is that Mark wasn’t written in Aramaic, and he obviously was thinking “camel.” Most people just can’t believe it’s *THAT* impossible. Well, welcome to the world of Jesus!
I was taught in my Jesuit college years that the “eye of the needle” was a gate to Jerusalem. Is that true or not?
Not. The gate was made centuries later because of the saying of Jesus.
In my 71 years, I have experienced as well as witnessed incredible pain and loss. I was going to explain, but I realized it’s a universal, timeless condition. My conclusion: if there is a god, we do not understand this being at all. If you buy the Biblical view, why would God created a world that’s so imperfect? Why create mankind to be so flawed? Free will does not exist in a vacuum; it is subject to our personalities, our upbringing, our societies, our own struggles. A few little tweaks to our brain and we’d be so much better off. If the world is a place to learn how to use our free will, then why A) make it a place where we so often fail? B) have to learn at all…why not create us with fully formed morality and free will? C) hide the ultimate goal behind a curtain, putting paradise on a different plane of existence? D) give mankind tendencies that run counter to desirable behavior? For example, our tribal instinct served us well in pre-history, helping us band together for food, shelter, and protection. Does it serve us now? (continued)
DROUGHT!!!
Global warming caused by our emissions is free will!
Yup. Shifting tectonic plates is not!
Well there is the man-made shoddy construction of the buildings that were over those tectonic plates.
Yes indeed. And there are the hundreds of thousands of people who get killed independtly of building contractors cutting costs. And going back hundreds of thousands of years!
The answer that many theologians give to suffering not caused by humans: the Eden fall was, in effect, a fall of all creation, allowing fallen angels to bring suffering into all of creation. Alvin Plantinga even suggests that the process of evolution might have been guided by “the devil and his minions”.
But, this explanation is even more problematic to me – why would an all-loving, all-powerful God leave us to be tormented by a fallen angel? How could that possibly be part of a loving gift to humanity?
(Continuation) Why would god hand this world over to the forces of evil so he can ride in amidst horrid suffering to claim it all back? So when I look at the question of suffering, it seems to me that god creates a heck of a lot of factory seconds in the human department (as well as in nature, geology, and the like). You gotta wonder what the divine mission statement is, since the deck really seems to be stacked to promote human suffering. Scripture promotes turning to god through prayer, but the track record of intercessory prayer seems to have odds similar to winning the lottery. In my years as a practicing Christian and an ordained deacon, I came to the conclusion that you cannot read Scripture without finding god to be the ultimate source of both the good and the bad. My choices are either to truly resent the Biblical god, or to assume that if there is a god, I know nothing of his/her/its nature. Suffering is just a part of life; prayer exists to focus the mind on good, on inner strength, and on dealing with our suffering as we may.
One “answer” that seems related to free will is that all the evil in the world is the result of Adam’s sin (though, of course, it was all Eve’s fault!). That changed the universe somehow, and God’s good creation became bad (disease, famine, storms, earthquakes, etc.). I don’t recall that you discuss this Original Sin idea in God’s Problem … perhaps because (as far as I can tell) it’s really not in the Bible, though Romans 5:12 seems to be the go-to verse to justify it. My understanding is that the Jews have no such concept of Original Sin. (In Genesis, Adam & Eve get kicked out of the Garden into the “real world”, but the world was not changed. Apparently it was already an unpleasant place to live.) Do you happen to know when this idea, that Adam’s sin changed the universe, crept into Christianity?
For fun, do a web search on: intelligent design plate tectonics. It seems that plate tectonics is a favorite example of God’s intelligent design. Never mind that it is also the source of most earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. I confess that I am unable to follow that logic.
Yeah, it’s a weird argument. People argue you *can’t* have life withot plate tectonics. Ai yai yai. Apparently God is less powerful than plate tectonics and so his hands were tied when it came to creating life. (Genesis 1 just missed that part) On Romans 5:12 — yes that became a key verse in the development of th edoctrine of original sin, which did not happen until Augustine.
