Loading...Kyle Butt Debate. On April 4, 2014, I had a lively and, well, rather rigorous and at times somewhat unpleasant debate (unpleasant for maybe both of us?) with a conservative Christian apologist named Kyle Butt at the campus of the University of North Alabama (UNA). Gospel Broadcasting Network aired the event live on their television network, as well as live-streamed it on the Internet. We were debating whether the problem of suffering can call into question the existence of God.
Kyle Butt Debate with Bart Ehrman
Kyle wrote previously about the event explaining that “He [Bart] is a self-avowed agnostic who claims that the pain and suffering he sees in the world make it impossible for him to believe that the Christian God exists. Thus, the debate will be on the subject of suffering and the existence of God. Ehrman will be affirming: “The pain and suffering in the world indicate that the Christian God does not exist.” I will be denying that proposition.”
Kyle Butt, M.A. is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. He currently serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press.
Please adjust the gear icon for high-definition.
Following this debate, I spent considerable time on the Apologetics Press website. Google “Kyle Butt Apologetics Press.” It is a very thorough and interesting website which might interest readers of this CIA website.. It lists 100s of Bible contradictions and harmonizes all of them usually considering these contradictions to be additions and different perspectives which show that the Bible authors did not “conspire” to iron out all differences. There are, however, two problems with this Apologetics Press website. First, any Bible student who raises questions about contradictions is immediately labeled a “skeptic,” a “cynic,” or worse when maybe he/she is just a Bible student or reader honestly trying to figure stuff out. Second, even if the website authors are correct about all of their harmonizing, they do not address the question about why the Bible, if it is inspired, contains so many “alleged” contradictions. Where in the world was the divine editor?
I bet at times it was a very “unpleasant” debate for both sides. Sometimes, I wonder why you place yourself in such places, but then you have already explained that previously.. Nevertheless, I still wonder ….
hello bart
i laughed when in your reply to question whether you will change your mind and go back to chrstianity you said it seems to me no more likely than i will become some other religion jewish for example or other thing
My oh my. This guy’s opening statements completely and totally miss your point. Does he not know that you are an agnostic? You are saying that the God of the bible, and at the very least, the all loving and all powerful God of orthodoxy, does not exist. You are not making a categorical statement here. Does this guy even think he’s talking to you?
It makes no sense to refer to the good things that God supposedly does do. There are alcoholic fathers who feed and clothe and house their children while they physically abuse the mother of such children; would someone then use such evidence to call the father good? Silly. Stupid. You should rest your case after opening statements like this. What stupidity.
I should qualify this by saying that his blurb does indicate that your case is against the Christian God, though his opening remarks do not seem to cling to this distinction is tightly as they should.
Another thought here: Kyle never really elevates the problem of suffering to the cosmic level. This is where the free will argument collapses. Hitler may want this ovens and gas chambers, for example, but this makes one wonder why God allows such decision to be made in the first place.
Bart’s proposition is logic. God is all good. God is all powerful. Suffering exists. Why does Kyle keep saying that you are only appealing to emotion here? Without Bart appealing to the very orthodoxy that Kyle holds so dear, then a discussion about the problem of suffering would look very different indeed.
Suffering clearly doesn’t disprove God (in general). It doesn’t disprove Zeus, for instance. It does, on the other hand, disprove a certain type of God. If there was a loving, caring, personal God who watched over us and had a plan for our lives, there wouldn’t be tragedies like 3 year old children dying from cancer. That’s not love.
I just can’t buy into that logic. It isn’t logic, in fact.
We live in a world where in order to live, we kill animals. Now to us, they are lesser life forms, and their deaths are justifiable. But to God, they’d be equal to us–an infinite being would only see “Alive” or “Not Alive”. The very simple hopes and dreams of a squirrel would mean as much to this being as our own.
Furthermore, we’re all aware of great distant suffering by our fellow humans in less fortunate lands (who for some strange reason, tend to be a lot more religious than us, and in fact they’re the ones that gave birth to all the major religions we follow today).
