Loading...READER COMMENT:
I just came across a post by Kyle Butt regarding your debate with him in 2014:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4844
He accuses you of “deception” and dishonesty. He says it is not credible that you spent much time writing books and going to debates, if it weren’t for the motive of convincing and persuading people that the Christian God doesn’t exist. He names you as someone who “has done as much or more than any single individual in modern times to destroy the Christian faith of literally thousands of people, young and old alike, across the globe.”
RESPONSE:
Wow. I didn’t know about Mr. Butt’s post. It is virtually beyond belief. If it weren’t so outrageously funny, I would find it completely outrageous.
But look – maybe he doesn’t mean it seriously? I mean, his rhetoric certainly seems serious. But to say that I have “done as much or more than any single individual in modern times to destroy the Christian faith of literally thousands of people, young and old alike, across the globe” – really?? You gotta be kidding me!
On what basis does Mr. Butt make this claim? I don’t know. He doesn’t say. But it ascribes to me way, way more power and influence than I have, I assure you. The person who posted this comment asked me, in a subsequent email, if people ever write or talk to me to tell me they are either upset or happy that I caused them to lose their faith. And frankly, I can’t think of anyone. Maybe some have? I really don’t know. How does Mr. Butt know? And how can *I* make someone “lost their faith.” It’s not mine to give or take away. People have their own views, based on everything they know and think. If someone leaves the faith it’s not because someone else “made” them do it.
Very ocassionally (i.e., like once a month or so) I’ll get an email from someone who says that they appreciate my books because I articulate what they themselves have long been thinking but haven’t been able, until now, to put into words. Sometimes people tell me that they were having serious problems with their faith and they are grateful for my honest dealings with the problems of the Bible or with the problem of suffering.
But to make me out as the Devil incarnate is really too much. I’d like to know what grounds Mr. Butt has for asserting that I have ruined people’s lives – many thousands of people! of all ages! across the globe! Not just their lives, but their *eternal* lives!! I myself, Bart Ehrman, am the reason so many thousands of people now are going to roast in hell forever! Wow. And there I thought I was just writing a book.
The entire post of Mr. Butt is very difficult for me to read. Read it for yourself. You (unlike I) might find it entertaining at least. Two things struck me about it. The first was Mr. Butt’s arrogant self-importance. He really, really wants his readers to know that he was in a debate that was listened to by 100,000 people. And he really, really, really wants everyone to know that even if he didn’t do as well as he would have liked in the debate (OK, he doesn’t concede this part J ), he certainly won and was right all along. And not only was I, his devilish opponent, wrong, but I won’t admit I was wrong, because – this is a killer, and is the second thing that struck me – I refused to admit that I wanted to “win” the debate.
OK, so let me be as brutally honest as I can. Mr. Butt didn’t believe me in the debate (why not just call me a liar to my face?!?) (wait a second… I think he did!), and he won’t believe me now. But let me say it again as forcefully as I can. I don’t CARE if people agree with me and join with me in becoming agnostic. REALLY!!! I ABSOLUTELY don’t care!! Mr. Butt does not, will not, or cannot believe me. But it’s true. I don’t care if you who are reading this, or anyoneI know, or anyone I don’t know, becomes an agnostic.
The reason Mr. Butt can’t believe me is because as a good fundamentalist, he thinks that ALL that matters is that people agree with HIM. If people don’t agree with him, they are going to roast in hell forever. For him, these are not merely issues of life and death, they are matters of eternal life and non-ending torture. He can’t imagine talking about them without having as the one ultimate goal to save people’s souls and give them eternal life.
And if so if someone wants to talk about the problem of suffering in order to explain why it led to their agnosticism, Mr. Butt cannot believe – CANNOT believe – that the objective would be something other than to convert them to an agnostic point of view.
But that’s not my objective – OK, Mr. Butt, call me a liar once more! And it never has been myobjective.
Why then do I talk about the matter, and have debates about the matter, and bare my soul publicly about the matter.? It is for a reason that Mr. Butt cannot understand or conceive, even when explained to him. It is to get people to think.
Mr. Butt cannot understand this because he does not want people to think. He wants to convince people that he’s right. He wants to make people agree with him. He wants to convert people. He does not want them to reason through a problem, see its ins and outs, consider the pluses and minuses of the various positions, and come to a reasoned conclusion. He is not interested in thinking and the possibility of various perspectives and views. He is interested in everybody admitting that he was right all along and then joyfully joining his side.
The idea that someone doesn’t much care which side you take so long as you are more thoughtful about it is completely beyond Mr. Butt’s imagination (such imagination as he has). That’s the difference between a university professor and a fundamentalist Christian apologist.
I will say this – to one *extremely* limited sense there is a single aspect of Mr Butt’s view that I would agree with. There is ONE form of “thought” that I wish we could get rid of. It is the arrogant, rigid, and dogmatic kind of fundamentalism that Mr. Butt represents. When I say that I don’t want to convert anybody to agnosticism, I really do mean it. But I do indeed want people not to be fundamentalists.
Otherwise, I don’t care if people are Christian (even evangelical Christian), Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, agnostic, atheist, pagan, or anything else. As long as they are thinking and thoughtful (which is another way of saying non-fundamentalist) – that is all fine by me! For Mr. Butt, that is inconceivable. Literally.
For my part, I would like to dispel ignorance. Mr. Butt doesn’t care about ignorance. He would be perfectly happy for a person to be as ignorant and dumb as dirt, so long as they agree with his doctrines of God, and Christ, and salvation. I am just the opposite. If someone is a Christian, I want them to be a knowledgeable and thinking Christian. Or Jew. Or Muslim. Or pagan. Or agnostic. Or atheist. The world would be a happier and better place if we got rid of fundamentalist stupidity and ignorance, and became a more thoughtful and thinking place. Beyond that, I really don’t care.