Hello Bart, our mutual friend Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic) has an interesting take. He doesn’t disagree with your view, but finds it interesting that it is the suffering in the world that caused you to lose your faith. Michael thinks the views you are most known for — contradictions in the Bible, lack of true historicity in much of the Bible, differing views of how Jesus was thought to be God, etc. — are enough to lose one’s faith. In other words, if a reader came to accept the analyses in your books, that alone should cause a person to lose his faith. What do you say to that? Thanks.
If someone thinks that to be Christian you need to be a fundamentalist, then yes, that would be enough. I myself was a church-going adult-education-teaching active Christian for about fifteen years after recognizing these problems with the Bible, and almost all my good Christian friends (including the two ordained ministers I had dinner with last night and, well, my wife) agree with me about the Bible but are still committed Christians. They’re just not fundamentalists. If you say you can’t be a Christian without thinking the Bible is infallible, then you’re simply saying that fundamentalists are the ones who get to decide what a Christian is, even though this view is modern.
Bart,
Encountered this interesting observation:
“In all of the gospels…all of our knowledge of Jesus…even gnostics…theres no record of Jesus ever laughing”
Dr. Michael Sugrue
The Bible and Western Culture lecture series
Part 1 Matthew: The New Law
I believe this was a very early Great Courses series as I recognize their logo on the videos (now on Dr. Sugrue’s offical YT channel)
Is this true? Is there no place – ever – of Jesus laughing? Or even just acting happy?
Thanks,
SC
Completely false. He laughs four times in the Gospel of Judas, e.g. I”m not sure what he is a Dr. of, but apparently nbot of early Christianity….
I think when many Christians say that free will leads to our suffering they don’t necessarily mean that each occurrence of suffering is directly related to an act of free will, but that when Adam and Eve exercised their free will on behalf of mankind and chose sin then that corrupted the world forever, necessitating a future savior. What that says about God’s foreknowledge and wisdom, or even compassion, is debatable. What I find interesting is that Christians really hold to the Garden of Eden story as key to understanding the world, but Jewish writers in the OT essentially ignored that story. For example, although the book of Job mentions Adam it never blames Adam and Eve for humankind’s suffering. I’d be interested in hearing the history of that story and why Christians focus on it, but I know you have plenty of other things to blog about.
Yeah, it’s intereting how the Garden of Eden story and the “fall” is such a central element of Christian tradoition (in part because it sets up the need for Christ’s death) but not at all of the Jewish.
What’s really interesting is if you’re not a biblical literalist and it’s just a story, then exactly how is it central to the religion? The whole religion makes no sense without the fall and original sin, it’s the setup for Christ’s death as you say. And, while being a literalist means you’re terribly misguided or delusional, at least their version is far more coherent, it isn’t utterly baseless, as in having a foundation that is tantamount to vapor ware.
It would be simple enough, I suppose, to come up with a large number of alternative explanations of why people are alienated form God and need salvation; and many liberal Christians, of course, think that the term is metaphorically true even if there’s no way on God’s green earth that it can be literally true.
Can any alternative allow for a coherent explanation of atonement? You mentioned in an interview that atonement is really quite problematic and is seen as such by lots of scholars but I can’t find any mention of this specifically. I’d love for you to address this in some future blog entry . I also searched for ‘original sin’ and if google site search is correct, you only mention it twice and there’s 2 more hits in guest blogs. The fundamental core of christianity rests on the Trinity, Original Sin, and atonement for our sins, is that not true? Of late I frequently use the term ‘incoherent’ to describe various aspects of faith, especially about the very foundation of Christianity, because I simply can’t figure out any version that could possibly be called coherent. Can you? I think you don’t like this question as this is at least the third time I’ve asked some version of it and the previous 2 got no reply. How would someone who knew nothing about the religion react if told the story? Would be fascinating study, worthy of a dissertation? Has it been done?