And somehow, the unjust and uncaring nature of this hypothetical entity does not become apparent to us until it impacts our own little lives. At which point we’re all “WHY MEEEEEEEEE???”
Why not me?
So yes, the story of a PERSONAL God, a God who is uniquely and intimately concerned with your life, is cast in doubt by calamitous misfortune, but only because it was a stupid story to begin with, and not really the story the ancient Jewish holy books, or any other holy books I can think of, were ever telling. We’re just very slow stupid readers. Living in this much more safe, comfortable modern technological world we’ve temporarily taken shelter in (and it’s temporary, bet on that), we are angry at God for failing to live up to a very modern and very silly reinterpretation of Him we came up with so that we wouldn’t have to make the hard choices and sacrifices invariably demanded of those who truly seek spiritual faith. So that we could have our cake and eat it too.
Believe, don’t believe, but stop with the bad arguments. God could love us very much, and still let bad things happen to us, just like we can love our dogs and cats, and still put them to sleep or dump them at a shelter when they become inconvenient. Difference is, the dogs and cats have done nothing to deserve it. Our problem is that we think God should love us–our species, our culture, our individual selves–just a bit more than anyone else. And that’s a very bad assumption.
Bart,
I watched most of this debate, gotta admit I skipped some of Kyle’s comments towards the end. I’ve enjoyed some of your other debates much more than this one, not from your effort, but Mr. Butt’s. His voice is that of the ubiquitous southern evangelical minister and immediately was a repellent, though I really tried to not allow this to bias my views of him, but pretty difficult.
It was obvious how he would cherry-pick biblical verses, yet he would criticize you for reading only certain verses. The huge difference is that you have a much more scholarly understanding of these texts whereas Kyle takes them as “gospel”. As a former Christian (a preacher’s kid at that), but now an agnostic with panentheist leanings, Kyle’s approach and view are very indicative of the general mindset and psychology of these type of folk. I briefly scanned Kyle’s summary on his web site and towards the end mentioned how he had pity for you that you now are now godless as a result of your agnosticism, and how you must be suffering as a result. My response is, I pity him for continuing to blindly follow an incredibly overly simple view of the world and especially the bible.
Long story short, I enjoyed the debate, I appreciated your assuring the audience that you did not have a mission to convert them, and gave them credit for their beliefs. My favorite comment of yours (paraphrasing) was whether he had studied Middle Eastern cultural anthropology and he said that he hadn’t. I feel this is indicative of people like Kyle, using one source as opposed to secondary sources to validate a claim.
Take care Bart, and keep up the great work,
-Jim
Denver, CO
Thank you for this, Bart. I watched it attentively. No one won. But your presentation glowed.
I thought I was watching Jimmy Swaggart: God-duh.
Loved this. Good speech at the end Bart. This subject, has always been a dilemma for me too. I have also read the book. I definitely agree that the issue of suffering challenges the CHRISTIAN view of God, which is what the debate is about. I am undecided about whether there is a higher power we would call God. I struggle with the belief that everything came about by chance, the probability seems too high and I have watched the holographic universe which I find fascinating. Also not understanding something does not make it not so, just beyond what we can know or accept.
As for the moral absolute theory, it does not work. What often guides our actions towards people is empathy. Psychopaths have none of this which is why they can do what they want to the extreme. They cannot relate to someone else’s suffering. Empathy makes you relate and motivates you to help and like you said many Christians who believe in this moral absolute often seem unable to live by it.
You have the patience of Job when it comes to suffering through debates on this topic.
Dr. Ehrman, I know the problem of suffering was a strong reason for why you left the faith. When I was in the process of leaving the faith, I watched debates like this intently sometimes favoring the atheist side, and sometimes favoring the theist side. I finally decided that I just couldn’t believe anymore and feel rationally justified, but at the same time I had some nagging “what if you’re wrong thoughts.” In other words, I didn’t feel all that confident in my rejection of faith.
