Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Answer to the Problem of Suffering?

[HT Apologetics315]

Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Bart Ehrman debate the topic: Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Answer to the Problem of Suffering? at Ohio State University on April 15, 2010. More information about this debate can be found at the debate website.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here. (2 hr 10 min)

This was a fascinating debate between, as the moderator put it, “two men who are deeply convicted in their hearts of their respective positions”.

It has often been said that of all the objections to theism in general and Christianity in particular, the question of evil is far and away the hardest one to answer. However this debate shows how Christianity not only offers an adequate answer, but also offers something that no other system, particularly atheism/agnosticism, can.



12 responses to “Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Answer to the Problem of Suffering?

  1. Hope?
    Yeah, the beliefs of an ancient, primitive, superstitious culture who spent their lives burning the carcases of dead animals to please their god. Quite the definition of hope, there.

    • If that is all you understand of Christianity then you are ignorant. If it isn't, then you are dishonest. Either one, ignorance or dishonesty don't provide hope.

      As to the problem of pain and suffering. All worldviews must be able to answer why such things as ignorance and dishonesty exist. On the naturalistic view it serves to weed out the lesser evolved animals. On the Christian view it is the product of a fallen world.

      What's your take?

      • What good is hope if it's false?

        • Indeed. But how can we claim it is false if we don\’t understand it and/or diliberately misrepresent it?

          • You expected a full-on analysis of Christianity in one of your character-limited posts? Unreasonable. And also hypocritical, given the way you dismiss other religions and worldviews with a few sentences on these very pages.

          • There are more places than a comment box on my blog to lay out your case.

            Oh, and it's not my fault that outlining the fatal flaws in worldviews that compete with Christianity does not require pages and pages of argumentation (though that has been done as well by others far brighter than I). Are you claiming that the length of an argument has a bearing on it's truthfulness or not?

          • Wes, you do a great job of arguing with yourself. First you criticize Bill for brevity and imcompleteness then say those things aren't necessarily flaws to argumentation. I won't interfere as your circle goes 'round and 'round.

          • Incompleteness and brevity aren't the same thing. If you are interested in being intellectually honest in the future I invite you to spend some time alone with a dictionary to learn the difference. If, however, you are only concerned with making bad arguments then by all means, don't let me interrupt you.

          • Strawman alert, one of Wes's favorite activities.

            I didn't equate those two terms and in fact, wouldn't need to list both if I thought they were the same thing.

            Nice try though, but your flailing here is transparent.

          • Do you actually plan on addressing anything in particular or are you content to simply be a troll?

          • Exposing your intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency is fair enough work for me. That you've resorted to name-calling signals to me that the match is mine. Hope your readers enjoyed it.

          • You appear to have trouble differentiating between another set of words. In this case \’exposing\’ and \’demonstrating\’. Oh well, happy trolling!

Leave a Reply