I would not say Christianity rests on the doctrine of the Trinity, original sin, and atonement. The Trinity as it is understood in orthodox circles was not formulated for about 300 years — and Christians were well established as a religoin long before the. The CAtholic doctrine of original sin came along even later. I do think the doctrine of atonement is central to the Christian faith; most followers at the outset held a view of atonement; the problem is that they had a wide range of ways of understandijng it. I’m not sure any of these ways is necessarily incoherent in the strict philosophical sense — they cohere internally. They just are problematic. E.g., why would God have to sacrifice a human to take away the sins of others? Why not just forgive them?
Let me suggest The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of Eden Story by David Carr, Journal of Biblical Literature, Winter, 1993, Vol 112 No. 4 (Winter, 1993) pp 577-595 — for starters. It’s a pretty compelling argument that the story is a later redaction to the original 2 through 2:24, otherwise referenced as 2*. (I found it at JSTOR)
I never understood the conceit of “freewill”.Even us,privileged 5% of the Earth’s population,as you explain,Bart,have no choice regarding hurricanes,floods,earthquakes.genetics,
random illnesses,bad luck…..it’s a long list we call ” Life” that visits us against our “freewill”.The freewill myth seems to exist only symbolically to help us sort through moral,legal or religious choices.It is perhaps grounded in the basic principle of freedom.The law being what holds us civilised and together,we observe that an accused alleged criminal will be judged on whether his/her deeds were freely committed or there was a gun to their head.
We expect “freewill”,however slippery the concept ends up being.
It seems as if I have it all worked out,even if I may seem do so by re-defining or merely discarding the question.But I don’t. And I haven’t even read on the subject.Right now,I only have lifetime subjective experience to guide me.
So I ask:
the practical application of moral/ethical principles is expected from Christian believers.This requires freewill,I assume.I know that it is also expected of Jews, believers or not.These days Israel is living a horror story where it is becoming a totalitarian theocracy,democratically so.
And yet,Christians don’t really have freewill regarding the tenets of their faith.There are dogmas.
How does one reconcile this?
Christians with these views would normally say that they are free to believe whatever they want, but if they exercise that freedom badly (e.g., by not believing in Christ) that there’ll be hell to pay. But they still have the free will to go that way.
Why do you think conservative Christians put more emphasis on the fear of hell than more liberal Christians, Bart?
Converts. And because it just makes sense to them that an eternal God requires eternal punishment. And most important, because that’s what they’ve been told by people they trust for most of their lives.
I would additionally say this about the “free will” argument: it strikes me as extremely cynical. After all, it is not the person exercising their free will who is suffering – it is somebody else who pays the price. And if God needs to give people free will so he can weed out potential evil-doers (he can’t spot them otherwise, I presume?), why can he not intervene at the moment when the person has irrevocably proven that they are evil? When a school shooter walks into a classroom and shoots the first child, he has amply proven his evilness. Why does God not intervene at that moment? Why does the shooter have the opportunity to shoot another 5 or 10 or 20 children? Apparently, it is more important for God to receive abundant proof of the shooter’s evilness than it is for Him to save the lives of the children?
Yup, it’s a big problem…
Dear Dr Ehrman,
I have an unrelated question:
You argue that papias may have had a different book of Mark because he points out that his version was lengthy and not orderly. Justin Martyr though,specifically links Peter to a gospel with the sons of thunder (Boanerges) part in it. Isn’t it very coincidental that this is part of our gospel of Mark as well?
That makes Papias more likely to connect the same gospel to Peter/Mark.
What I’m saying is:
If the “sons of thunder” part, proves Justin Martyr had our version of Mark, and he connects it to Peter. Papias is more likely to refer to the same gospel (our version) when he is talking about a gospel with a connection to Peter.
That would mitigate your point that Papias might be talking about a different gospel.
What do you think?
Ofcourse Justin Martyr could be talking about another gospel, but we have no evidence of the term boanerges being used apart from our gospel of Mark. So that would seem against the evidence, right?
Yes, Boanerges does indeed make one think of Mark. The problem is that hte Gospel of Peter is only a fragment that begins with the trial of Jesus, so we have no account of his call or naming of the disciples, so we can’t tell if it used the term or not. What we do know is that when there *is* overlap between the narrative of the Gospel of Peter and Justin’s comments about the passion narrative, there are parallels between them not found in the other Gospels. That suggests that Justin knew and was infuenced by it.