After being an atheist for over a year now and just taking a long break from thinking about these things in general, when I try to watch these debates, I can’t take the theist side seriously. I feel that if you’re not subject to the frequent reinforcement of the faith by close friends and regular church services and Bible studies, the whole thing begins to just look quite silly. I mean you don’t even need to put forth a tight, formal logical argument to show that its silly to believe in the laws of physics being suspended (resurrections, virgin births) on the say so of an ancient book with anonymous authors. Maybe… just maybe… is there a way to wiggle out of the contradiction of an all-loving, all-powerful God presiding over something like the Holocaust, but seriously, just by looking around the world, who would come to the conclusion that such a God probably exists? We shouldn’t just keep wriggling and contorting the evidence to fit our desired beliefs, but instead let the evidence lead the way and let our beliefs conform to that. If we’re doing that, it’s hard to take a look at all the suffering around and think its anywhere likely that the God of Christianity exists.
So Dr. Ehrman, after being out of the faith for this long, does it seem harder to take these arguments seriously? Trying to watch this led me to so many unavoidable eye roll moments listening to your opponent. I honestly can’t remember why I took any of these apologetic arguments seriously.
yes, I know exactly what you mean. But I do take the arguments seriously, since they are so widely held!
I hold deep respect for you agreeing to debates such as this! I have listened to your Teaching Company lectures, read some of your books, and have watched most of your debates and I completely understand and believe you that you get no pleasure debating this topic. Growing up in the rural South I was exposed to fundamental Christianity but it never set right with me because of this very topic. I never could reconcile the widespread suffering in the world and the “all loving” God. My desire to learn more about the Bible to try to make sense of it all is what brought me to listen to your New Testament course. I had no idea who you where or your beliefs, I read your credentials and started listening with an open mind honestly looking to erase some of my doubts. Imagine my surprise! You certainly gave me clarity just not in a way I ever imagined! I am saying all this just to tell you thank you! Thank you for working so hard to expose the general public to your fields of study. Thank you for repeatedly “walking into the lion’s den” and having these debates. Personally I find them entertaining and hopefully you can convince more people that we all should do more to help those suffering.
Your points got through to a few folks that day who have never heard another point of view other than those similar to Kyle’s. I was a member of the Church of Christ until my early 40s but a college professor exposed me to new ideas that I struggled with for over 20 years. I have read your books and find them very thought provoking. Please know your efforts are greatly appreciated.
This was depressing to watch. I applaud you Dr. Ehrman for your patience and civility in the face of the nonsense that came out of Butt’s mouth.
Did you feel like his characterization of your position was fair before the debate? Seems like it was lacking some nuance.
I think nuance is not one of his strong suits….
It sure sounded like Mr. Butts was not debating the topic, but rather was more interested in attacking you. By not reciprocating it showed me that the basis of your morality as displayed by you did more to discredit Mr. Butts than anything he said to try and attack you.
I was surprised that you didn’t mention that many of our concepts of right and wrong have a social basis and grew directly out of the need to live together.
The longer I live this life the harder it is to believe in the simplistic easy answers as presented by Butts. I had accepted some of his views partially when I was younger , having lost both parents to cancer as a teenager, I think easy answers was all I could handle. Now in my fifties I have a muscle disease the affects only one percent of the population. I know as one experiences life most will suffer in some way or other. I know that very many have suffered more then I can imagine and I don’t know how to square that with a loving God. I have come to think” I don’t know ” is the best answer even if it doesn’t totally satisfy. I very much appreciate your honesty before such profound questions and you’re encouragement for people to look inside themselves and to use their God given intelligence instead of accepting easy made for order answers! do you find any of your young and I presume privileged students { at least compared to many in the world} actually struggle with this issue ? thank you again for the time you invest in this blog! Paul
Well, let’s see 🙂 I grew up in a Church of Christ in Somerville, TN, where most kids went to Freed-Hardeman University, then FHC (college). I used to receive a monthly newsletter from Apologetics Press throughout high school after having attended a series of lectures in the 80’s given by Bert Thompson, a director of Apologetics Press. A friend of my parents had arranged the lectures for a Swedish exchange student, who was at the time an atheist or agnostic. The arguments about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, an ark large enough to hold a dinosaur egg, and the Biblical description of a dinosaur (behemoth) seemed convincing at the time. I am an agnostic (atheist as to YAHWEH), not only because of the problem of suffering in Candide’s “best of all possible worlds,” but also because as a chemical engineer and a person who has come to study the facts as presented by scientists who are actually experts in the relevant fields (paleontologists and evolutionary biologists), the credibility of these fundamentalist teachers and preachers has been destroyed; and that was all that I really knew. How can they claim to rightly handle the word of God if they cannot rightly handle the facts of science, history, and text?
