I started this thread on the problem of suffering because I wanted to respond to a specific question from a member. My original idea was simply to give the question and then write the response – and do it all in one post. When I started writing it, I realized it wouldn’t be possible, that it would require several posts, and that in fact, it would make the best sense not to give the question in the first post but in the last. Here now is the question I received, and my response.
QUESTION:
Faith-wise, why is the problem of suffering a breaking point for you, Bart, but not for Nick Vujicic?
RESPONSE:
When I first received this question I had an immediate reaction, and started to write a simple email in response, saying only that I had never heard of Nick Vujicic and didn’t know what is views were, and so couldn’t explain why he didn’t think so much suffering in the world should be an obstacle to faith. I do know what lots and lots of people think about it, and none of the answers people provide is satisfying to me personally, but I didn’t know what his views were
But then I thought that I should at least look up Nick Vujicic to see who he was, and it was indeed a bit of a shock. You may have heard of him – as it turns out he is a famous person. And his is indeed a remarkable story.
Vujicic was born in 1982 with tetra-amelia syndrome. He has no arms and legs. His parents were from Yugoslavia, but he was born in Melbourne Australia, and eventually moved to the U.S. He is also a well-known motivational speaker and a Christian evangelist, speaking to large audiences about the goodness of God and the reasons for hope in the face of despair – while he himself is without limbs.
Vujicic is obviously better suited than almost anyone to encourage others in the face of suffering. He admits that he doesn’t know why God allowed him to come into the world the way he did, but he believes that ultimately God has a purpose and he works to help everyone see how God can restore dignity and hope, even in the most trying circumstances imaginable.
And so the question I was asked is: if that works for him – someone who has experienced suffering in the extreme – why doesn’t it work for me, someone who has not.
It is a great question, and I take it very seriously. The simple answer to it is that I don’t really know.
I wish I did have this point of view. I would feel so much better about the world if I thought that everyone who was born and grew up with so many almost inconceivable physical, social, and emotional challenges – life-threatening, often unimaginably painful — could have hope and feel inspired by the goodness of God. I have not had those challenges, at all. My difficulties in life have always been far more mundane and typical for a middle-class guy who grew up in the Midwest. What I do I personally know of suffering in extremis? Nothing. Literally nothing.
How would I react if I lost my arms and legs in an accident? I’ve considered these questions a lot, actually, over the years. I’ve always thought that “Johnny Got His Gun” was one of the most terrifying movies I’ve ever seen. My guess is that I would react the way 99% of people react when that happens: I’d be bitter, hateful, resentful, angry, and suicidal. But maybe not. Maybe something would spark in me and I would see a bright side and work to encourage others. That, of course, is what one would hope. But the reality is that most people don’t go that way.
I would never say that the views of the 99% should be the view taken by Nick Vujicic. It’s amazing he has his view and has had the success he has. I wish everyone else did. But I can’t adopt either his view or theirs simply because they happen to have them. I have to look around the world, see if for myself, and figure out what to make of it. I myself do not think God has a plan for Nick. Or for the thousands of people who will starve to death today, this very day, many of them infants and young children. And the millions, right now, dying of malaria. And from water-born diseases. And from military conflicts, they have no interest in. And cancer. And Covid. And car accidents… Not to mention so many people who, today, will be tortured and soul-crushed and drowned and shot and… And the list goes on forever. For as long as there are humans.
I absolutely love the success stories. If they were what typically happened, I’m pretty sure I would not find suffering to be a problem for belief in a God who loves us and wants the best for us and can help us when we are in need — although if there were even one unresolvable tragedy, I’m sure I would have my doubts. But then it would be easier to say that God had a reason for it. I really don’t think the simple claim that God has a reason can satisfy when we’re talking about many millions of children in agony while they starve to death.
I’d rather not find this kind of suffering to be a problem. But I’m afraid I do. Other people do not feel that way – including those who have dealt with incredible suffering themselves, and I have no argument against them. But I do hope that everyone who ever thinks about the problem at least looks it in the eye and comes to a sensible view about it, one that seems plausible to them only after they’ve taken it seriously. Those who do not take suffering seriously – either because they don’t care (an incredibly common attitude) or because they have a Pollyanna solution to it (also incredibly common)– are the ones most likely not do anything about it. And that only increases the suffering.
Do you find these posts worth reading? You can get five a week by joining the blog — with archives going back all the way to 2012, at least five posts each and every week. The small membership fee goes entirely to charity. So why not join?
A brilliant set of posts on this most important topic from Professor Bart. No easy answers on either side of the argument, just conundrums. “What’s it all about?” as someone once said. I don’t know. But, thank you Dr Ehrman,for at least getting us to think about ‘it’.