Part of the problem – maybe the whole of the problem – is that to the fundamentalist mindset one is either actively supporting their view of religion or actively opposing it. They simply cannot wrap their heads around the idea of disinterested and dispassionate inquiry. And of course attacking your motives is simply a smokescreen to shift the focus away from them having to actually respond to your ideas.
There’s a quote attributed to e. e. cummings I believe –
“f you make people think they’re thinking they’ll love you but if you actually make them think they’ll hate you.”
You are enabling those of us whose family and friends are fundamentalists to stand strong as a different kind of Christian. When we can no longer believe every word in the Bible was inspired by God, then through your books, debates and blog a more realistic basis for our beliefs can be established. With every opportunity I let people know I am blogging with Dr. Bart Ehrman. Some seem horrified once they look you up. Others are interested.
I could not be who I am now without you and your excellent brave work.
I know we’re all thinking it and probably going to make the same joke, but…
This guy is such a butt.
Indeed. But, I would have chosen a different word starting with A!
I didn’t care for debate in high school so I don’t know the ins and outs of it, but in reading what he wrote I didn’t entirely understand his reasoning. He was talking about how you were trying to appeal to people’s emotions with your arguments, but based on the way he described it I didn’t see it that way at all. What he says about your arguments seemed pretty logical to me. One thing about fundamentalists that irks me is that they don’t use logic when thinking about religion. The way they view the creation of man God must have given us a brain and therefore we have the ability to reason because we need a brain for that. Why would God give us the ability to reason if it allows us to reason that he doesn’t exist? And, if we can reason how can they come up with something as preposterous as his statement that “objective morality exists therefore God exists”? Even before he mentioned it my first thought was that not all cultures have the same moral values and sometimes they are diametrically opposed between cultures, but then he went on to say that you brought that up. Brilliant point….
Well I’d say that you might have contributed to my becoming an agnostic. I asked myself; was I going to listen to an NT scholar, or was I going to listen to just any butt that came along? 🙂
Unfortunately, there are some people who have convinced themselves so thoroughly of the need to maintain a certain facade that you will never persuade them through reason and fact to change their minds. I believe it is a combination of a mental obsessive compulsive disorder and narcissicism. Truly a mental illness when carried to this extent. “If I am wrong then I am nothing, so I must be right and you must acknowledge that or I will continue repeating my demands until you agree with me.” It is a sad way to live.
To build on the argument that you have articulated, among the things I find puzzling about the Fundamentalist perspective is their concern with me. Salvation is described as a personal relationship with God, through the one and only way, through Jesus. However, it is “personal”. Therefore, it is between me and God. No one else has a role. I will think things through and come to what conclusions I come to, but the responsibility for my thoughts, and where those thoughts might lead, remains with me, no one else. And, thank you very much, I don’t want anyone’s interest, let alone interference, in my salvation. To allow such is to take away from the personal aspect of salvation or non-salvation (damnation, I guess).
I will strive to keep thinking about these things, but I certainly do not want Fundamentalists praying for me, or expressing concern for my salvation. Salvation is my problem, not theirs.
There is a stunning arrogance with those who have all the answers. It is not attractive and it is anything but compelling.
Unfortunately, the study of religious matters is evidently not received by the non-academic world as being just another “subject”. This reality is much to be regretted and is the author of a disproportionate amount of suffering in the world. I cannot imagine a personal, caring God, should she exist, can be remotely pleased with how her creatures are behaving.
Well spoken. Thank you for your candor.
I am very appreciative for your helping me appreciate the Bible with a much greater depth of understanding.
Most noise usually comes from the shallow end of the pool (borrowed fom Bishop Spong).
A breath of fresh air here in the Bible belt……yes, there is a Bible belt in NW USA…..where Kathy McMorris Rogers is from with her Christian Bible school education……so scary!
If Mr. Butt was happy with your views, you’d know you weren’t doing a good job. Please keep up your good work. And if you get to hell before me, please save me a good seat!
It’s a tough call whether or not it’s worth debating fundamentalists. In the creationist-evolutionist “debate”, you see people like Richard Dawkins refusing to debate them on the grounds that it gives them undeserved air-time. I.e. It looks impressive on their CV that they have debated Richard Dawkins! Wow! They must have some clout behind them!! And that’s a fair point from Dawkins. But on the other hand, people like Bill Nye see it as a valuable opportunity to express the power of the evidence & argument that supports evolution to a community who may not be aware just how overwhelming it is and whose only “understanding” of evolution is the misrepresentation that they’ve been taught by their fundamentalist pastors. So given that you do debate fundamentalists occasionally, have you considered the Dawkins position that debating them may in fact be giving them undeserved air time? And why do you side for the latter? (I’m not sure where I would stand if I were in your position)
It’s a constant debate with my self. Maybe I’ll post on it at some point.
Maybe set a precondition for debate with a fundamentalist that he (interestingly enough, all the well-known names in fundamentalist circles are men) has a sense of humour.
Maybe you do it to keep lighting that one candle wherever and whenever you can…
The 2/27 comment about lighting that one candle is supposed to be after your 2/23 “It’s a constant debate with my self” comment. Somehow it ended up in the wrong place. Sorry.
Excellent point. I always fall on the side of don’t give nuts free air time. Bill Nye was wrong to promote himself by using Ken Ham, especially knowing he wasn’t going to change any minds. The problem with fundamentalism is that by their rules they are rewarded by ignoring data, so giving them a platform is just showmanship y nada mas.
One question–why do you bother debating with people like that?
I may post on that sometime.