Dr. Ehrman:
After viewing this debate I have to say I admire your guts for going into a place where literally everyone ( or maybe 90% ) is going to be against you and the situation is being set up to show you’re wrong.
When Kyle quipped that he’d suffered through his prep reading of your works…. I was thinking about what you were plainly suffering through during the debate.
Like you, when belief was dispelled, I wondered about the necessity of religious morals. Like you, it turned out to be a non issue.
My simple view is that sin is destructive behavior. Humankind pragmatically learns that sin affects both longevity and quality of life for oneself and his family, as well as the social community that they depend upon. Thus, morals are embraced to better the human condition. This evidenced by individuals and cultures without Gods.
Sorry – I bailed out after 15 minutes, because I couldn’t take any more of Kyle Butt!
Personally, I don’t believe in starting out with an assumption that “God” exists, and asking whether there are reasons to doubt it. I start by assuming nothing, and arrive at the conclusion that while creation by a preexisting intelligent Being is one *possible* explanation for the existence of the Cosmos, it isn’t the *only* possible explanation, or even the most likely. My own hypothesis is that the Cosmos itself is a gigantic Being – the Uncaused Cause – and all things in it are *parts*, rather than inferior “creations,” of the ever-evolving One.
But the topic of suffering makes me think about a TV news broadcast I saw a few days ago. I turned it on by chance. Upstate New York…they might have been reporting from Auriesville. They were talking to a boy of about 15 – with a somewhat scarred face – about a “miracle” he claimed to have experienced.
He’d suffered a cut on his face when he was a small child; it seemed minor at first, but then they discovered he’d been infected with flesh-eating bacteria. He’d endured years of agony – a horrific ordeal for his family, as well. He’d been expected to die.
But then, he’d made an amazing recovery…after they’d prayed to Kateri Tekakwitha (because they believed there was some similarity between those bacteria, and the smallpox that had scarred her). This was one of the “miracles” that supposedly justified her canonization. The boy also said he’d visited Heaven, and talked with Jesus.
Point 1: I see nothing “saintly” about the life of Kateri Tekakwitha. As I understand it, priests – whose presence the Native Americans had been forced to accept – converted vulnerable young women, turned their families against them, and then got them to live together and practice deplorable kinds of sadomasochism. She was their star pupil…or more accurately, victim.
Point 2: I don’t know whether doctors found the boy’s recovery hard to explain (though they probably did, for the Church to have accepted it as grounds for canonization).
Here’s my own take on possible “miracles,” from an essay I posted online several years ago…
…
Since I accept the possibility of Mind influencing Matter, I also accept the possibility of many types of paranormal phenomena. That doesn’t mean I gullibly accept everything! But I have an open mind.
For example, let’s suppose a gravely ill individual prays to a candidate for “sainthood” for a miraculous cure…and he recovers, in a way that seems medically inexplicable. I could accept that a “miracle” had taken place, but I wouldn’t be convinced that either the candidate for “sainthood” or “God” deserved the credit. My assumption would be that the patient himself possessed the power to effect a cure; but since he was psychologically unable to acknowledge that, he’d only been able to cure himself by praying to someone else. In this case, being fervently eager to help the cause of the candidate for “sainthood.”
An important point: Precisely because I’m open to the possibility of paranormal phenomena (in a world with or without theistic religion), no miracle or apparition could “convert” me.