Honestly, as bad as suffering is and I’ve seen it up close and personal ( as we all have) I can actually rationalize suffering as just bad luck.
Not lucky enough to be born at a good time in world history, in a good location, to a good family, in the right circumstances.
I can understand the bad luck of damaged DNA that causes cancer and it IS horrible.
It’s the fraud and forgery that you have pointed out in your books that alarm me to the falsehoods of the supernatural.
Not saying that I disagree with your articles on suffering though.. fascinating work.
I pretty much agree with you. It’s a capricious and dangerous material world we live in and it has zero interest in us. (In fact, technically, it has no interest in anything).
My belief in God is tied to the experiences of my life. The “gifts” I’ve received, the “breaks” in life I’ve had, vs. the very specific responsibilities and burdens that I’ve faced and been asked to take on throughout my life. Responsibilities and burdens tailor made to those “gifts.” My Dad told me “To whom much is given, much is expected.” My journey isn’t random. For me, a God is an absolute given. Yet I read your blogs on suffering and it sunk in too. How can an “All Powerful God” allow such horror? Why do I get breaks and seem to have a guided path, when others do not? This actually kept me awake last night. A concept entered my mind this morning. What if God isn’t “All Powerful”? What if the “tweaks” I’ve gotten in my life is all that God is capable of? What if God doesn’t stop horror because God can’t? I Googled “God is Weak” and lo and behold, it’s an actual theology. “God is Love” vs. “God is Zeus/ Obi-wan Kenobi”. The weakness of God seems to match up well with the tone of Ecclesiastes. Where does this view stand in the Judeo-Christian traditions?
I think I answered your question yesterday? It is certainly the view advanced by Rabbi Harold Kushner in Why Bad Things Happen to Good People (basing his argument, oddly, on the book of Job! Which in my judgment has just the opposite perspective)
Yep. It seemed the discussion had moved on from my first post, so I reposted. I see why the concept is unknown. It’s just barely different than Deism/Atheism. A debate on “God is barely here” vs. “God isn’t here at all” would be time wasted when far more important things need to be done…….
Really great Rabbi Harold Kushner interview at 6:38 he quotes a sermon “..the one thing God needs from humans is forgiveness for all the wrong unfair things in the world…” talmud Num 28:15 says “… you shall bring a sin offering for the Lord..” –God wants to atone and apologize for all the unfairness in life. “God is as pained by this as I am” “If I have to choose between an all powerful god that is not kind and fair -or- a mostly powerful god …I will affirm god’s goodness and compromise his power.” Wow what an amazing idea…revelation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQW6xvmREx4&list=PL6Mq1ptfgwZw0HmqsmTo7ZBZgCX2MQwfZ&index=8&t=0s
I agree with Bart from the perspective that the omnipotent, omniscient God is certainly dying in man’s imagination. We’ve had too many world wars, depressions, famines, holocausts, and pandemics to believe in a deus ex machina. However, why can’t God be a more subtle actor, revealing Himself through human love? If Jesus is the revelation of God’s nature, then maybe Jesus’ weakness on the cross foreshadows God’s weakness in the world. Maybe God works through transformed hearts…through people trying to make a difference. Maybe God rouses us to action on behalf of those innocents who suffer unjustly. Maybe we find God suffering right alongside those innocents. Jesus was a peasant living, teaching, and working among peasants where there would have been immense suffering and despair…and a need for a hopeful message. He said love and take care of one another, not pray and God will fix it all. I’m agnostic about whether Jesus was God. It’s not the simplest explanation ala Occam’s razor. But being stuck with a bloated, petulant, omnipotent understanding of God doesn’t seem like the only or best read of the Gospels. Can Christianity survive with a weak, suffering, loving God? Dunno.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The bible shows suffering so clearly. God is not weak—rules were established. Nobody blames God for gravity because we know its a law. When you fall off a cliff you don’t blame God you blame gravity—but God made gravity. Laws were established in the creation of this world and broken laws (and a devil) result in suffering.
Bart said “MOst of the NT also maintains that suffering is caused by demonic powers in the world (the Devil and his minions); I don’t believe that. ”
It takes faith to believe there is a bad Devil out there. I was born into a world with suffering that is the default—I believe in an all powerful God that told me there would be suffering–thats’ the default. Life is terminal but I believe in a good all powerful god that says there is more to life than this terminal existence….I believe there is more to EVERY life so I have hope.
There’s a distribution curve for types of suffering versus the number of people suffering in a particular way. You allude to it in your response. The person asking you this question has picked a sample of suffering that lies on the far tail of the distribution. Using extremely rare cases is a too common way of arguing a point, but logically it’s a fallacy.