If you do, Dr. Ehrman, keep in mind there are some fantastically wonderful fundamentalists. My sister and brother (I could never call that beloved brother-in-law anything but a real brother to me) are fundamentalists to the extreme. He is a Gideon. She lives to serve in any and every way possible as does he. He says if you cannot trust that the Bible is the Word of God, what can you trust. She says we cannot understand the mind of God and that’s why there are things in the Bible that cannot be explained. These are extremely well educated people.
“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” – Winston Smith
Quoting from Orwell today (or well, anyone) risks making you sound boring rather than profound, but it was so appropriate I couldn’t resist. There’s a personal irony I found in this post: your books and the others they have led me to have softened my atheism considerably. I’m not a believer, and I doubt I ever will be, but I no longer feel the need to “convert” people or ridicule their faith. That behaviour now seems unnecessary and tacky.
Today I rarely mention my atheism save for posts like this or when I’m accused of being a Christian apologist by mythicists. A happy by-product of this newly found timidity is an exponential expansion of my dating pool. Highly recommended.
Absolutely *great* book!!
“Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Destroyer of the Christian Faith and the Devil Incarnate.”
If this continues, your name will be similar to long royal titles like the Queen of England and you will be able to name any fee for speaking. It has also just struck me that you could probably raise money selling t-shirts with your picture on the front and the above title on the back. Both believers and nonbelievers would buy them although for different reasons. There are websites where you can design t-shirts, coffee mugs and any number of items for sale and then link the the blog to them.
Terrific response, Bart!
Any chance you’d give me permission to post the question and
your response on Facebook? Or make it available to “share”?
Sure, go ahead, as long as you credit the original source.
Very, very funny. And by the way Bart, since you have such powers, according to Butt, how about using it on those #15 ranked Tarheels?
don’t I wish…
Well put. I might be tempted to ask if there aren’t certain concepts in certain religions that make the sort of attitude and thought you look for difficult to nearly impossible. For example, that “Doubt is, in itself, sinful” — too often seen as a corollary of ‘Salvation by faith alone.’ That might be for another time.
But there is one attitude that is even worse than the fundamentalist one, and that is the attitude that ‘anyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy’ — for religious people with the frequent implication of a ‘Satanic conspiracy.’ That’s the one that makes any communication impossible as long as it remains.
I am, instead of following through on this now, going to take advantage of a general offer you made and drop a totally off-topic question into the thread to reach you and hopefully to get an answer. But I realized earlier that I had heard of the “Church in Jerusalem” and the “Church in Rome” and of Paul’s many churches, but had never heard of a “Church in Galilee.” That’s where the ‘witnesses’ were, the ones who actually heard Jesus preach, who had seen what ever tiny kernel of truth was blown into the ‘wonder stories’ and who had followed his teaching without literally following him to Jerusalem. You’d think it natural that this might even be the numerically largest church for the first decade or two. After all, Jesus was only in Jerusalem for a few days, of preaching, at a time of celebrations and rituals and, almost certainly confusion. (And wouldn’t it be likely that many preachers would head to Jerusalem for the Passover — and compete with Jesus?)
Wouldn’t at least one apostle — all of whom were Galileans — have returned home and attempted to set up a church where Jesus actually walked? Yet I know of no mention of such a Church — admittedly what I know is far from complete. Is there any mention or other textual or architectural evidence showing if such a church actually existed — and if not, has anyone ever asked why.it made so little impression.
I hope Bart will reply to this! Seems like a great question, that I’ve never thought of.
sorry — what’s the question?
I DO tend to be long-winded and lose people, sorry. The question is why we never hear of, and what we know of a Church in Galilee. Again, it seems obvious there would be one, but is there any record of one?
From the NT period? No, not really.
The one Jim-Prup-Benton asked, about why we’ve never heard of a Church in Galilee.
Amen! Mr. Butt…very appropriately named.
I just listened to this debate on YouTube. To Butt, the human sense of injustice is stronger evidence for the existence of God (i.e. Yahweh) than all of the physical evidence consistent with his non-existence;. I’ve come to think that if God does not intervene, he is at least irrelevant if not imaginary. What sense is there in debating fundamentalists whose ironclad proof of God’s existence is premised upon a nonfalsifiable assertion — objective moral values exist! Really?? Wow.
I just finished watching the entire three hour debate. It made me think if I went to heaven and spend eternity listening to him….well that sounds like hell to me!
There is a view that some Christians despise the thought that God would forgive and accept atheists into heaven. They cannot accept that no matter what other faith people have or how good they have lived or given time and money to good causes and charities for the hungry and disavantaged of the world, as they didn’t accept Jesus as their saviour, then that’s it. Hell for you my lad/lass!
In fact its been said that Christians would love to actually see all these people in hell.
IF they thought even a little bit more about what they believe. They would surely come to a different conclusion and indeed IF they believe that God is good, loving and just. Even more so. In the OT book of Jonah, he was really disappointed that God would not punish the people of the pagan city of Ninevah because he thought as non believers, they should be. It really is laughable that fundamental Christians want to convert Jewish people who were there first.
Your words (in books, debates, and on this blog) make people think.
Thinking is not welcome in 2015 in the US of A (and perhaps elsewhere). This is demonstrably the case not only in religious matters, but in a wide range of important and unimportant elements. Consider:
— Unemployment rate said to be under 6%, but the government has placed tens of millions in a “we don’t want to count them” category. The real employment rate might be 15% or higher (who can know?) BUT: No one cares.
— widespread lying by the US government to get the country into the 2003 Iraq War. There were no WMDs. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet polls show a significant (20%-plus) group STILL thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11. And, more importantly, NO ONE WAS PROSECUTED……the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate in 2009, and yet did not convene a single committee to review how we were led into a war. No one was called to account for lying to us to get us to enter what is now a multi-decade war
— no one has gone to jail for the economic follies of 2007-2009. This despite the fact that, clearly, fortunes were made (on the backs of the little people). WORSE: There is no protest over this.