You are right to see a problem here. I think the problem is insoluble if one insists on a God who controls all or even some events here on earth, who “zaps” in from outside natural cause-and-effect to cause particular outcomes. However, I simply don’t believe that God works that way. I think it is too bad that our earth, which supports life, also involves hurricanes and droughts, but I don’t think our planet is possible otherwise, and I don’t believe that God causes such weather events. To say that this means that a God who is not omnipotent in the way that some people understand it, is not God, is simply to misunderstand how God exercises power. I do believe that God can inspire loving acts, and inspire us to improve our world and lessen suffering.
So, you’re saying that the only possible way for God to create intelligent creatures with free will was in a world with hurricanes, droughts, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, and an evolutionary process fraught with pain and suffering?
And you add that God doesn’t interact to rescue us from this pain and suffering because he doesn’t “work that way”?
Sounds like you’re trying to solve the problem by imposing huge limitations on a God, who would clearly not be omnipotent.
Wow, excellent post. I have never thought of free will that away. I grew up Presbyterian and I never believed in free will. To me free will is too simplistic. It does not take into account of all the external factors that influence our decisions.
Today, as an atheist, I just think life happens. Somethings are in our control and other things are not. I hope for a better world and I understand it is within our capacity to make it happen.
Hallett, Mark
Physiology of Free Will
Ann Neurol. 2016 July; 80(1): 5–12.
“Hence, we can have free will if our brains are free, and this is true most of the time for most people. Remaining to be explained is conscious awareness itself, what is its physiology, why do we have it, what is its function. We might need a deeper level of scientific explanation to tackle these interesting questions.”
And how!
I still think that there is something profound in Genesis regarding the Tree of Knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge that led to suffering.
Knowledge without free will is nonsense.
Free will without knowledge is useless.
If the words of Genesis were inspired by God then, I’m sorry, but it kinda makes sense to me.
If not inspired then there really is no sense to it all. Just what I’m thinking at the moment.
I don’t think they’re inspired by God, but they have moments of real profundity.
Hi Bart. Can I ask an unrelated question? The story of Jesus fashioning birds from clay and then breathing life into them is found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Do you know if the story was in the Diatessaron?
Sorry not to get to your question — it came in under the radar apparenlty. No, I’m afraid we don’t know. But it seems unlikely, since the Diatessaron was principally a conflation of the four NT Gospels.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
I have another unrelated question. Thank you for your well formulated replies!
Richard Bauckham argues that the disciples were closely involved in the process of correcting oral traditions when slipping from the facts.
What are your reasons for thinking they were not?
I sometimes can’t imagine what people are thinking. How could twelve men span the entire Christian world and make sure that anyone who said anything about Jesus was correct, and if not, correct it. Can Bauckham correct something you say about him? If he had twelve men appointed to do so, could they control what everyone said? What’s he thinking???
I wrote my 2021 “Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism,” which rejects the traditional doctrine of divine omnipotence. And I sketched in my mind an outline of biblical theology for it, but I have no idea when I will get to that project. And even though God knows all of the possible timeframes, God does not know which timeframe will actualize in my life.
The problem of why God allows suffering goes away if we stop thinking of God as a literal dude above clouds who is micromanaging human affairs. In the Vedanta faith, God is a principle, not a person. Specifically, the principle of oneness. Vedantists might speak of God as a person, but that’s just for our own convenience: It’s easier to relate to a person than to a principle. But we don’t ask why this person, who is of our own creation, would allow suffering. That wouldn’t make sense.