You should have empathy for that individual’s suffering. But it doesn’t in any way solve the problem of gratuitous evil and suffering in our world. It certainly does not prove that everyone should adopt the simplistic “God works in mysterious ways” explanation for human suffering. A better explanation is that the Christian idea of God is a fantasy and that human suffering is a random occurrence in a universe that does not know we exist.
Did the God of the New Testament promise things would be easy in this life? Did he make it easy for a true-believer like Paul? Did he promise to eliminate any/all/most suffering? Or, did He promise that the last would be first in the next life….and challenge everyone to take care of the hungry, naked, lonely (Matt 25:31-40)? Now, I get that the “next life” was supposed to come soon, so I get the exasperation “God where you at?”, but there’s never been much evidence for direct supernatural intervention in this life. It’s at best been indirect….I suppose the rare miracle…but mainly through changed hearts. Getsemani shows not all prayers will be answered…can be answered….and that “why have you forsaken me” might have foreshadowed God’s hands-off role in suffering. Maybe prayer isn’t about getting what we want but focusing our lives. Now, I’m pretty agnostic about it all. I don’t accept the underlying narrative of original sin and the need for Jesus’ death or the flawed transmission of the most important message….ever. But at core isn’t this philosophy about how to live your life, regardless of suffering? I think faith persists precisely because humans crave this philosophical roadmap.
I’m sure you’re repeating the same answers as this character, Job (Book of Job) from this (in my mind) imaginary land of Uz.
The dialogues, the poetry that describes the of suffering, all end with unsatisfactory answers that we are not able to understand the world of God.
Fighting suffering as a moral obligation, perhaps one of the most important is still there, and your sincere efforts to do your part to fight suffering, Dr. Ehrman is no less valid,than the dialoghs, poetry, questions in this Job narrative who ends up in an unsatisfactory reply. We do not really know the basis of our own existence.
We can even approach it from many relevant positions, and actually afirming the “Job” narrative as unsatisfactory as it might sound to me, you and probably most of us.
We can approach it from a Physic persepctive,,,(lets call it the real life) how the fundamentals laws which we live in , in this eat and be eaten realm where suffering is in all part of this lineage,,,,,,,,,or,,perhaps deeper into the fundamental physics, the quantum physics where reality and consciousness plays a profound part. And here we are the players.
We can go to the psychology (read “soul) and in a deep analytical the whole psycology can’t be disconnected with conciousness either you call it consiousness (also unconciousness) , and even collective consiousness, which describe our presence. And here we are the players.
You can even go to the religious realm, wich some esoteric systems tries to give an imaginary descripiton of the worlds from once oneness from God, and a descend/fragmentation from the oneness, a descend often referred to levels of consiousness (worlds). These consepts are all around, in Christianity, i.e. Gnosism, in Jewish mystisism (i.e. the later Kabbalah), in eastern religions like i.e. Hinduism and Buddism and more. Still we are the players.
Dr Ehrman, you (as me) will never get the answer, not at this level, just like Job, as horrible as it sounds. Your efforts like so many others who want to make this as a moral obigation is still what it all is about, ,,,love,,,were all originated from (I hope).
Thank you for your effort!
I think Charles Templeton, Billy Graham’s preaching colleague, became an agnostic/atheist over this issue. He just could not understand why a God would allow children to starve when just a little rain would have resulted in food and saved lives.
The disciples wrestled with this same vexing question, in John 9. So they asked Jesus what could be termed the no-fault question of spirituality. Who’s “fault” is it that this man was born blind? And the answer is profound, and controversial: “Nobody’s fault”, said Jesus — but that he should be made whole, right now. Nobody’s fault, because church doctrine insists on sinful fallen people, whereas Jesus saw past this fallacy.
My conclusion: either Jesus was a heretic in both camps — Jewish and Christian; or he was a radical realist who could demonstrate his view. QED. (Of course some may doubt that this event ever happened, and then excise all the healings of the gospels, like Thomas Jefferson did; or we can remain open-minded about a hidden reality which includes such “miracles”.
Q: is not laser surgery a miracle, attributable to a better “understanding” of reality? Let’s consider the entire matter: I AM the light of the world. You are the light of the world. God is light and in him is no darkness at all. (The defense rests.)
In another way the story is troubling. Was the man born blind *so* Jesus could heal him? (Just as Jesus did not go to heal Lazarus when he was sick “so that” the “Son of God could be glorified” by raising him from the dead?)
I would not take that bait, as it suggests that God perpetrates evil. But I can see that it’s tempting : (God, as Teacher, needs object lessons? — but if S/He creates evil for instructional purposes, I’m outta that classroom.) The “so that” (Bart’s comment, above) regarding Lazarus seems encrusted with hagiography, at least to me.
~eric. MeridaGOround dot com
Encrusted, that is, by the author of John’s gospel, not by Prof.Ehrman.