— the weakened positions of many state governments has them looking into rolling back pension $$$ promised to retirees (this has already happened). These governments made promises, signed contracts, and now are walking about from them. Do you hear anything about this on the Internet or on TV news? Forget the pensioners who are so ill-treated: If governments establish the precedent that they can walk away from inconvenient promises whenever they like . . . where does this end?
— economic recovery is broadcast by the President, and Republicans seek to take credit for it, and the stock market is “high.” Yet the vast majority of people live on roughly the same income they made 30 years ago. With higher costs.
— have you seen what’s on TV? You might not watch it, but tens of millions do.Latest innovation worth noting (I’ve seen it in advertisements): Sex Box (that’s the name of a new TV show). There are TV shows about midgets and fat people (my 600-pound life). It’s a 24-hour circus, brought right into your living room! All you have to do to avoid it is turn the damn thing off . . . if folks did that, this stuff would go away. They don’t. Why not?
— McDonald’s serves 70 million people daily. Think about that for a moment. These are personal choices made — if I may — without thinking. It’s almost a reflex.
— More attention is paid to the hind quarters of someone named Kardashian on a daily basis — by tens of millions — then is given YEARLY by the same people to the idea that we could build a better world for our children by looking into alternatives like electric cars, solar power, etc.
Fundamentalists will NOT be helped by people thinking. You are asking some people to think. The result is not a good thing for fundamentalists.
To give the person opposing you his due: If he really believes what he says — that those of us who do NOT believe as he does will go directly to Hell — then he definitely must call you the Anti-Christ. You are, in that view, leading people down the path to abomination and perpetual torture.
I believe you already KNOW all of this — someplace inside your brain — and that you were caught short by Butt because you live in a bubble (a college atmosphere). Take a drive at 630am to the 7-11 and watch (and listen to) the people who buy breakfast there (each morning). Go to a McDonald’s at 5pm and look around. Check out the attendance at a movie that makes a US sniper out to be some kind of hero.
The real world (USofA, anyway) consists of people who may not be ignorant — but who definitely want to go along through their lives in a state of uniformed bliss. The presence of tens of millions in such a trance is advantageous to people like Dick Cheney (evil-doer), Jamie Dimon (banker) — and Mr. Butt.
professor Ehrman
Even though I might not agree with you all the way …
I say
you are a CREDIT to your family
you are a CREDIT to knowledge and scholarship
you are a CREDIT to the USA
you are a CREDIT to this world
you are a CREDIT to the human race.
those who don’t appreciate your effforts only do that due to problems that are not your fault.
Thank you!
You said: “The world would be a happier and better place if we got rid of fundamentalist stupidity and ignorance, and became a more thoughtful and thinking place.”
I live in Kansas, home state of that kind of ignorance and stupidity. This state became well known for the attempt made by the state school board to redefine the meaning of *science* to include visions of Adam riding around Eden on a dinosaur in public school curriculums. And our current Kansas Governor recently rescinded the preceding governor’s executive order which had prohibited employment discrimination against LGBT persons in the state’s executive branch.
(If I close my eyes and squint into the far, dim, past, I can almost envision watching our Governor, in his formative childhood years, going out of his way to run across a busy street just for the pleasure of kicking a stray dog limping along on the other side.)
And so I personally thank you for your visit to Kansas to speak, (at the invitation of a Wichita church!), on your “How Jesus Became God” book. Observing as an outsider to the congregation, I hope that many in the audience had a chance to experience for themselves that even pew seats can furnish the opportunity for “a more thoughtful and thinking place”.
Dr. Ehrman,
Contrary to what Mr. Butt says, you have helped at least one person with his faith. Granted, it’s not what he (or my own pastor) would agree with, but, to use use a couple of quotes mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know”, and “Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.” You have helped me develop from an agnosticism to a ‘gnosticism’ of sorts; I believe in God, and I believe that God does not have a religion. Religion was the creation of man as a way to control his fellow man.
Your writing has helped me to realize that Jesus was a real person and teacher, but that he is the son of God in the same way that we are all sons of God.
In short, Thank You!
In response to “quotes mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson,” our Sunday School class recently discussed deism as espoused by Jefferson (Jesus as a moral teacher, but not God, no virgin birth, no resurrection, etc.).
Wikipedia (which I have found as fairly reliable, though not perfect of course), article on the Jefferson Bible includes the following quote:
Jefferson’s claim to be a Christian was made in response to those who accused him of being otherwise, due to his unorthodox view of the Bible and conception of Christ. Recognizing his rather unique views, Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, “You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”[33]
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819, Encyclopedia Virginia.
This appears to be rather reliable source for this Jefferson quote, or am I deceived?
I don’t know. Very interesting!
Wow!
1. Look I have read all of your trade books, read all of your blogs, listened to all of your youtube videos, completed all of your great courses and had some private email correspondence with you and what struck me is that Mr. Butt keeps describing a Dr.Ehrman who is nothing like the Dr. Ehrman I have come to know and respect. Who in the world is he describing?
2. Contrary to what Mr. Butt says, you clearly describe the punishment, redemptive, and apocalyptic Biblical explanations for suffering in “God’s Problem.”
3. That I have encountered many who feel and argue like Mr. Butt is the main reason I no longer attend church and now check the “none” column in the religion questionnaires. It has just been too frustrating! Too much dogmatic certainty! Too judgmental! Too little compassion. Too little thinking. Too little reading of the entire Bible.
I just couldn’t swallow it anymore. They drove me off….