Not that I want to be an object lesson in suffering, but to me, suffering seems to have a valid purpose. But one that would only make sense if there was truly an afterlife. It’s a well known cliche but how would I know what goodness is if there wasn’t bad? How would I know what beauty is if that’s all I ever saw? How can I appreciate health and life if I never saw sickness and death? What would living life be if everything was always perfect and I had all knowledge? What purpose would I serve? People suffer and die but that’s not the end of the story if one believes that we are eternal souls. Those that suffer horribly here may have a recompense in the afterlife. Those who cause the suffering could meet karma. You say that you are agnostic/atheist but have you considered that maybe there is a God, but that he is bigger than what the Christian Bible portrays him to be? You have already proven that the Bible has serious issues. But does that throw out the possibility of there being a God altogether?
My view is that the problematic parts of the Bible have ZERO relation to the question of whether God exists. I think the same is true for most most forms of suffering most of us experience in our lives. disabledupes{31dcf11a63c72f600533f3d6d9ab614c}disabledupes
All three can’t be simultaneously true: God is omnipotent, perfect and loving, and allow evil and suffering. In fact, omnipotence is self-contradictory. If God can do anything, then he should be able to make a rock that he cannot destroy; but if he can do anything then he should be able to destroy it. Contradiction. Then the problem becomes: if God has power over evil and suffering then why does he permit their existence? Logic implies that their existence would have to be necessary to obtain some greater good that could not be achieved without them. Defeating evil and suffering is itself good. Therefore, it might be argued that those things are permitted to exist in order to obtain the greater good of having them defeated. If God never allowed evil and suffering to exist, then they would never be defeated. Perhaps defeating those things is itself such a good thing that it must be realized in actual existence. Ditto for natural disasters. Of course, there may be no god in which case the problem is solved by death. At some time in future, all life in the cosmos becomes extinct and, therefore, so does evil and suffering.
This may be TMI, but it fits too perfectly with the subject of suffering not to share, and I have her permission. After I gave my wife a summary of this post, she asked to be excused for a bit, saying she needed to go to the bathroom. She added, “I know this WILL be painful. I’d like to ask God why he created human bodies to be capable of having hemorrhoids!”
Right!!
I think in the last webinar you made an excellent explanation of how Free Will is not a given in the earliest iBooks of the Bible.
I don’t think Free Will is the primary explanation that say, modern spiritual channelers give either though? The explanation is more like, Everything Has The Right To Exist; multiverse edition that I saw one of your other commentators, in another post, had mentioned.
The explanation might diverge here — because your deeper soul self is just full-on focused on the Pursuit of Happiness, and because there’s like a child leash around your torso linking you and your soul, keeping your mental-emotional self in places that are ‘distant’ to where your soul is what can create the uh, not-pleasantness. The general flow of the universe tho, is in favor of the human training their mind to build pleasant realities, eventually.
I think how far humanity has come warrants philidophical inquiry — how did that happen so we can accelerate it? The vision, trust, self-love, improved agriculture, infrastructure, knowledge.
I never understood how folks can look at the New Testament and think, “oh, that’s peak enlightenment” To me, it’s just the starting point of hope.
I think in the last webinar you made an excellent explanation of how Free Will is not a given in the earliest iBooks of the Bible.
I don’t think Free Will is the primary explanation that say, modern spiritual channelers give either though? The explanation is more like, Everything Has The Right To Exist; multiverse edition that I saw one of your other commentators, in another post, had mentioned.
The explanation might diverge here — because your deeper soul self is just full-on focused on the Pursuit of Happiness, and because there’s like a child leash around your torso linking you and your soul, keeping your mental-emotional self in places that are ‘distant’ to where your soul is what can create the uh, not-pleasantness. The general flow of the universe tho, is in favor of the human training their mind to build pleasant realities, eventually.
I think how far humanity has come warrants philidophical inquiry — how did that happen so we can accelerate it? The vision, trust, self-love, improved agriculture, infrastructure, knowledge.
I never understood how folks can look at the New Testament and think, “oh, that’s peak enlightenment” To me, it’s just the starting point of hope.
While the problem of suffering wasn’t the reason I became an atheist, learning evolution cemented my thoughts. If God created us as separate from the animal kingdom, we sure suffer just like them. Animals attack each other and predators catch prey. Environmental factors lead to immense suffering of all of us. The only thing different about human suffering is our ability to recognize it and study it. Animals just suffer. I suppose God might have some reason for our human suffering but the animals? The infants. The mentally ill? Seems God is a bit sadistic.