I’ve wondered the same thing over the years about this story. Also, once he could see, he was thrown out of community by the religious leaders, which I understand to have been more than not just being able to attend synagogue. I thought that meant he was essentially cut off from the business/economic and social resources of the community. Is that true? Would there have been serious, overarching life consequences for him? If so, then he traded blindness for becoming a pariah, which is still suffering.
Though Jesus comes back to him, there is no implication that he is grafted into a “Christian” community that would provide resources/support. If this is the case, the blind man received his physical and spiritual sight and lost his traditionally Jewish life. Sounds like a symbol to me, and may also be problematic from an anti-Semitic perspective since the Jewish leaders are cast in such a negative light.
I would think that suffering would be apparent if one lost his limbs later in life and acutely experienced loss and depression. The suffering in that case would derive from severe, permanent loss of something critical you once had. While we certainly sympathize with Vujicic, he was born without his arms and legs and knows no other existence. How has he experienced suffering in the extreme? He has adapted beautifully with a college degree, a career, a wife and four kids, a home in California and clearly the means to support himself comfortably. Is being physically deprived at birth a form of suffering comparable to starvation or losing a child in a tsunami? While his goal to “encourage others in the face of suffering” is noble and needed in the world, I don’t understand how Vujicic’s situation and indomitable spirit is relevant in the context of suffering as evidence for or against the existence of God. I think the questioner that prompted this post misuses him as an example.
It seems you don’t understand that psychological suffering can be worse than physical suffering…the point is that Vujicic does NOT have an indomitable spirit. The miracle is that God “spoke” to him and kept him from suicide.
Brilliant story!! Nice construct, I had forgotten if there ever was a question. I must confess, Bart, i honestly didn’t think you read anyone’s recommendation considering how busy and convicted you are in your mind. So, accept my apology. This truly is a beautiful comparison of how life sometimes works. I feel an honest and sincere expression of tenderness in your wording. In 2001, my eldest daughter, insisted I watch an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show. A young boy in a wheelchair came on and I started listening to him. Within a seemingly short time, tears were running down my face profusely, I had no control over them. I did not have sadness for this young boy, rather happiness. I witnessed so much radiance and meaning on his face, that I did not possess. I kept asking myself, “How can this handicapped young boy,11 years old, have more joy than I did, living as he is? I was handicapped, not him. His name is Matthew Joseph Thaddeus Stepanek, better known as Mattie. His mother,Jeni, also confined to a wheel chair, was diagnosed with Dysautonomic Mitochondrial Myopathy, a rare form of muscular dystrophy, thirty years ago….
…thirty years ago, the same condition that took the life of all four of her children, including Mattie. She has been using a wheel chair ever since she lost her strength and fatigue to walk. The three older siblings of Mattie, all died before the age of four. Miraculously, Jeni, now age 60, is still alive. My daughter purchased a video of that interview and i watched it a dozen times, every single time brought me to tears. In a short 13 years of life granted to him, Mattie gained a junior black belt in martial arts tethered to an oxygen tank. He had 7 best selling books of poetry and peace essays. (Sorry, Bart, he beat your 5 best sellers? ). He met his hero,ex President Jimmy Carter. I encourage everyone on this blog, including Bart, to watch a Ted x Teen talk given by Jeni Stepanek called,” A new hope for peace: It’s not a fairy tale. Given March 27/2010. To answer Bart’s question,” Is suffering a problem for those who suffer? Yes and no. There are many that don’t have these outcomes. But then Nick and Mattie, prove the impossible. ***ATTITUDE*** Where do they find it?
Thanks for telling the story of Nick Vujicic. I never heard of him before reading this post. Vujicic‘s story reminds me of Elisabeth Anderson’s argument against egalitarianism. She mentioned a group of people who believe those who were born with physical disabilities are closer to god. Their beliefs are very similar to Vujicic’s(sufferings show that god can restore hope). They also think since God created people who are physically disabled that way, they will be specially cared for and valued by God. Although I don’t find that convincing, the belief can help them feel better.
Do you think the world we are living in is getting better? I suppose the average longevity is increasing because the diseases you mentioned are more curable….
Hey Jinwen! I do think there is less suffering in the world if you gauge it by the percentage of the population, than probably any time in human history. But there are probably more people suffering if you just count the numbers. The frustrating thing about modernity is that so much of the suffering in the world (malaria; starvation; etc.) COULD be solved, if there were the political will. But those with resources prefer other things….
Maybe the Hindus have it right and it’s suffering and rebirth and repeat until we get it right. I know your a NT Bible scholar but you have probably at least considered it.
Oh yes. It is found in other traditions as well, even in the West. A Christian version of it was advanced by Origen, the greatest Christian theologian of the first three centuries (mutatis mutandis, with a *lot* of mutatis)
Bart, you have probably explained this before, but how did you think about the problem of suffering back when you were 100% on-board; that is, before you started to have doubts?
