My nephew had lung cancer at 13. He was in treatment at the pediatric oncology ward at Johns Hopkins Hospital for a treatment that was originally 2 years of several rounds of chemo (which ended up being 2 1/2 years because every time he got a dose, his white cell counts dropped to nearly zero, and they had to wait for them to go back up). In any case, there were about 20 kids in the same ward, rotating in and out, but commonly encountered during the full period. My nephew was the only one who ultimately lived through the treatment and did not simply relapse. The range of ages were as young as 6 months to about 17 (a kid who had relapsed from earlier treatment). Not only did these kids struggle and suffer, but in many cases their families were torn apart. One parent usually had to be dedicated to the child in treatment, and the other parent to keeping the rest of the family going. Over time, each became exhausted by the effort, understandably, but also tended to think only of his or her own condition, forgetting that the other parent was also drained and exhausted. The ultimate effect was irreconcilable stress that drove them apart. So, young children suffered and died, families were strained to and all too often beyond their endurance, and no good came from any of it (unless one counts the money made by the hospital). It is indeed a serious problem to resolve for anyone wanting to consider God as an all-knowing, all-powerful father figure (or mother figure) who is interested in our welfare and is willing and able to intervene in times of need. In reality, it mostly seems not to work that way. In my nephew’s case, he survived, but he never really got his life back on track. Another waste of another kind.

And yet many people are comforted by the idea, even as they endured much suffering (which would not be improved by taking a more pessimistic view of things). In this case, a comforting lie may be preferred to a cold, unsatisfying reality. A church that I used to attend quite a few years ago changed ministers at one point (which was rather a shame since I liked the minister that was they when I had started to attend). The new minister had lost a very young daughter to a tragic drowning accident. One might think that such a thing would give one pause about the traditional idea of the nature of God and the power of prayer, but it actually made him into a much more conservative person, so conservative that I stopped attending that church. (The last I heard, he eventually left to run one of the largest Presbyterian churches in the US, a mega-church that is, not surprisingly for Texas, extremely conservative.) This may be a case where ignorance really is bliss.

PS – I was reading Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable: Why, After 10 Years of Talking with Atheists, I’m Still a Christian (2017). He has a podcast that often features interesting, and usually pretty cordial, debates/discussions between believers and doubters/skeptics. His chapter on suffering is certainly the weakest one in the book, and he admits that he has led a pretty happy life and thus not really faced this particular monster himself. (May this remain true for him.) He is a pleasant and reasonably bright guy, who has a knack for framing questions that allow the person being interviewed to explain his or her position without feeling directly challenged — but it seems to me that he is not a particularly deep thinker, at least on this topic. I am not sure that there is any satisfying solution to the idea of suffering; it simply is, and one either endures it and comes out on the other side, or one does not. (A weakness, to me at least, of his podcast is that he has had Sean McDowell as a guest several times, and both Sean McDowell and his father, Josh McDowell, are model examples of apologists who seem to have no idea what they are talking about most of the time. Sean in particular is all style and very little substance.)

Many people say that religion is a crutch, and I often point out that a crutch is a very useful thing if one has a bad leg.

Stephen said
It is interesting to see the way Muslim apologists have used Dr Ehrman’s videos on YouTube to critique Christian claims.  I wonder if they would be quite so pleased to have that historical critical apparatus turned against Muslim claims?  Of course Dr Ehrman is not an Islamic specialist but the historical critical  work on the Quran is being done, mostly in the West for obvious reasons.  I also wonder if Dr Ehrman’s recent appearances on Islamic themed YouTube channels is a kind of pushback on their appropriation of his work?        

  

I believe that when asked if he had any comments about the Koran, Dr. Ehrman has said he does not. And when asked why not, he has said that he likes living.