I think some, possibly all, humans possess some paranormal abilities. They may vary, as eyesight and hearing can vary, while being in the “modest” range. Or they may be more comparable to a talent for playing the piano. If some humans possess powers beyond the norm, it may be a healthy impulse that leads them to suppress them: the realization that if someone could, for example, give a blind person sight, he might also be capable of making a sighted person blind. Better not to start down that road at all…
…
It’s also possible that the possessors of paranormal powers could be family members or friends of the beneficiary of a miracle. Or that the combined efforts of a group could be required.
But here’s the main point I want to make: one “believers” never seem to think of. Let’s assume they’re correct in this case, and God did perform a miracle due to the intercession of Kateri Tekakwitha.
*What does that say about the morality of their “God”?* A supposedly omniscient, omnipotent Being, who permits (causes?) a boy and his family to endure years of suffering, for the sake of *providing grounds to have Kateri Tekakwitha canonized*?
Appalling.
If I had not already been an atheist before college, my class on medical entomology would’ve pushed me in that direction. Malaria is only one example. It was not the horrendous statistics on malaria that impressed me, but the appearance of design.
The lifecycle of malaria is so complex and interrelated that it boggles the mind how it could have evolved, and what really impressed me is that it kills the mosquitoes. I knew malaria kills people, but I learned how it neatly manages to kill both its host (people) and mosquitoes, its vector/transportation. The microorganism blocks the mosquito’s throat so that it tries to suck blood, but cannot get the blood past the blockage and ends up rejecting it back into the host. The mosquito goes from person to person infecting with the disease and slowly starving to death. Malaria slowly and painfully kills on both sides of its lifecycle, and yet the protozoan goes on.
Amazing and yet somehow proponents of intelligent design never mention this devious scheme. Not a mosquito falls without knowing of it. Maybe should’ve asked Mr. Butt about animal suffering. No doubt they suffer, but to what good purpose? Doggy heaven?
That definitely had some uncomfortable moments lol. If there’s no spirit world, why do people still have spiritual experiences? The evolutionary process keeps what it needs and wants: food, sex, God, etc… We could go without sex considering babies can be made in a lab, but will people stop having sex? Highly unlikely! People can live without a God, but will they? Also, highly unlikely. We need them both because we want them, and because we want them, we indulge in them.
Supposedly, all life began asexually, so why did evolution “decide,” especially when it comes to humans, that we’ll reproduce sexually? At some point in time, something decided we’re having sex and we’re keeping it. Something also decided there’s a God or gods because an experience happened a long time ago that none of us knows about, and many have kept that concept out of desire and preference.
Babies can be made artificially, but we’ll still have sexual desire; therefore, sex. God isn’t necessary to live, but humans have an innate desire for a creator and have spritual encounters continually; therefore, God. God exists the same way sex exists; we or some-Thing made it that way. To say that a spiritual encounter isn’t real or the result of a hallucination is unfair and not accurate.
Just because ancient cultures clumsily attempted to explain God in wildly different ways does not mean there is no God. Our concept of who or what God is/should be is wrong; therefore, suffering. The end result? Sex isn’t going anywhere. Neither is God.
People don’t change. We have certain basic emotional and psychological needs, and one of them is to believe in higher forces. That doesn’t have to take the form of an old white man in the sky. But it’s going to take some form or other, and it’s best if we recognize this need, rather than try to suppress it. And by recognizing it, we can hopefully avoid its more serious consequences.
Yes, exactly. I wish this blog had a “Like” button! lol
Ha! I just watched this last week and thought it too old to comment on. I found Mr Butt to be well rehearsed in this debate but not able to focus on the facts as you presented them. He typified the arrogance of those religious fundamentalists who cannot listen to reason and therefore never adequately address (debate) the subject at hand. Would it have been rude and against the rules of the debate to have insisted he supply you an adequate answer to your question “would you allow your children to suffer hunger till they die”? He also skipped over a couple of your other pertinent questions and I found him annoying and devious in the end. Being brought up in fundamentalism, and experiencing the chaos it brings particularly to children, my heart goes out to Butt’s children and any others he has anything to do with.