It seems to me that the biggest difference between you and Nick (now) is that he wants to believe that there is meaning and a plan behind all of it, so he does. Your academic studies made you doubt that there is anything there, so eventually you decided there isn’t.
I attributed a lot of suffering to free will; a lot to the forces of evil in the world; and I explained God’s role apocalyptically: in one way or another he would make right what was wrong. If I were still a believer, that would probably still be my view.
Dr Ehrman
I don’t understand this “free will” thing.
GOD is omni-everything. HE knows what I will do tomorrow and what time, every details. HE knows Adam and Eve will eat that fruit of knowledge. And HE also engineered the pits of hell for punishment.
What’s this? A frame-up?
*******************
Now this pain and suffering. Is like that triangle graph. At the tip are the people with minimal suffering and at the bottom are severe. Approx ratio 1:1Billion (give or take a few millions). And this has been the reality in eons of time. How can this square with a loving and just GOD? Well, it will be in the end when HE comes and it will be for a greater good. Really?
1:1B? Nevermind that, I agree with Ivan on this, and I am very close into returning my ticket as well..
Thank you Dr. Ehrman?
In my case I was born with facial paralysis, not being able to show facial expression and having issues with eating and speaking. I was born with it, so I have no control over that and had learned to live with it. But there is suffering, there is pain. From (the ignorant minority) who stare and/or make unkind comments. But also from people I like who for one reason for another shun my company.
I sometimes think about the wonderful romantic and platonic relationships I could have had with people. The nights out, the hangouts, the holidays, the festivals, the special events I could had shared with people, were it not for my disability. I should be thankful for the things I have, a sharp brain, an inquisitive nature, a talent for playing piano, sense of humour, loving family and caring church. But sometimes it feels like I am living only a half-life.
I’m so sorry to hear it. I admire your courage and attitude toward it. All best,
Suffering is somehow connected to heavenly court decisions (as per scripture). Recall how satan accuses, sort of as an attorney of state.
For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you. Because you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you, I give men in return for you, peoples in exchange for your life.
Isaiah 43:3-4
There is some legal battle hidden from our eyes. God is subject to his own laws, so though being almighty, he is primarily bound to a law.
That has something to do with it I can imagine.
The Jehovah’s witnesses teach the Satan questioned God’s authority. Since creation the court hearings have been playing out before mankind and the heavenly hosts. Is God really the rightful ruler? We will soon see.
Dr Ehrman – This series of posts on the problem of suffering is excellent. The saddest irony is that those who have a ready answer for the problem of suffering thereby signal they haven’t thought enough about it.
Speculative question: What do you think the historical Jesus would have thought about the 4-Omni conception of God that predominates in modern Christianity? Seems like it would have been hard for him to comport a view that anyone deserves annihilation with the idea that the deity doing the judging could have foreseen the outcomes of this version of creation ahead of time, but went ahead with it anyways.
My sense is that most modern understandings of God are so deeply rooted in Greek philosophical categories that they would have been a puzzle to Jesus. He probalby thought in some broad sense that God knew everything, but he almost certainly didn’t think through the philosophical problems that view creates.
The explanation that “God has a reason for suffering” assumes it must be a good one, since what God does is by definition good This reminds me of something Ben Franklin said: “Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one.”
Suppose one day, you no longer feel the problem of evil is an insurmountable obstacle to belief in theism. Say your mindset changed after living closely with people suffering from abject poverty, severe disabilities or other forms of suffering, some of whom are religious, others are not, but most of them feel for a variety of reasons their suffering has only minimal relevance but no decisive argument for or against God’s existence. Some of them may have the mindset of your liberal Christian friends who managed to retain their faith despite recognition of the challenge posed by problem of suffering. Some of them are irreligious for reasons unrelated to suffering, and don’t feel their suffering add much to their existing irreligious view – this could be quite common in secular societies today. Others may be like Nick Vujicic who paradoxically are convinced their suffering is part of God’s good purposes. Somehow living with those people, you don’t feel at a psychological level that suffering is incompatible with theism. Would you then revert to belief in theism, or after having seen the light, you would stick to atheism/agnosticism as this makes most sense of life and the universe, all things considered?
I think you are asking whether, if I begin to think theism makes the best sense of things, I would become a theist. Sure. Just as if I began to think Islam or Hinduism or Communism makes the best sense, I’d become a Muslim, Hindu, or Communist. But it’s not that there is ONE thing that I might become if only there wasn’t an obstacle (Theism is the only choice, but there is an obstacle for belieiving it); the issue is: what makes the best sense of our world?