“If we weren’t free to love and hate, to do good and do harm, we would just be robots or computers, not humans.” ___________________ Would not an omnipotent deity be capable of giving humans with free will and free of suffering?
Presumably so. Most people think heaven will be like that, humans will have complete free will and no one will suffer.
Allow me to throw a curve ball into the discussion. I didn’t read all the comments so this may have been mentioned but here’s my take.
The problem in the world is not free will, but a “free roam” devil! Before Adam and Eve met the serpent they were good kids. But they were confronted by a being they were never prepared for. Now fast forward to the book of Revelation. We are shown a time when the devil is chained up and thrown into a pit and all humanity enjoys a time of peace and good will. But then (dark music begins) after a thousand years of peace the devil is for some absurd reason released once again. All the good kids who lived in that time are suddenly tempted to once again rebel against God and many join in with Satan for one last resistance.
So then the question becomes: Why does God allow someone of such evil power even near His prize creation? Of all the billions of barren planets He could have cast Satan onto, why earth where his favorite creation lived!?
Of course the ancient writers knew of only one planet under heaven didn’t they?
Yes, anyone who thinks all the evil is done by the Devil has a very different set of problems on their hands.disabledupes{e11714349ca63682701e65c3bd40a38e}disabledupes
Why all the discussion of free will when your article makes it quite clear that argument just doesn’t cut it, you mentioned lots of examples but one you left it is the massive suffering of children who can’t be responsible whether they have free will or not. Adam and Eve were complete innocents, they had no knowledge of good and evil, they were essentially rubes, they could not comprehend that this serpent, one of god’s critters, would lie and trick them, nor could they comprehend the real consequences of eating the fruit. And yet, despite putting them there, utterly unprepared for what they might experience, this god chose to punish not just them but ALL of their descendants, it chose to visit suffering and death upon the billions and billions of future humans. You also mentioned the Exodus where this god manipulated the mind of the Pharaoh, he wanted to let them go but god made him behave otherwise by hardening his heart. Why? Why not soften the Pharaoh’s heart so he would let them go? Did it simply have a hankering to kill lotsa children? Is suffering due to god being a monster?
People don’t have a freewill. We have a slavewill. We have a character/nature that is flawed to one degree or another. The promise of the Bible is that man will be redeemed from sin and death and given a glorified nature/character.
People have been trying to bring about the Utopia with all sorts of different laws and governments. Only God can bring about the “Utiopia” by changing the heart and nature of man.
Metaphysics answers the questions. Our thoughts today create our future reality, individually and en mass. Deep in the mind we imagine various narratives and when there is enough interest and energy they will break through to full 3D spatial reality. Physically we enact the already charted narratives and this accounts for impossible coincidences that happen, where “predestination” (following the already charted narrative) is happening without our conscious knowledge, But freewill is in play, for our predetermined present narrative was determined by us.
Evolution is of the mind, not of a physical world created by Mind. An untamed mind, like an untamed horse, is restless and imagines things hurtful to others.
The Garden of Eden was that perfect place you imagine, but the residents ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and became judgmental. This is hurtful to others and is the source of the subsequent misery where, cut off from the Tree of Life , we lose our ancestrial and incarnational tree, no longer relatives, now warring on our neighbor who, different from us, we view as “evil”, and he reflects that back on us, seeing us as evil.
I have addressed this issue in my own mind through Malthusian and Population Control approaches. I could elaborate, but that would require far in excess of characters allowed for your posts. It would not affect your view in any case, however. In short, the human race actually depends on the very evils you refer to (war/violence, disease, natural disasters, etc.) for its survival! Our approach to these evils (peace initiatives, health care, disaster relief, etc.) actually prolong the problem! Yes, that’s outrageous…but makes sense when you think about it. The rejoinder of course would be “Why did God create a world where this is so?”…and we’re back to theodicy.