To be honest, I’ve never bought that argument myself. The bible is full of suffering. Jesus himself suffers. Suffering proves nothing, in either direction. God never promised anybody a life free of suffering. Religion is itself a reaction to human suffering, not a denial of it.
Certain rmodern conceptions of the Judeo-Christian God are rendered dubious by the world we see around us, no question. But not the original conceptions.
In a previous life when I was a young minister in a conservative denomination the pastor I worked under had been a Church of Christ minister and trained at their seminary. He had left the Church of Christ over doctrinal issues. He warned me never ever get into a debate with a Church of Christ theologian. They will twist your words in every way they can. I think Mr Butt demonstrated that well in this debate. He was not interested in listening but rather to trap Bart. He clearly and spent considerable time parsing Bart’s materials not to learn, but to obfuscate. Bart, you stood up well. I could sense your frustration.
Hey would somebody buy Mr Butt a nice ball point pen?
There are very bad arguments made on both sides, no question. The fact is, the God most Christians talk about today doesn’t make any sense. But that’s because modern Christianity is hopelessly compromised by the deeply conflicting precepts it’s adopted.
It’s hard to have an argument with a Christian when there are so few of them out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECITwTYSIsg
Did you know that he was going to go on and on and on and on right off the bat before you even get to say anything?
Nope!
What frustrated me was his tendency to depart from the topic and throw every cheesy bit of cheap, fallacious apologetics at his disposal at you. He throws in the moral argument, the cosmological argument and everything up to and including the kitchen sink. I probably would have risen to the bait, but you calmly stayed on topic. It also seemed to me that you showed a much greater concern and interest in the Bible than he did. And, as in all debates on the problem of evil that I’ve seen, the apologist just never really seems to take suffering seriously. It’s like it’s all just theoretical to them.
“Okay, okay, watch this…”
The “Pen Tuke?”
“Didyagetthat?”
Butt’s speaking style reminded me of Chevy Chase in “Fletch Lives”. “We have no need for wisdom, we have no need for anything, but the creature comforts and plenty of them, AAAAMEN!”
Was Kyle Butt the best they could come up with for this debate? His effort was laughable. Why am I thirsty for some snake oil?
Hi Bart,
Do you ever dabate liberal Christians? I enjoyed listening to you talk (as always), and I would have loved to listen to the arguments your opponent if he wasn’t such an arrogant bigot.
Wow. You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din. That guy reminded me of too many cocky fundamentalists who have crossed my path over the years. There’s no real debating them, just enduring them. Back in my early career when I taught the survey of the early history of Christianity, about once a year I’d encounter an 18-year-old incipient Kyle Butt. They’re energy vampires, and immune to reasoned argument.
You raised some very good and powerful points in your debate with Kyle Butt.
However I got the impression that all Kyle did was attempt to discredit your scholarly status.
I’m rather curious if this will be your last and final debate with a fundamentalist?
While you did present a compelling argument on the argument of suffering, I felt the overall debate (mostly from Kyle Butt) left me with an ice cream headache.
Many thanks!
I’ll keep debating as long as they keep paying my fee, since it all goes to charity.
Butts could not agree that it is immoral for governments to starve someone to death as punishment. I find it strange and very disturbing to witness an intelligent person taking a stance like this in order to justify what is written on the bible.
43 minutes was all I could watch with Mr. Butts. He was out of his league. However, the questions you posed about suffering and beseeching our own reflections and investigations have given me a lot more homework especially given the epidemic gripping my community.
I have answered your insightful questions posed to the audience however and have arrived at my own conclusions about suffering and also personally the limited role of what one might call “God” or “Gods” … I will return to the debate (passing over Mr. Butts posturing) to glean others. Of course I’ve come to realize how little I know about Christianity although it was the religion of my youth and also frankly how simplistic and passive it now seems. It also seems to lack a mystic tradition unlike both Buddhism or Hinduism.