HI Bart..In your study of xnty and suffering– is Jesus or New Testament Xnty concerned with sufferings in the world?
My view is that it is their major concern.
did historical xns work to relieve suffering in the world? was it a concern?
Yes indeed. From the beginning.
If the book is concerned with suffering and the converts become concerned with suffering and have an impact don’t’ they attribute their motivation and action to god? Once upon a time did you?
Motivation for what? I’m not sure what you’re asking.
I guess what I’m getting at is if the bible is concerned with suffering and the converts are motivated to relieve the suffering in the world isn’t god doing something about suffering in the world through his converts? At least did you once think that?
Then perhaps your objections became a scale issue (too much suffering)? or a timing issue –why have suffering in the first place if he’s all loving and all powerful?
Yes indeed. I’ve thought about that a very great deal. And that is certainly one of my objections. Another, related, is that most suffering is not at all addressed by God’s followers. God’s followers couldn’t do much to help the majority of people who starved to death throughout the world before, say, 1000 BCE. How do explain their suffering? Do they not count since they are not one of us?
We are all subjective individuals, of course, and view life from that perspective. Those who seemingly have everything can be very unhappy but we don’t usually regard them as suffering, perhaps because there are no external signs. Conversely, people we think ought to be suffering might be very happy. We can try to imagine how WE would feel given the circumstances of another person but we cannot ever know how that person feels.
BTW, Bart, your reply to my earlier comment that suffering is in steep decline was wrong. You said that it was declining only in proportion to the rise in population. That is not true – it has declined hugely in absolute terms. There are fewer people suffering from hunger, violence, rape, slavery, disease – you name it – than ever before in the entire history of the human race. That is not God’s doing it is our doing and we should celebrate that achievement. That’s not to deny there is much more to do or that there is anything inevitable about it: we should never take such good fortune for granted. If you read nothing else on the subject please read Factfulness by Hans Rosling.
Well, I may be wrong. But if there are nearly 8 billion people in the world and only 25% of them are seriously suffering, that is sill a lot more than when there was only 1 billion people and 50% of there were suffering.
The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker has done research showing that health, prosperity, safety, peace, and happiness have risen worldwide in modern era:
“Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now
“The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature
The books received ringing endorsement from BillGates (actively involved in philantrophy) and ethicist Peter Singer who championed the “Effective altruism” movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism).
While much more could be done, in terms of scale of problem, I don’t think as many as millions are dying from malaria:
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/world-malaria-report-2019
“In 2018, there were an estimated 405 000 deaths from malaria globally”
The annual deaths from starvation is about 10mln:
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/losing-25000-hunger-every-day
Unfortunately abject poverty and hunger are soaring this year and next. The tragedy of the pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa is not deaths and morbidities from the virus itself (remarkably low there possibly due to young demographics, pre-existing immunity, no vitamin D deficiency, low diabetes & obesity; https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/pandemic-appears-have-spared-africa-so-far-scientists-are-struggling-explain-why), but misguided actions by governments in the region to lockdown econonomic activities (https://theconversation.com/lockdown-didnt-work-in-south-africa-why-it-shouldnt-happen-again-147682; https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/coronavirus-150-million-extreme-poverty-world-bank-covid-19-pandemic-aid-humanitarian/). As WHO’s David Nabarro appealed to world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary control method: “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer” (https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus-who-backflips-on-virus-stance-by-condemning-lockdowns/news-story/f2188f2aebff1b7b291b297731c3da74)
I can’t make your numbers work, Bart, unless you are equating those earning less than $1.25 per day (the UN’s definition of absolute poverty) – about 18% of the global population – with the poorest 50% in 1804 (when the world population reached 1bn). But that doesn’t work because it is only one definition of suffering. Those earning less than the equivalent of $1.25 per day would be more like 90% then anyway. Can you tell me how you define, ‘Seriously suffering?’
Global mean life expectancy is 72.6 years now, whereas in the richest country in the world in 1804, England, it was 40. Why? Infant mortality, violent deaths (from war and crime), deaths from big killers like smallpox, polio, etc have either been eradicated or are in steep decline. Even fatalities from malaria have fallen dramatically in my lifetime. Solutions to most major pathologies, including cancer, degenerative and genetically caused diseases are well on the way to being found.
I do not say that there isn’t more to do – of course there is – but let’s first understand the nature and scale of the problem. Clean water and the antibiotic issue are the big ones for me.
I”m basically talking about people starving, not what their income was. There are surely more now than in 1700, no? I agree, life expectancy is an amazing development.
The “problem” with Christianity is “the hook”: eternal life. ALL life forms have “programming” that start with the first line of “code”: KEEP LIVING. The ability of all life forms to withstand enormous amounts of suffering but still strive to live is well documented. Buddha never promised eternal life, just a chance at being able to ignore suffering, he refused to even talk about ‘souls’ or God. Hinduism offered the idea of countless reincarnations after countless sufferings, but eventually Nirvana.