Thank you for posting your thoughts. I saw the debate- great debate- and it amazes me how fundamentalists can claim cosmic truth for their beliefs and twist the evidence we have. It’s impossible to talk to these kind of people. I have to deal with this kind in my own family. They accuse me of: Hating God, loving sin, having no moral compass, having no moral framework on which to form my beliefs, being a philosopher, misunderstanding the bible, taking the bible out of context and “Not getting it”- and other religious texts not in the bible are anti-christ or the devil. They just can’t see how their “evidence” is not evidence to me and they will not budge an inch. Kinda like talking to a child except they need a spanking- lol…
Dear Bart,
I lost my faith in the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures because of the arguments I found against it, combined with a new view on how to process religious experience. One of these arguments concerned the inspiration theory and the lower critique. For your contribution to this later process, I am extremely grateful, but it was my decision and my call; not yours, nor was it your responsibility.
Those who take you for a scientist, will clearly see, that you have a passion for Christianity, as one of the pillars of Western Culture and ethics. As you are not responsible for the beliefs people had in the past, neither are you for their current beliefs. You try to do your job right, and that is a good thing. All we can do as reasonable persons, is to find warrant for our basic beliefs about things.
In science we try to focus upon such beliefs for which we can find evidence. This does not render scientific beliefs more true, as science itself is based on uncertainty, but rather focuses on such beliefs that are empirically accessible in the sense that they make predictions that can be tested.
Not all true things, occurrences, statements or beliefs can be reproduced or generalized, as beside the structural side, there also is the individual component, like e.g. some value your work more as others. But not our appreciation of this or that theory or belief is what counts, but the extent to which it helps us to see things more clearly, so we are more knowledgeable and less ignorant.
Perhaps, dear Bart, you may not be right with everything – and you never claimed such a thing – but your work and arguments are plausible. Some may not like that, but then it is their job to prove you wrong. Not with an internet post, but with a scholarly valid argument. Anything else is, for as far as I see it, ordinary propaganda.
Roel N. de Leeuw B.ec
I’d lost my faith long before I had heard of Dr. Ehrman. I suppose there was a time I thought I was a “born again” Christian – back when I was taken to church constantly, and surrounded by family and peers who were “born agains”. However; it was in my own study of the NT – not just READING, but studying in a parallel fashion that I became aware of the inconsistencies between the gospels (particularly the nativity in Matthew and Luke), and realized that Paul taught a different doctrine than Jesus did. Fortunately, I didn’t need to learn Hebrew and Greek to find the truth about the Bible. I couldn’t have gone as far as Dr. Ehrman with education. When I found I did not believe in the Nicene creed is when I dropped the Christian label, and it has been freedom! I’m not an agnostic; but, am a Deist – as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and other marvelous intellectuals and leaders….probably Einstein, as well!
How is it that fundamentalists are suddenly protectors of logic over appeals to emotion anyway? Another stroll through Bizarro World.
I know, it’s strange. They really are children of the Enlightenment. Go figure.
That was what I was thinking. Logic is not on Mr. Butt’s side.
Dr, Bart,
I found the debate on Youtube http://youtu.be/8FRtKANMXCQ…after watching the entire debate and subjecting my self to this arrogant, incoherent, and sadly ignorant apologist, I now know the meaning of suffering and have a whole new appreciation and admiration for you. I found myself cringing several times, and know that i could not have handled this as well as you did. Hats off to you!
Let me just say that you are a better writer than Mr. Butt and leave it at that. I wasn’t impressed by his blog post as literature. Mark Twain might have called it “literary chloroform.”
Great post. I appreciate that you are so forthcoming.
If I may ask:
Are you angry that fundamentals deceived you as a youth and want to get back at them? Do you want to rescue others from your experience of being misled? Both?
I mainly want people not to be misled by comfortable and plausbile-sounding stupidity.
New Bumper sticker? Tshirt?
I very much appreciate you discussing this issue, Dr. E., but I don’t think you realize the earth shattering effect that you and your books are having upon fundamentalist Christianity.
One year ago, this month, I was a devout, fundamentalist Christian scouring the internet for potential converts to MY version of fundamentalist Christianity (orthodox Lutheranism). I came across the blog of an ex-fundamentalist Baptist pastor (Bruce Gerencser) and read his story of deconversion. I decided that this blaspheming atheist needed to be set straight, so I started sharing the “Truth” with him. It was downhill (for me) from there.
After briefly entertaining my arrogance, Gerencser referred me to three of your books and said, “I will not debate you any further until you read Ehrman’s books.” So I read them. The first book I read was “Misquoting Jesus”. As a fundamentalist, I had grown up believing that the existing manuscripts of the Bible, in the original languages, contained no errors. I was blown away to learn of all the scribe alterations. The more I read your books the more I began to question the inerrancy of the Bible, the foundation of my belief system. I went to several pastors of my denomination for help. They mostly told me to go read apologists’ books for the answers and that all Biblical “discrepancies” have long ago been harmonized. There are no errors. There are no discrepancies. So I read NT Wright’s 800 page work “The Resurrection of the Son of God”. I didn’t find his principle “evidence” for the Resurrection convincing: that “no Jew would have believed that a man had been resurrected unless he really HAD been resurrected”. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of Jews did NOT believe the story, and have not believed the story for 2,000 years. The fact that a small group of Jesus’ uneducated, Galilean peasant disciples did believe it should not be a surprise.
After four months of gut-wrenching agony, grasping at every straw I could to keep my cherished Christian faith, I abandoned my belief in Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I no longer believed that the Bible was inerrant or inspired. I no longer believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead or that he was God. I was an agnostic.
I still have a lot of discussions with fundamentalist Christians (I still love to debate the Bible…just from the other side). I can tell you for sure, Dr. Ehrman, you are Enemy Number One among fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. I agree with them: many, many people are deconverting from fundamentalist Christianity because of you and your books. But I see it as a GOOD thing. Fundamentalism, in any form, and in any religion, is deadly. Millions upon millions of people have died at the hands of pious Christians who believed that they were doing the will of God.