The only logical answer is that God expects us to help others who are afflicted with mental, physical, and emotional problems, and to use our intelligence to craft and a create a better world that eliminates wars and reduces the harm done by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. In the meantime, there always has been and will continue to be a lot of suffering. I think we need to accept that this means God never intended for suffering to be avoided. The Division of Perceptual Studies at the U of VA medical school has been researching reincarnation and NDEs for many decades, and has some strong evidence that God exists and that our souls return to occupy a different body. This is what a merciful God would do, instead of imposing unending punishment on sinners. It also means that it is possible that the human experience of “Groundhog Day” is more than just an entertaining movie.
I believe our ultimate end-point, after we learn to live proper lives, is for us — our souls, which is the true “us” — to become part of God.
Bill Steigelmann
I suppose the problem of suffering makes more sense in Mormon theology; They believe God is not entirely All-Powerful, but has to operate under established laws. He created the world out of “matter unorganized” and people’s spirits out of eternal “intelligences” that have always existed and always had agency/freedom to choose. During the great council in heaven, when 1/3 of the hosts of heaven rebelled against God and followed Lucifer, Agency was established as eternal and necessary to fairly “test” your loyalty. Because this world is “fallen” and imperfect (due to eating the fruit) God doesn’t have a lot of control in this world and must let the bad things happen as they will (including imperfect DNA that causes birth defects, and natural disasters that occur naturally—he’s kind of “hands-off” in this world), but those who choose to follow him can be blessed now (with whisperings of his guidance through the “veil”) and saved from eternal suffering in the afterlife (which he does control). In a kind of Universalist ethic, God sends everyone to “degrees” of heaven—no one will suffer a really awful fate—but the most faithful go to the best level and become Gods themselves (repeating the process).
Do Mormons believe in Hell?
They believe in a “spirit prison” where those who were disobedient or died without a knowledge of the truth go after this life to await the Resurrection. All spirits who don’t know the truth learn it there and can be proxy-baptized by the living here (one of the things they do in temples). After the Resurrection, only the absolute worst “sons of perdition” go to “outer darkness,” the permanent location of Satan and his followers (those who are not redeemed by the Atonement). I believe all other “bad people” go to the “terrestrial kingdom”, which is still a degree of glory, and those who did good in this life but were “deceived” go to the “telestial kingdom.” The most faithful go to the “celestial kingdom.”
Perhaps the problem is that monotheism cannot allow for the vagaries of God’s personality in the way that polytheism can. The ancient Greeks and Romans could always appeal to another god if one wasn’t working for them, right? It seems to me that Christianity has in one way or another made attempts to allow for this. If God the Father is too authoritarian, pray to Christ who is your brother. If it’s a more sensitive matter, pray through Mary who has the sensibilities of a mother. Special problems? You can ask any number of patron saints to intercede for you. But the problem is, as Dr, Ehrman has pointed out, that Christians have defined God as all-knowing, all-loving, all-merciful, all-good, but we cannot allow that one aspect ever takes priority over another. Any parent can tell you that you can’t hold a child to consequences justly while mercifully letting him slide. God can’t be all-good if he allows humans to suffer, so we create Satan to take that burden off Him… or at least defer the blame, since Satan has to be God’s creation by definition.
Almost all of nature and the universe is governed by laws. A lion does not decide to become a vegetarian and the earth does not decide to change it’s orbit because it bored from revolving the sun.
Mans free will is the lone exception. Why? God may be almost all powerful. Can God
just have made a mistake with free will or is it a test for us to figure it out?
Bart became a atheist because God did not live up to the premise of all-powerful or all-loving and therefore rejects God based on those values. Perhaps the premise is wrong.
I’m OK with a slightly imperfect God. A more human God that can make mistakes and maybe cannot fix it or chooses not to fix it. So he send Jesus to set the example and it our free will choice to decide if want to do the right thing.
Man by nature is selfish. Jesus was about being selfless and helping the needy.
His teaching and messages are the most important.
Let’s stop blaming God for the problems of the world and let’s work together to fix them.
Thanks. I certainly don’t blame God for the problems of the world. I don’t believe in God…