But Jesus offered the idea of one life and then heaven. But as Bart has ably shown, he was thinking soon after his death he would come back and the suffering would end – if you were one of his few” sheep” that his father had “enabled”, “drawn” to him. But he was ok with the idea that ‘many are called but few are chosen” , and for the rest: ETERNAL suffering.
Now, billions of births and deaths later, Christians are still ok with that idea but seem to ignore: “if you are luke warm I will vomit you out of my mouth”, “sell all your possessions and give the earnings to the poor”, “love thy enemy”, etc.
This question doesn’t appear related to the issue of *why* god allows suffering.
That Nick has found a way to deal with his suffering doesn’t change the contradiction in a good, all-powerful god that allows suffering.
of course it does.. god allows suffering for a purpose. Nick has found that purpose through suffering.
Here is a link to the Our World in Data stats: https://ourworldindata.org/famines. The numbers go back to 1860 and the position for 1700 would be much worse, despite a world population of only 640k. 1700 pre-dated both the agricultural and industrial revolutions, which increased wealth and food production.
Deaths from famine is not a perfect proxy to malnourishment, if that is what you mean, but it is good enough, I’d say. Even the UN’s figures for malnourishment in 2016 (ie not getting enough nutrition in a given year) was 800k and falling, whereas in 1804 it was estimated to be 90%+ (900k). Most famines in history have been caused directly or indirectly by international or civil wars, which are at a historic low just now and that, coupled with technological advances and the World Food Programme, has been largely responsible for this dramatic reduction. Incidentally, no famine has ever occurred in a functioning multi-party democracy.
A key metric for me is: what chance do you have of going hungry? One in ten in 2016 and nine in ten in 1804.
If the world population was 650k, how could there have been more starving than in a world where many millions are starving? Do you really think there are fewer than 800k people in our world today that are malnourished???
Of course we humans are free to think and believe whatever we wish. …only humans who have suffered, however, have credibility on this issue, I think. I have lived for 13 years with daily unrelenting chronic pain, incurable…relievable to some extent with medication, for which I am grateful. …this question of why there is so much unjust suffering in our world is one people have to move beyond, put it aside. So many spend their life stuck there. You cannot get to further revelations about the nature of things without moving past it. Don’t limit yourself. Put it aside. If you can’t, when suffering comes into your life, as it does to everyone eventually, THEN you will learn about it. It is a profound teacher. Like no other. If you can’t move past the question while you are free of suffering, you will be pushed past the question when suffering strikes you, rest assured. I do believe that is its purpose.
Hi Bart
You originally compared the world of one billion to today. The global population reached 1bn in 1804. The less than 800m figure (and falling) is from the UN – if you wish to argue with the UN statos, fair enough. You then moved the goalposts from a world population to an arbitrary date of 1700 for some reason. Ok, a bit of social history: before the industrial revolution (1804, for example) the vast majority of the population, > 95%, went hungry for some part of the year. In England (then the richest country in the world) January to April were called the hungry months: most suffered from malnutrition for at least a part of the year. Only those few at the very top of society would have been unacquainted with the constant threat of starvation.
As I said earlier, the chances of dying prematurely from starvation, violence, disease, infant mortality or anything else are less now than they have ever been in human history.
If you are genuinely interested in this, rather than trying to score a minor victory, and you read only one thing, can I suggest again the short book, ‘Factfulness,’ by Hans Rosling?
I’m not sure why you’re so invested in this issue? I’m not talking about how long people live now or how often they die early. I’m saying that if there are nearly 8 billion people in the world there will be more hungry people than when thare were only 1 billion. If you don’t think so, that’s fine. I don’t really have anything at stake here. Apart from the fact that there are millions of people starving to death now, as we speak, and if anyone wants to say that it’s so good now, so much better than ever, they are less likely to care or do anything about it.
Ah, now I understand. Perhaps you do have something at stake.
Why do I care? The short answer is, ‘Comment is free but facts are sacred.’ Manipulating or suppressing data, even (or especially) for a worthy cause is a dangerous game. We’ve achieved the most incredible progress since the Enlightenment but that emphatically does not mean we should put our feet up and say, ‘Job done.’ Where there is violence so there is hunger, disease, misery and premature death. My list of causes is long and includes the Yazidis (who the world seems to have forgotten about) and the Uighurs (ditto).
Where is your evidence that people care less about those in poverty simply by acknowledging human progress? The CAF World Giving Index suggests the opposite.
Incidentally, I support plenty of good causes in my own quiet way but not the big boys, who have grown far too corrupt, inefficient, and political for my liking.