I have no issue with liberal Christianity or any religion that is non-exclusivist. But any belief system that teaches that “we” are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but evil…must be opposed. You, Dr. Ehrman, may not intentionally be converting people to agnosticism, but you are nontheless. And I thank you for it! I, myself, DO try to convert others, not to agnosticism or atheism, but to non-fundamentalism, and, to the abandonment of supernatural superstitions, the root cause of all religious fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christianity is an evil superstition that needs to be yanked out by the roots.
Thanks for your comments. Good luck as you keep forging ahead.
Exactly, Gary. What I can appreciate in Dr. Ehrman’s writing is his simplicity and straight-forwardness. His audience is not limited to the erudite types. That may be what makes him seen as so “dangerous” — he reaches the uneducated who’ve been easily brain-washed. And I DO mean, literally, brain-washed. Ever sit through the music played during an invitational (altar call)? I’d say it affects the beta waves (anxious people tend to produce an overabundance of high beta waves).
As a thinking person, it was plain for me to see the depth of your compassion and determination to have an impact for good in the world, especially when it comes to ignoring our instinct to behave in the egocentric ways so many of us do. I can AND could, see from your body language and facial expressions alone, your committment to doing everything you can do, to help end avoidable suffering in the world. Bravo Dr. Ehrman! If you want to thank someone for everything that you’ve been blessed, thank YOURSELF! You make me want to be a better person, a more giving person. I consider myself to live a life in poverty, but after hearing you speak of the avoidable, very fixable suffering in the world, I feel truly thankful myself, for a life at America’s poverty rate would be the life of a king in other parts of the world. Bravo Dr. Ehrman, BRAVO!!
1. I think your main point has always been, not the conversion of others to your viewpoint, but that Christianity is important enough that it merits the critical examination of crucial questions.
2. I have spent considerable time on the “Apologetics Press” website where Mr. Butt writes. They clearly have an answer to every “apparent” Biblical contradiction and every “apparent” Biblical historical discrepancy. It must be really nice to have an answer to everything. My first question to them is if the Bible is inspired, why in the world does it require so much apologetics from expert apologists?
3. The ten principles of truth outlined on the website include the statements that the entire universe was created in six approximately 24-hour days, the books of the Bible are inerrant, and those enjoying salvation are members of the one true undenominational church, namely the Churches of Christ.
4. I was a member of the Churches of Christ, of which Mr. Butt is a member, for over 50 years and found it to be a very difficult experience because of its dogmatic certainty and exclusivity.
5. I suggest that you just let Mr. Butt bask in the glory of knowing it all and having the “truth” and let it go and move on with your scholarly work. There is just too much nastiness expressed in his viewpoint.
I haven’t read the article but from your post I think I get the idea. I agree with all you say in your post, although my attitude towards fundamentalists has softened somewhat. Kyle’s attacks are clearly not helpful to anyone, but his approach is not that dissimilar to someone like Richard Dawkins, who believes God doesn’t exist and therefore everyone should become atheists. I have noticed the occasional anti-religion sentiment from members of this blog too. I would really like to recommend to anyone to read “Why God won’t go away” by Dr Andrew Newberg. He’s a neuroscientist who has been studying religion and the brain. The book talks about the science behind the nature of belief and why we believe things. Bart, if you haven’t read it I think it would be helpful with your next book about the time before the gospels. In short, belief has little to do with what’s real and true. The human brain cares little for what’s real and true, only for what is useful. I understand why some people need fundamentalism.
I tried to read the complete article by Mr. Butt. I could not. First, I thought it was a joke, he must have had a terrible time as a child due to his name.
I am not sure the best way to go about this so I decided to add as short a paragraph as I can, from my own perspective.
I had been trying to read and understand the Bible for a few years now. I knew since before I retired that I needed to read what was in the bible for myself. I had questions about what I was being told it said. Yet I could not get a handle on reading the book (books) myself to come to a place of understanding, without listening to interpretations from others that were not clear, contradictory and sometimes made no sense to. This effort led me to numerous writings and explanations from many people present and past. It was not until I purchased your Teaching Company Course, covering the New Testament that I had found a teacher who could explain the bible as a book in a way I could understand and most importantly without an agenda. You give honest, open and reasoned bases for what is and was believed, by whom and thoroughly explained. Now it would be great if your critics could respect people for taking responsibility for what they believe and how they live based on their own decision, independent of others interpretation.
It seems as though your critics want people to have complete faith, trust and confidence in THEM not the god of their teaching. What I believe is now an informed and adult choice. Thank you so much for giving me the knowledge necessary to continue on a learning journey I hope will last my lifetime. You are a great teacher. Please do not let this foolish criticism take up too much energy and time from doing what is important very interesting.
When he says that Bart Ehrman “has done as much or more than any single individual in modern times to destroy the Christian faith of literally thousands of people, young and old alike, across the globe,” Kyle Butt is, in an allegorical way, describing the threat, as he perceives it, your speaking/writing poses to HIS faith. As Ernest Becker says (in ‘Escape from Evil’), “If your adversary wins the argument about truth, you die. Your immortality system has been shown to be fallible, your life becomes fallible.”
Very insightful, Fearguth!
Yes, very insightful.
Time and time again, a video will appear after you’ve debated someone, William Lane Craig etc
explaining why you were wrong in the debate. The implication seems to be they thought you won and
now need to explain why you didn’t when you’re not around to respond. Though, there’s also
the status bump: I debated Bart Ehrman and survived or something to that effect.
Then there are folks like Mr. Butt – a candidate for the Ehrman project?- who can’t even acknowledge that your premise has any merit.