I know this is late but I must comment. A) You’ve reaffirmed why you are my favorite biblical scholar: uncompromising intellectual integrity. In other words, you’re words are trustworthy. B) You’re opponent was appropriately named. What an a$$. Embarrassed me as a Christian. C) Do me a favor: please debate a Jesuit next time. I practice their spirituality and I promise you’ll have a real, spirited and most importantly PLEASANT debate on an issue.
Finally let me say that as a believer I view fundamentalism as idolatry. And Jesuits define idolatry thusly: “the process of turning God into something more manageable.”
Peace, brother.
Ha! I’ve never been invited to debate a Jesuit. Not sure what we’d debate!
Perhaps the real issue lies in the concept of bringing the idea of God down from the clouds. And seeing God as With Us rather than Above Us, God as Subject rather than Object. Isn’t the God of Jesus that still small voice within us rather than the whirlwind, the fire or the earthquake? Perhaps the real debate should be; is a God of humility, one who has made himself subject to his own creation, really a God at all? Jesus seems to suggest that God is the very nature of Being or Existence and that we are created as mirrors of that existence for good or evil and that judgment belongs to us and that we will face God as a mirror answering to the face of our own mercy or our wrath. The question then lies With Us and isn’t why would God allow suffering but rather why would we? To Jesus we are the hands, the feet and the face of God for good or evil. And in his mind or way of thinking he had reconciled mankind and God as being One. Perhaps it was this radical upside down view of God that led to those early charges of atheism more so than a simple rejection of the Pagan Gods? I think much of our problem in understanding stems from the modern prevalence of a starkly dualistic way of thinking that simply was not a part of the ancient mindset that encapsulated Jesus’ teaching.
It is curious that Mr Butt didn’t refer to Genesis 3 in his argument as this gives a *biblical* reason as to why there is death (and therefore suffering) in the world. I assume this is because he realizes that to do so raises more questions than answers. Such as the question from the audience member: if there is free will and lack of sin/suffering in heaven why couldn’t God have created a world like this originally?
I think he came at this debate the wrong way and didn’t appreciate the seriousness of the issue. His comments sound mechanical and lack humanity (until maybe the very end). He knew the audience was on his side already and he was out to sound intellectual and logical rather than answer the genuine questions Dr Erhman raised.
As an aside I find it incredibly ironic that Mr Butt keeps emphasizing logic and proof but a quick look at the website he writes for reveals that he believes that we earth is only thousands of years old and that dinosaurs lived with human beings.
In this debate you brought up how moral values and how they differ in different cultural societies as shown by cultural anthropologists. Can you recommend any good books on the topic?.. Kyle Butt is a piece of work and seemed pretty close minded and cold. How many times did he say “wait for it” in response to what you said 🙂
Off hand I don’t know of a good introduction to cultural anthropology for layfolk. Maybe someone else on the blog can suggest something? I believe there are some anthropologists here!
Michael Shermer covers this well in his excellent book “The Science of Good and Evil”
I’m late to this party by a few years, but oh my this was one of the worst debates I’ve seen in quite some time – not at all on the part of Dr. Ehrman.
Generally, I can at least understand the argument the other side is trying to make. During the 6 hour debate with Mike Licona on the resurrection for example, he at least made a coherent argument. It wasn’t persuasive, but it was coherent and thought through.
Kyle Butt, on the other hand, just….yikes. I don’t want to make any personal attacks on the guy, but at the end of the day I feel like his demeanor, arguments, and approach is only going to make more agnostics and atheists, not Christians. The sheer amount of grace and patience Dr. Ehrman had during this debate was incredible – I personally couldn’t have made it through with such grace.
Absolutely well done on the side of Dr. Ehrman. And I wholeheartedly agree we, as humans, should all be able to agree we must do more to end suffering.
Ha! You should have seen him *before* the debate. 🙂
WARREN WIERSBE’S favorite definition:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I liked living in authoritarian police state China [> SF Bay Area] because I could be generous & overwhelmingly obedient to wait & do God’s Will.
I knew him once upon a time, for a bit. (His son was a classmate of mine) But that’s just a quotatoin of Hebrews 11:1.