Anyway, I’m sure we both have better things to do than disagree with each other over how many people are suffering in the world but life really is immeasurably better than it was for most people: just ask my 97 year old mother.
I definitely have something at stake: complacency breeds inaction. But I don’t understand what you have at stake.
I want to look at this Bart vs. Nick on a different angle, a kind of sensitive one…
I don’t know them in person other than their work and some videos. So I’m saying this not to judge either one, because only themselves know their inner most thoughts.
In his older posts, Dr Ehrman had expressed that being a professor in NT has nothing to do with what he believe, like his wife teaching Shakespeare but doesn’t mean she believes him. It MIGHT also be possible that Nick is just doing this as a job only and not because of what he believe.
I know a nurse, he used to work 12hrs shift all week, quit and just did preaching and motivation. He said “why do all that? If can earn the same and sometimes more, tax free income in just a few hours on the podium and some house to house call”.
Like I said I don’t know. But Bart and Nick might be just doing their jobs. Bart with all his yrs of research and Nick with his life experience.
I think for me it comes down to, if Nick also has charities that he supports like Bart does.. kudos to both
Thought so.
No evidence of complacency that I can find. In fact, instant news and social media have probably had the opposite effect.
My stake is simple: telling the truth is always the best policy.
‘You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.’ Human progress is remarkable: nothing like it has ever happened before. For most of our history, the vast majority lived short, poor, hungry, violent and disease-ridden lives. Progress is a precious, fragile thing, which we should value but to do that we must first understand what we have and then do everything to ensure it continues.
Innovation drives progress and progress reduces suffering but for innovation to flourish it needs certain conditions, the most important of which is freedom. Unfortunately, freedom, as always, is under threat – probably more than any time in our lives (we are contempories, I believe). The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that is served best by knowing what we stand to lose. My mother’s wartime generation understood this but many today seem to have become complacent or, worse, think that progress is a bad thing – funny how most of those are well-off, educated and middle- class.
Complacency: I’m talking about people with your perspective. What’s the incentive to do anything if everything is already so fantastic? I too believe in truth. It’s what I try to do for a living. Here’s the truth: there are millions and millions and millions of people in our world, right now, who are experiencing abject misery and suffering that could be prevented. We don’t have the will to prevent it.
Who said everything is fantastic? And what do you mean, people with my perspective?
That’s what I thought, too, which is why I am slightly surprised that you make this an exception. Incidentally, you still haven’t provided the evidence that knowing the truth leads to complacency and inaction.
I’ve never denied that there are people experiencing misery in the world: in fact I provided you with the data. It is so true that it doesn’t need exaggerating. I agree much is preventable and many people are striving day and night to do just that. Why has smallpox been eradicated already and polio nearly so? Why did TB wipe out not just whole families but entire streets in poor areas of my mum’s home town when she was a girl but so few nowadays? Why can we feed over 7.5bn now better than we could 1bn 200 years ago? Innovation, that’s why: Jenner; Salk; Fleming; Borlaug – each standing on the shoulders of giants. Why do we not need to kill whales as we once did in huge numbers? The light bulb. And so on.
I’m busy for the next few days but wish you and your family a very happy Christmas.
The question is fallacious. By comparing Bart’s level of suffering with Vujicic’s, the questioner is wrongly suggesting that if he doesn’t see suffering as a problem, then Bart certainly shouldn’t see it as a problem either.
It’s fallacious because it is conflating each man’s personal level of suffering with the suffering that exists in the world.
When Bart talks about suffering, he isn’t speaking autobiographically. He is speaking of the fact that over 10 million children under the age of 5 die in the world each year–from thirst, starvation, disease, and neglect. He is speaking about even greater numbers who live in despair and whose entire lives are one protracted episode of suffering.
One doesn’t need to have been directly affected by debilitating events to see that people the world over are suffering unimaginable horrors and then asking, “Why?”
I don’t wish to take away from Nick’s courage and faith. I do have to ask a few questions.
Does he have the support of many other people to be such a “success”? Is it really all God? In spite of his suffering he has obviously had many opportunities not available to most who suffer eg someone born in a slum to poverty and deprivation?
If the admiring crowds turned their backs (may that never happen!) would his faith still sustain him?
What if God told Nick there was no special purpose to his suffering, but that he and all who suffer do so at the whims of chance? Is this elusive special plan what keeps him going, because if he stopped what he does he would lose the all important conviction of a special plan?
If health and opportunity completely stopped him would he lose courage or struggle in his faith?
Does Nick believe God has rewarded his faith and courage by allowing the many things in life he has achieved?
Does Nick think anyone regardless of their situation and their suffering could be like him?
Read the book of Job…those are the same questions Satan asked. What are humans really capable of? Is there such a thing as devotion?