Thomas Huxley, IMHO, defined Agnosticism precisely with the Kyle Butts of the world in mind:
“[B]etween Agnosticism and Ecclesiasticism, or, as our neighbours across the Channel call it, Clericalism, there can be neither peace nor truce. The Cleric asserts that it is morally wrong not to believe certain propositions, whatever the results of a strict scientific investigation of the evidence of these propositions. He tells us “that religious error is, in itself, of an immoral nature.”He declares that he has prejudged certain conclusions, and looks upon those who show cause for arrest of judgment as emissaries of Satan. It necessarily follows that, for him, the attainment of faith, not the ascertainment of truth, is the highest aim of mental life.”
Here we get a bit more clarity on (Fifty Shades of Agnosticism?) what Huxley had in mind when he coined the term Agnosticism. On the one hand, He is defining it by HOW one knows rather than what one knows and that he seems to use the word gnostic as a synonym for unjustified certainty
I don’t want to cast aspersions on all fundamentalists, per se, and Huxley correctly understood
the distinction
“With scientific Theology, Agnosticism has no quarrel. On the contrary, the Agnostic, knowing too well the influence of prejudice and idiosyncrasy, even on those who desire most earnestly to be impartial, can wish for nothing more urgently than that the scientific theologian should not only be at perfect liberty to thresh out the matter in his own fashion; but that he should, if he can, find flaws in the Agnostic position; and, even if demonstration is not to be had, that he should put, in their full force, the grounds of the conclusions he thinks probable. The scientific theologian admits the Agnostic principle, however widely his results may differ from those reached by the majority of Agnostics.”
As a former bible thumping, Jesus movement, radical fundamentalist, it bothered me that, at one point in my life, I could not tell the basic difference between me and those whom I opposed. Militant, unyielding, incredibly narrow minded, and a 2 dimensional understanding of what my belief system included; that was a good description of it. Not that I thought that I was that way, but that I would have leaned more heavily toward Mr. Butt POV than anything else. Unfortunately, I thought I was deep. I had read all the right books, gone to the good schools, and bolstered my knowledge with copious amount of instruction.
But was I any different that “my enemy”? No, not really…. and that was deeply troubling. Yeshua (Jesus, Christ, Son of God, whatever you want to call him) called his followers to be different and live by a different set of rules.
After 10 years of questioning everything i believed, I came across “Did Jesus Exsist?”. Life Changing. seriously.
I then, over the course of the next year, devoured just about every thing else you have written (I am currently stuck in the middle of “Forgery and Counterforgery”) and found that I now have a deeper and more rich understanding of the underpinnings and foundations of Christianity. Your work on the textual critique of the NT and its implications was foundation to my understanding of the what and why of my faith. It has made it stronger.
One of the best “gospel messages” I have ever heard/read was in “Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene” in the chapter on Paul. This reality of life that we call “Paul” changed my religious life. It explained in real terms with logic and history the basis for my understanding the Christian faith.
Dr. Ehrman, I am still a crackpot and radical, but at least I am learning to ask the real questions before I spout off and to be more thoughtful of my fellow man and understanding of our shared experience.
Thanks for your hard work.
Debating a fundamentalist strikes me to be not much different than arguing with a climate change denier or lately the anti-vaccine crowd. It really doesn’t matter what, how much, or overwhelmingly credible the evidence against their position, all that we’re really doing is providing material which they can and will manipulate, twist and then reuse for their own purposes to others of their ilk in order to keep the herd mentality in line. It strikes me more and more as simply pointless and perhaps it would be better (and easier) to provide the truth in the broadest possible ways, and hope for best.
I hear Mr. Butt (appropriate name) has written to Santa Claus to petition him not to bring your presents next year, naughty boy.
I just noticed another striking claim from Butt’s post:
“After pouring over Dr. Ehrman’s materials, meeting him in a head-to-head debate, and praying for him frequently, I pity him most because HE NOW LIVES A LIFE WITHOUT HOPE and without God in this world.” (my capitalisation)
He obviously hasn’t read enough of Dr. Ehrman’s materials – lots of people would envy the wonderful life Dr. Ehrman has and enjoys – stimulating job he loves, financial resources from academic job in a leading state university and popular writings, bestselling author, philanthrophy activities to do his little bit to give hope to less fortunate people, his wonderful family and much else. Fundamentalists love to tell people they are praying for them, as if this is such an altruistic loving act, when simultaneously they have no hesitation slandering the same people they so lovingly prayed for, accusing them of deception, dishonesty and the like.
Yeah, it’s pretty pitiable if someone pities *me*!!
Prior to discovering you existed (!) I was confused and harsh on myself for not believing everything I was taught. My teachings from family and church just didn’t make sense to me, but Heaven Forbid I ever express this! My great luck was encountering you on a cruise ship when for three days you spoke and taught. I was additionally privileged to have a private conversation with you when you were diligently trying to read/study by the ship’s pool, and you graciously allow me to asked you a few questions, beginning with a belief or non belief position on reincarnation. It was then you shared with me that you did not have a belief in God, and you were extremely gracious in explaining your reasoning when I asked why. As I look at all your books lining my bookshelf, (I think I have them all!) I will be forever grateful for the education you have provided me, bringing a complete sense of comfort in my understanding and current beliefs. I’m not the prolific writer of the authors of many of your posts, who are obviously much more educated in these subjects, but I continue to learn and appreciated you more than words can say.
Dr Ehrman,
At the end of the debate, one of the announcers claimed that we had 99.5% of the original text of the New Testament. You told him that number cannot be verified without the originals. I have also seen this number thrown around beside Dr Metzger’s name on Matt Slick’s website, http://www.carm.org. Did Dr Metzger really believe we had that just of the original? Or is this just fundamentalist wishful thinking?
I meant, Did Dr Metzger really believe we had that much of the original?
Yup.
Yes, I think Metzger did believe that we are sure about the vast majority of the cases where there is variation. But I should stress, this was a *belief*.
I think the 99.5% number is a typical example of fundamentalists being misleading because it fails to factor in all of the extra text that has been added down through the centuries. An unknowing person sees that 99.5% number and thinks, ‘Wow! The King James Version of the Bible is 99.5% identical to what the original authors wrote! It’s a miracle!’
Anyway, in your debate with Dan Wallace some time ago, you said that in 2005 scholars got together to produce what was supposedly the ‘original’ Greek text of the New Testament. Then, in 2010, another group of scholars got together to do the same thing. You then said that these two works differ in almost 6000 places. That is a lot more than 0.5%!
Well, if 99 words are correct, and only one isn’t, but that word happens to be the word “not” — it would be a big deal!
Excellent rejoinder.
Does this experience make you any more, or less inclined to debate fundamentalists? The bad news is the public abuse you receive. The good news is that you might actually light a fire under a few fundamentalists (and of course, there’s the money you make for your charity).
Yes, I keep thinking about the positive. If that were not attainable, my opponents would not be so vociferous and mean-spirited in attacking me!
Mr. Butt, in addition to having a very appropriate name, doesn’t understand how rational people lose their faith. It doesn’t happen by reading a book. It doesn’t happen by reading ten books. It happens by reading hundreds of books and experiencing life over a period of decades.
I was 8 years-old when I first sought evidence to support the stories I heard during mass each Sunday.
I was 13 when I decided I no longer believed that Jesus was divine, but I still tried to follow his teachings about love and peace.
In my 20s, I regarded myself as agnostic, but did not consider myself an atheist until two years ago. I am now 43.
Looking back, what I find interesting are the endless rationalizations I gave to God and his agents. Nearly two decades passed between my first doubts and the point where I finally recognized and embraced my lack of faith. I did not casually cast off my belief. I couldn’t, because it was too precious to me. It was my identity. Instead, I gave it every possible chance and begrudgingly caved to rational thought. That’s what Mr. Butt and others like him can’t seem to understand.
So Dr. Ehrman…let’s strike a deal. You keep seeking the truth, and I’ll keep reading your books. Fair?
Sounds good to me.
Bart i think your more influential than you think.
i for one didnt believe the jesus existed until i listened to you. when i first learnt that the new test was written so long after the fact in a foreign country in a foreign lang, it just made more sense to me the he was prob made up like Hercules or Adam and Eve. it was when i read some of yr books and listen on the great courses that i learnt the historical method and that it all makes more sense if he prob did live. point being dont underestimate yourself.
when he says youve hurt christanity i assume he means the evangelic sort, if which you have put a lot of hole in it quite famously (to the point that your a hero to many muslims!). i can see why they would fear you
PS. i understand your frustration debating mythicists. damm painful
From the world view of just about any ultra conservative evangelical Dr Ehrman would be a challenge to the faith, but thats only because its all to often a faith established on Intellectual sand, a feel good tonic most often consumed when your at a really low point in life or a youngster in the midst of whats life all about perspective, for a grounded individual with a firm sense of the difference between the spiritual and that which is tradition or simply made up, Dr Ehrmans work can be a guide to assist in discerning the inspired from the insipid
There are two fundamental human flaws working within the fundamentalist’s brain. For one, the best salesman’s first customer is himself. That is to say, if a salesman can convince himself that his product is superior then he can convince anyone, because unlike everyone else he should know better. I see that a lot with preachers who–as Bill Maher puts it–are selling an invisible product. The fact that they can hold such unwavering, unquestioning conviction only makes them better at selling that invisible product.
The second flaw is the fundamental theorem of epistemology. A person can’t think they are both right and wrong at the same time. If they think they’re right, they’ll assume they’re not wrong. But if they realize they’re wrong, they can’t also think they’re right. When you realize you’re wrong, you feel compelled to change your mind! Fundamentalist preachers such as Butt actually think they’re right, because if they didn’t think they were right they would know they’re wrong. And only once they know they’re wrong can they see how they weren’t right. That’s why the metaphor of a light bulb is always used when someone finally gets something, because it’s like a switch in their brain where they go from being totally confident they’re right to suddenly realizing they weren’t right at all. Butt has yet to flip that switch.
“He does not want them to reason through a problem, see its ins and outs, consider the pluses and minuses of the various positions, and come to a reasoned conclusion.”
I have been thinking this whole time that the way to help people reason through a problem (such as biblical issues) is through education at an early age, but I’m not sure if that’s actually enough or the key to it. My students just took a test over a novel called Nothing But The Truth. It’s about a conflict that escalates between a teacher and her student.
My students had no issues understanding the truth of the situation in the story as well as understanding the source (the student) of the conflict. That is, until, a character in the book suggested a different truth that cleared the student of any wrongdoing. Only, it wasn’t the truth, it was a lie that took the truth and misconstrued it. Sometimes it was through misunderstandings and neglect; at other times, it was on purpose. The majority of my kiddos took the side of the student even though he was clearly in the wrong. I have went over it and over it a dozen times, but I cannot shake this belief out of their heads. The only thing I can think of as to why they have latched on to this is because the student in the novel is a representation of themselves in real life. They want the student to be right and the teacher to be wrong.
This reminds me of how people have certain beliefs about the bible even though they’re clearly based on misinformation, ignorance, and misunderstandings. It doesn’t matter what you say because once that idea takes hold, there’s no shaking it.
Overall, it’s been fascinating watching kids at such a young age go through their own reasoning process. It doesn’t differ that much from adults in many aspects.
I just watched this debate tonight and Kyle Butt is insufferable, just can’t stand listening to him. Dr Ehrman did a great job, I would have wanted to punch him for being such an arrogant Butt. 🙂
Yup, he got a bit … emphatic.